Leiden University Research Assessment Archaeology 2000 - 2005 · • Applied Physics Delft...

Universiteit Leiden. The university to discover.

Leiden UniversityResearch AssessmentArchaeology2000 - 2005

RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGYRESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

In this series, the following reports have been published:

• Computer Science Delft University of Technology / Leiden University 1996-2002

• Applied Physics Delft University of Technology / Physics Leiden University 1998-2002

• Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Vrije Universiteit / Leiden University 2003

• Pallas Research Institute for Historical, Art-Historical and Literary Studies, Leiden University 1998 – 2003

• Biology Leiden University 1998-2004

• Psychology Leiden University 1998-2004

• Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions, Leiden University 1999-2004

• Archaeology Leiden University 2000-2005

Colophon

• Bestuursbureau / Academische Zaken

• GrafiMedia

RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

Leiden University

Research Assessment

Faculty of Archaeology

Review period

2000 - 2005

November 2005


2


3

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................5

2. Overall assessment of the Faculty ......................................................................................................................................8

3. Assessment of the Research Sections ..............................................................................................................................10

3.1. Prehistoric Archaeology......................................................................................................................................................10

3.2. Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology ................................................................................................11

3.3. Ancient America..................................................................................................................................................................12

3.4. Science-based Archaeology ................................................................................................................................................14

4. Assessment of the PhD Programme ................................................................................................................................16

5. Additional advice on specific items..................................................................................................................................18

5.1. Research foci........................................................................................................................................................................18

5.2. Maintaining or enlarging the chosen fields ......................................................................................................................18

5.3. Field-work activities............................................................................................................................................................19

5.4. Research Foci in Science based Archaeology ....................................................................................................................20

6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................21

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................22

I Instruction to the Peer Review Committee ....................................................................................................................22

II Site Visit Programme and Attendance ............................................................................................................................24

III Evaluation Tables ..............................................................................................................................................................28

IV List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................42

Response of the Faculty of Archaeology on the peer review report ..........................................................................................43

Research Assessment of Archaeology


4


5

Evaluation proceduresIn 2005, the Leiden University Board set up a Review

Committee in order to assess the quality of research of its

Faculty of Archaeology. The following report is the result

of this Peer Review.

The Review Committee was asked to evaluate the research

carried out between 2000 – 2005 on the basis of a self-

assessment prepared by the Faculty, a site visit, and a con-

sideration of a selection of the Faculty’s research publica-

tions. The self-assessment document was sent to the

Committee members prior to their visit to Leiden. The site

visit took place from 31 October – 2 November 2005.

The responsibilities of the Committee were set out in the

“Assignment for the Quality Assessment of Archaeology

Leiden University” (see Appendix I). In addition to a gen-

eral research quality assessment, the committee was also

asked to evaluate the quality of the Faculty’s PhD pro-

gramme as well as to reflect upon four additional ques-

tions concerning specific choices now facing the Faculty.

The Committee was instructed to carry out its review in

the manner laid down in “Standard Evaluation Protocol

2003 – 2009” (‘SEP’), including following its quantitative

rating system, which made its assessments on the basis of

SEP checklists (see Appendix IV). These checklists were

used by the Committee for the evaluation of the Faculty as

a whole, as well as for its respective Research Sections.

In addition to the selected academic publications which

were made available during the site visit, the Faculty of

Archaeology provided the following documentation:

• “Dynamic Communities, Report on the research Projects

of the Faculty of Archaeology 2000-2005” Faculty of

Archaeology , Universiteit Leiden, August 2005 (here-

after also called: ‘self-assessment’).

• Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003 – 2009 For Public

Research Organisations (SEP), a joint publication of

the VSNU, NWO and the KNAW.

• Graduate School Archaeology, Phd Admission and

Supervision (a draft outline for a PhD coordination

protocol).

• Werkplan 2005 – 2010 van het Centrum voor Kunst,

Archeologie en Exacte Wetenschappen, CAAS (Centre of

Art and Archaeological Surveys)

• PhD registration forms of the selected PhD students of

the respective Sections.

• Various hand-outs giving information about individ-

ual researchers and current activities.

The three-day visit followed the programme set up by the

Faculty of Archaeology. The Review Committee had the

chance to meet and discuss issues with the Faculty Board;

the Scientific Committee; the Rector Magnificus of the

Universiteit Leiden; the Research Section Coordinators

and its researchers. The Archaeology PhD students were

also invited to meet the Committee. The full programme

of the visit including the list of participants may be found

in Appendix II.

The Faculty of Archaeology in briefThe Faculty of Archaeology was created in 1997 from the

fusion of the existing Faculty of Pre-and Protohistory and

the Department of Archaeological Studies (then in the

Faculty of Arts), which brought to the new Faculty expert-

1. Introduction


6

ise in the Classical world, the Near East and Ancient

America. Other aspects of archaeology, notably the study

of Ancient Egypt and Asia, remained within the Faculty of

Arts.

In the breadth of its coverage the Faculty of Archaeology is

unique in the Netherlands. In European terms it ranks as a

medium-sized institution. The Faculty embraces a spec-

trum of specialists supported by several scientific labora-

tories. It has a strongly developed emphasis on the

Prehistory of North-West Europe and on Classical

Archaeology in addition to specializations in the

Palaeolithic period and in the archaeology of the Near

East, and the Americas. A number of archaeological sci-

ences, including archaeobotany, palynology, archaeozoolo-

gy, computer science applications, ceramic technology and

micro-wear analysis, are also taught.

In 1997 the Faculty was instrumental in setting up a sepa-

rate company Archol BV with the specific function of car-

rying out site evaluation and rescue archaeology in

advance of redevelopments and new building works. This

was in response to the needs created by the Government’s

ratification of the Valetta Convention (a UNESCO initia-

tive) which made it mandatory that major development be

preceded by archaeological evaluation and mitigation.

Archol provides students with valuable fieldwork opportu-

nities and is a significant contributor to high quality

research.

Today, the Faculty of Archaeology organizes its research

and teaching in four Sections:

1. Prehistoric Archaeology, with two research foci:

Human Origins and Prehistoric Farmers;

2. Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern

Archaeology , with the focus on The Archaeology of

Town and Country in the Circum-Mediterranean

Lands;

3. Ancient America, with Religion and Society (of native

American Cultures) as the focus; and

4. Science-based Archaeology.

The Archaeology self-assessment document, as well as this

Review Report, are both structured around this division

into four Sections.

This reportA previous research assessment reviewed the years 1988 –

1992 (and its results were published in 1994). Archaeology

then was still divided. This report deals with the

Archaeological research carried out between 2000 – 2005.

Chapter 2 gives an overall assessment of the Faculty of

Archaeology.

The Faculty’s four Research Sections are dealt with in

Chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.1 – 3.4).

In Chapter 4 the PhD-programme is discussed; while in

chapter 5 the various questions posed to the Committee in

its Assignment (Appendix I, 6.3 - 6.6) are considered.

The appendices provide mainly factual information about

the site visit and an overview of the evaluation tables

(Appendix III).

Composition of the Review Committee• Prof. Barry Cunliffe (Chairman)

Professor of European Archaeology at the University

of Oxford, United Kingdom.


7

• Prof. Graeme Barker

Disney Professor of Archaeology at the University of

Cambridge, United Kingdom and Director of the

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,

Cambridge, UK.

• Prof. Michael E. Smith

Professor of Anthropology, School of Human

Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University,

United States of America.

• Prof. Marc Waelkens

Professor of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology, and

Chairman of the Department of Archaeology, Fine

Arts and Musicology, University of Leuven, Belgium.

Secretary of the Review Committee was Sabine Kuypers

MA, free-lance academic consultant and former Scientific

Secretary of the International Institute for Asian Studies at

Leiden.


8

During the last eight years the diverse elements of the for-

mer Faculty of Pre- and Protohistory and the former

Department of Archaeological Studies have been moulded

together into a cohesive academic discipline with a single

overarching research ethos which encourages integration

while at the same time allowing the range and vitality of

the individual subject areas to flourish. The development

has been a considerable success and the University can be

well pleased with its world-quality Faculty of Archaeology.

We believe that there may now be good reasons to consid-

er bringing Egyptology and the archaeology of Asia into

the Faculty. If this were to be done it would be essential

for adequate resources to accompany the transfer.

The leadership of the Faculty and the management structure

which underpins it are both highly effective and the dynam-

ics between them enable a creative dialogue to be maintained.

The small Faculty Board, supported by specialist committees

and a Faculty Council, works effectively. The committees pro-

vide fora where ideas can be generated and procedures over-

seen while the Faculty Board takes executive decisions. Daily

contacts in informal discussion ensure that consensus is

reached and the system does not become too top-down.

The mission and goals of the Faculty are appropriate to an

organization wishing to maintain a high international sta-

tus. They build upon past strengths and are cognizant of

current trends in the discipline world-wide. The Faculty is

entirely correct in putting high quality innovative research

as its main driver and in aiming to continue to develop its

involvement with Dutch prehistory, while at the same time

building strengths in other regions of the world where its

academic staff already have well-focused research interests.

Its great strengths in many aspects of scientific archaeolo-

gy, previously applied largely to Dutch fieldwork, are now

being mobilized to address problems in other regions. This

integration is much to be encouraged as is the stated

desire to achieve a stronger thematic and theoretical focus.

The strategy and policy adopted by the Faculty since its cre-

ation in 1997 are sound. In deciding to build on its research-

intensive character, rather than to deflect significant effort

into cultural heritage management, the Faculty has, we

believe, made the right choice. We particularly commend the

efforts being made to safeguard the research time of staff by

careful readjustment of the teaching programme and by the

provision of sabbatical leave. The links with other faculties

within the University of Leiden, and the collaborations

developed and developing with Groningen and with Delft,

will do much to broaden the scientific base of the Faculty’s

activities. These strategies will further strengthen the

Faculty’s competitive edge in applications for external fund-

ing not least the all-important grants offered by the NWO.

The resources available to the Faculty overall are good

while the library provision in particular is excellent.

However, since archaeology occupies a central position

between the Arts and the hard Sciences, it requires labora-

tories and technicians as well as expensive scientific instru-

ments. We recommend that the University gives particular

consideration to these issues when next it revisits the for-

mulae by which central resources are allocated. In the

medium term, if archaeological sciences develop further,

there will be need for more laboratory space. The expan-

sion of the Masters courses is already putting pressure on

space in teaching laboratories.

The focus on acquiring research funding through NWO is

clearly correct. The Faculty has in place an effective system

for the critical review of new applications before they are

2. Overall assessment of the Faculty


9

submitted, to ensure that the combined experience of all is

brought to bear to sharpen funding proposals. The expan-

sion of the graduate programme, especially if completion

rates can be improved, will be a growing source of income.

Internally the Faculty has effective mechanisms for distrib-

uting funds fairly between research Sections and for sup-

porting the research needs of doctoral students.

The academic reputation of the Faculty is excellent overall.

It is world class in most of its research activities and

promises to remain so. While its particular strengths have

been in Dutch prehistory this in no way makes it parochial

since the methodologies and research regimes developed

here have universal value. The breadth of the subject areas

brought together in the 1997 merger make Leiden an espe-

cially attractive place for scholars interested in broad the-

matic approaches and in the close integration of archaeol-

ogy and archaeological science.

The Faculty is evidently cognizant of the wider audience to

be served. This is manifest in a variety of ways from the

publication of popular accounts of excavations and field-

work in Dutch to making films of projects for local con-

sumption. Archol provides a direct involvement with cul-

tural heritage resource management and a vehicle by

which students, taking part in its projects, can gain first-

hand experience of the commercial world. It is a valuable

adjunct to the Faculty’s outreach activities.

In its assessment of its strengths and weaknesses the Faculty

has been both perceptive and honest with itself, though in

our more detailed assessments of the research groups we

have sometimes offered a more nuanced reading. That said

all the main issues have been identified and an appropriate

set of actions proposed.

In conclusion we may say that this is a Faculty of excel-

lence which is coping soundly with a fast-developing situ-

ation both in the University in general and the discipline

at large. Much of its work is of high international quality

and it has in place the management structures required to

maintain and to build on its excellence.

Table 1. (Institute) Faculty as a whole

Evaluation of the institute with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5

1.2 Mission and goals 5

1.3 Strategy and policy 4,5

1.4 Adequacy of the resources 4

1.5 Funding policies 4,5

1.6 Facilities 4,5

1.7 Academic reputation 5

1.8 Societal Relevance of the institute 5

1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses of the institute 4,5

Overall assessment of the institute 4,55 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory


10

3.1 Research Section PrehistoricArchaeology

The Prehistoric Archaeology Section has a long-estab-

lished international reputation for the excellence of its

research, and continues to thrive. It is characterised by

outstanding leadership, which recognises the importance

of the dynamic between strategic direction and the nur-

turing of developing talent and new ideas.

The mission and goals of the Section are appropriate for a

research unit with considerable strengths in archaeological

theory and practice, and in their application to main-

stream high-level research questions of international sig-

nificance.

In terms of strategy and policy the Section has an excellent

track record in obtaining NWO and other peer-reviewed

research grants and has used these very effectively to

develop a series of outstanding PhD and post-doctoral

researchers. The mix of senior and junior researchers on

the core staff in the Section together with the postdoctoral

and PhD students make for a dynamic research culture.

The Section is characterised by effective partnerships at

many levels, from within the Faculty (especially with the

Science-based Archaeology Section and with Archol) to

international collaborations.

Facilities: the research is well supported by the Faculty in

terms of its budget, library holdings, laboratories, field

equipment, student work space etc, and there is effective

support (on a project-by-project basis as appropriate)

from the laboratories of the Science-Based Archaeology

Section.

Funding policies: there is clear evidence of strategic plan-

ning to maintain the sustainability of the research group

through well-timed high-quality grant applications. The

link with Archol has been particularly productive, enabling

the group to undertake work on a scale that is difficult to

achieve with normal funding for academic research. The

PhD cohort has traditionally been ‘home grown’, but

external PhD students are increasingly being attracted to

the Section, a welcome development given the strengths of

the research culture and training environment.

In terms of academic reputation, notwithstanding the dif-

ferent career stages of members of this group (with both

internationally established scholars as well as more recent-

ly appointed younger researchers) the Human Origins

group remains in many respects the spear-head of the

Faculty’s research excellence, with the consistent produc-

tion of major papers in high-impact international journals

on big and important themes about prehistoric societies,

whilst the Prehistoric Farmers group has an enviable

record of theoretically-informed empirical research with a

primary focus on meticulous field programmes investigat-

ing Dutch later prehistory. The quality of this fieldwork is

widely recognised, and the research findings are of inter-

national significance. The output record of the Section, in

terms of high-quality publications and trained doctoral

researchers, is excellent.

Societal relevance: the Section has recognized its responsi-

bilities to the well-being of rescue archaeology in Holland

by its contribution to the research effort and management

of Archol. Effort is also made to publish results in ways

that are accessible to the local public.

3. Assessment of the research sections


11

The Section has a sound appreciation of its strengths and

weaknesses, and is right to seek to publish as much work as

possible in major international journals to ensure that it

has the widest scholarly impact. It correctly identifies the

desirability of strengthening its research portfolio with a

Neolithic specialist, to ensure that the Faculty remains a

significant player in this buoyant and theoretically-impor-

tant research area following the retirement of Professor

Louwe Kooijmans.

Table 2. Summary Section Prehistoric Archaeology (see Appendix III)

Summary evaluation tables 1 - 5

5 4 3 2 11 Overall evaluation of the programme 5

2 Overall assessment of quality 5

3 Overall assessment of productivity 5

4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5

5 Overall assessment of vitality 5

5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 =

unsatisfactory

3.2 Research Section Classical,Mediterranean and Near EasternArchaeology

Although this Section was created only three years ago, by

bringing together researchers with very varied geographical

and chronological interests, it has already identified a com-

mon research topic in the study of ‘the archaeology of

town and country’. This has provided a focus for several

new doctoral dissertations extending across the

Mediterranean. Of the four research Sections in the

Faculty this one has been the most affected by reorganiza-

tion over the last few years. Thanks to efficient leadership

significant progress has been made in reforming the

Section although there is still work to be done. We suspect

that the interface with the Near East may require some

attention.

The mission and goals are sound but could perhaps be

more carefully integrated in view of the fact that there

appear to be some contradictions in the self-assessment

(compare pages 84 and 93).

The Section has developed a clear, and successful, strategy

of seeking to attract externally funded postgraduates, in

this way following a policy favoured by the University’s

management. However, since this group is not yet bal-

anced by postgraduate and postdoctoral positions

obtained through internal grants and NWO funding, the

continuity of research is not fully guaranteed given that

most self-funded postgraduates are likely to leave after

completing their PhDs. The division has added consider-

ably to its strength, and improved its age profile, by the

recent appointment of highly able young researchers to its

staff.

The funding policies within the group might be improved.

The Classical Section has not yet been successful in

obtaining NWO grants which is surprising considering the

high quality of its research. For the rest of the group

NWO funding is on the low side compared with other

Sections within the Faculty, although improving since

2003. The Faculty’s procedures for reviewing and improv-

ing applications before submission should help to increase

success rates.

The facilities enjoyed by the Section are very good and

were certainly appreciated by the postgraduates.

The international academic reputation of the leading

members of the Section is in general outstanding. The

originality of the approach and the ideas inherent in the

research programme are good though could be improved

with a greater involvement with science-based archaeolo-

gists (not least since interdisciplinary programmes seem to

be more favoured by NWO). We were pleased to see that

this issue was addressed through collaborative work with a

geophysical team from Ljubljana. This type of collabora-

tion should be further encouraged e.g. in the fields of geo-

morphology and palynolology, both of which are extreme-

ly valuable for field surveys. In Classical archaeology the

field survey programmes are highly innovative. The out-

put of scientific publications is high and the quality excel-

lent. The recent focus has been on publication in confer-

ence proceedings and books. To provide a balance and to

give greater impact to the research we feel that more

papers should be placed in the top peer-reviewed journals

where they deserve to be published.

The societal relevance of the group could be improved by

organizing events and producing publications aimed at a

wider audience.

In balancing strengths and weaknesses the Section takes a

realistic view of itself and there is no doubt that it is mov-

ing decisively in the right direction. The two areas that

specifically need to be addressed are the acquisition of

research funding and bringing to final publication long-

running field programmes.

Table 3. Summary Section Classical, Mediterranean andNear Eastern Archaeology (see Appendix III)




3 Overall assessment of productivity 4,5

4 Overall assessment of relevance 4

5 Overall assessment of vitality 4,5


unsatisfactory

3.3 Research Section Ancient America

The Ancient Americas Section has achieved an excellent

international reputation in the past decade and a half. This

Section contains two regional foci: the Caribbean and

Mesoamerica. The Mesoamerican focus in turn has three

diverse methodological approaches: (1) the analysis of pic-

torial documents (codices); (2) the study of archaeological

data (mainly visual art); and (3) ethnographic study of

modern groups. Since we were given little information on

the second two approaches for Mesoamerica it was more

difficult to assess them in our general discussion or in our

rankings. What follows is based primarily on the Caribbean

programme and on the Mesoamerican codex research in

general. We offer some additional comments on the

archaeological and ethnographic aspects of the

Mesoamerican programme at the end of this section of the

report.


12


13

The Caribbean programme, although relatively new, has

rapidly become a leading institutional presence in the

archaeology of that region and the Mesoamerican codex

programme is firmly established as one of the very top

international programmes in this area. The leadership of

the Ancient America Section is outstanding, actively

encouraging programmes that are dynamic and relevant to

modern scholarship. There is an excellent level of fruitful

interaction within the Section.

The mission and goals of the Section are forward-looking

and appropriate.

In terms of strategy and policy the Caribbean programme

has an excellent track record in securing NWO grants and a

clear vision of its future direction. There are concerns with

the viability and direction of the second two Mesoamerican

approaches (which we return to below) resulting in our

slightly lower ranking for strategy and policy.

The facilities available to the Section overall are excellent.

The Caribbean programme is well supported by grant

funding while the codex research can be pursued on a

lower level of grant funding. We understand that library

facilities are excellent.

The funding policies are generally well thought out with a

very good success rate overall in obtaining outside grants.

The heavy influx of externally-funded PhDs in the

Mesoamerican non-codex approaches needs to be moni-

tored closely.

The academic reputation is clearly excellent for the

Caribbean and Mesoamerican codex programmes. The for-

mer has rapidly grown into a top international programme

in the realm of Caribbean archaeology and Leiden is known

internationally as a leading centre of Mesoamerican codex

research. Both programmes are original and innovative in

approach but more effort could be made to frame the work

within wider disciplinary concerns and debates. The quali-

ty of the scientific publications is excellent. In particular the

Mesoamerican codex publications – both facsimile editions

and analyses – are among the most important works today

in this field. Overall the number and range of publications

(both scientific and professional) is impressive though we

feel that the impact of the publications would be greater if

more were placed in high-visibility international journals

and more of the Mesoamerican publications were in

English. There would be some benefit to individual scholars

if, in multi-authored publications, the contribution of each

author was made more explicit. A number of the recent

PhDs in the Mesoamerican Codex programmes are now

among the outstanding scholars in the field today.

The societal relevance of these programmes is excellent.

Staff of the Caribbean programme devote considerable

effort to local education initiatives on several of the

Caribbean islands, and the Leiden approach to

Mesoamerican codex research stresses productive interac-

tion with modern native peoples, including work in com-

munity outreach and education.

We rate the assessment of balance of strengths and weak-

nesses somewhat lower than the other categories largely

because of the fact that little information was provided on

the archaeological and ethnographic work of the

Mesoamerican programme.

Additional note on the archaeological and ethnographic

fieldwork of the Mesoamerican programme


14

meet student needs and that they conform to the overall

program of the Faculty.

Table 4. Summary section Ancient America (see Appendix III)



2 Overall assessment of quality 4,5





unsatisfactory

3.4 Research Section Science-basedArchaeology

The Section is characterised by diversity rather than by

overarching research themes or clusters.

There is evidence of leadership, with a sound appreciation

of the existing strengths of the Section and of the potential

for their further development in collaborative projects

within the Faculty and with external collaborators (Archol,

Delft, Groningen etc).

The mission and goals of the Section are appropriate: to

maintain cutting-edge methodological research in its sev-

eral areas of specialism, and to apply those methodologies

to mainstream archaeological questions within collabora-

tive research projects with archaeological colleagues. The

We have found it difficult to assess these aspects of the

Mesoamerican programme largely because we met no PhD

students working in these areas and no scientific publica-

tions were listed in the assessment report.

It would be advisable for the Faculty to have an experienced

Mesoamerican field archaeologist in case PhD fieldwork in

Mesoamerican archaeology should have to be supervised.

We understand that for several years Leiden researchers

have not been involved in fieldwork in Mexico although in

the past some PhD candidates have taken part in archaeo-

logical fieldwork projects in association with staff archaeol-

ogists affiliated with the regional centre of the Instituto

Nacional de Antropologia e Historia in Oaxaca (INAH).

Foreign fieldwork always presents logistical and administra-

tive complexities, and these are best addressed by experi-

enced fieldworkers on the faculty who can instruct PhDs in

procedures such as obtaining proper permission from the

host country. If the faculty intends to continue to pursue

archaeological fieldwork in Mesoamerica, the best course of

action might be to appoint a senior academic with field-

work experience in this area.

The ethnographic study of modern groups is said to con-

tribute to aspects of iconographical and ethnohistorical

research on the Oaxaca region. There is no full-time ethno-

grapher on the Faculty but students receive training and

supervision from the Department of Cultural

Anthropology (Faculty of Social Sciences) and the National

Museum of Ethnology at Leiden. The supervision of

Mexican PhD students in this field is augmented by spe-

cialists in INAH Oaxaca and the University of Utrecht. We

feel that the Department should be encouraged to review

these arrangements to ensure that they are adequate to


15

notable weakness of the Section is in strategic thinking (see

“strengths and weaknesses” below).

The resources of the Section are very good: there are some

good to excellent laboratory facilities, along with technical

expertise, to support the activities of Faculty staff and the

existing (rather small) number of postdoctoral and PhD

students, though some of the facilities appear to be less fit

for purpose and laboratory layouts and sizes are likely to

restrict growth in graduate work (Masters training and

PhD research).

Research funding consists of a combination of NWO

grants and Archol contract work; there are areas of

strength, but funding appears to be spread unevenly, with

consequent effects on the size and vitality of the post-

graduate and graduate body. The graduate group is rela-

tively small considering the size of the group and the

career stages of its members.

The Section has a strong long-standing academic reputa-

tion in Science-based archaeology, especially for its work

on human-environment interactions in the Netherlands,

developed over the years in tandem with the Prehistoric

Archaeology Section. Today there are a number of well-

established specialisms in archaeological science, including

environmental archaeology (archaeobotany, archaeozoolo-

gy, geomorphology, palynology), computer modelling, and

lithic and ceramic analysis. There are undoubted areas of

excellence in terms of publications in top international

journals, research grants, collaborations, and graduate

training, but there are also areas with more modest

achievements, aspirations, and plans. The best work needs

to be targeted more consistently at high quality interna-

tional journals to achieve maximum impact.

The research results of the Section have also been brought

to the attention of the wider public effectively especially

within Dutch-language publications of collaborative

research projects on Dutch prehistory conducted with the

Prehistory Section.

The Section’s assessment of its strengths and weaknesses is

correct as far as it goes, but an additional weakness is that

strategic thinking does not appear to be well developed

across the Section as a whole. The staff profile is such that

choices and priorities will need to be made in the coming

years about how Leiden’s portfolio of Science-based

Archaeology specialisms should best be developed in rela-

tion to developments within archaeological science interna-

tionally on the one hand, and opportunities for potential

collaborations on the other (within the Faculty; with other

science departments in the institution, and with external

collaborators such as the very promising link being

planned with the University of Delft). The Section and the

Faculty will need to work together to agree strategic priori-

ties for maintenance, investment, and/or disinvestment in

Science-based Archaeology.

Table 5. Summary Section Science-based Archaeology (see Appendix III)








unsatisfactory


16

4. Assessment of the PhD Programme

We understand that the University of Leiden has recently

embarked upon a policy of increasing its intake of PhD

students from countries outside Holland and that the

implications of caring for students from varied education-

al backgrounds and with differing packages of financial

support are now actively being considered. For this reason

we gave special consideration to the doctoral programme

and during our visit made time available to discuss with

four separate groups of PhD students, representing the

four programmes, their experience and their problems.

These meetings were held without other members of the

staff being present.

The students we met were able and highly articulate. The

groups were clearly well integrated into the Faculty at all

levels and were entirely satisfied with the way in which

they were being trained and supervised. This integration

has been achieved primarily through two sets of compul-

sory graduate seminars, a Faculty seminar held bi-weekly

and a seminar held regularly by the candidates’ research

Sections. By means of these seminars the students were

made to feel part of a Faculty research cohort as well as

part of their specific research cluster.

Meetings with supervisors were frequent and fruitful.

Every encouragement was given to students to attend con-

ferences and to give papers and all were provided with an

opportunity to teach. The University provides adequate

training sessions in teaching skills for those who wish to

attend them. We were satisfied that all the necessary struc-

tures were in place to train and supervise PhDs to a high

level but felt that there were many uncertainties and

potential ambiguities in the system which need, in due

course, to be resolved. This is more a reflection of

University policy and might more appropriately be

addressed at University level. Meanwhile the Faculty is

fully aware of these issues and is beginning to introduce a

tighter management system of its own, for example the

development of a standardized PhD Registration Form

which includes a record of student progress. A discussion

paper on PhD admissions and supervision, raising many

of the important issues, is currently being considered.

We fully understand that, hitherto, most PhDs have been

appointed to work on specific funded research pro-

grammes and are therefore regarded as employees. The

influx of PhDs, many from other countries with their own

sources of funding, introduces an entirely new dimension.

We believe that it is necessary to treat all PhDs, irrespec-

tive of funding, as a single group with the same rights and

obligations.

We strongly support the idea that all PhDs (including

home-grown ones) should first be accepted by the Faculty

as probationers and that at the end of their first year their

progress, assessed on submitted written work, should be

examined by two members of the Faculty (not including

the supervisor or mentor) and that a written report

should be prepared stating whether the candidate was fit

to proceed to full PhD status.

Further, we are of the opinion that each candidate, in dis-

cussion with his/her supervisor, should draw up a Personal

Development Plan (PDP) providing an agenda of skills to

be achieved and a timetable for this to progress. The PDP

should be reviewed at half-yearly or yearly intervals. We

suggest that some form of accreditation be introduced (for

example for having attended a training course in teaching

skills) so that a candidate is able to add a certificate to

his/her portfolio of achievements. This may seem unnec-


17

essarily bureaucratic but it will facilitate movement of

young academics between countries where certification of

this kind is expected.

One issue that needs careful consideration is the expecta-

tion that all PhD students will teach within the Faculty.

This is mutually beneficial and should be encouraged, so

long as excessive demands are not made. It is entirely rea-

sonable that a PhD, employed on a funded project, should

teach as part of his/her duties but is it fair to expect a self-

funding student to do so without payment? This is clearly

a matter for the University to consider.

Many of these issues are currently under active discussion

within the Faculty. It may be that the Faculty could devel-

op some general protocols for wider discussion within the

University. When these issues have been resolved we

believe that a clearly-stated code-of-practice should be

drawn up to give precise structure to the relationship

between PhD students and their Faculty.


18

5.1 Research foci

“What does the committee think of the concentration of the

research of the Faculty in the given research foci, considering

the available expertise at the Faculty and current important

research themes within the field of archaeology?”

(Assignment for the Quality Assessment of Archaeology

Leiden University, item 6.3).

The committee felt that there was much value to be had in

defining research foci. They give a degree of coherence and

direction to the work while not being unduly restrictive.

Moreover, they give a clear signal to colleagues from other

universities of the thrust of the Faculty’s work.

In Section 1: Prehistoric archaeology, the two foci, ‘Human

Origins’ and ‘Prehistoric Farmers’ are quite explicit and are

well founded on excellent staff expertise. They enable the

Section to develop its specialisms on a European-wide

basis while continuing to engage more broadly in current

dialogues and attract high quality grants and graduate stu-

dents. The themes will serve well for the mid to long term.

In Section 2: Archaeology of the Classical World and the

Near East, the research focus ‘The Archaeology of Town

and Country in the Circum-Mediterranean Lands’ was

evidently designed to contain the disparate interests of the

staff when the Section was created three years ago. That

several sub-themes have now emerged reflects a welcome

clarification of the more significant research clusters.

Within the next two to three years one might expect fur-

ther redefinition perhaps embracing some theoretical or

methodological concepts.

In Section 3: Ancient America, the single research focus

‘Religion and Society’ may be thought to be too wide. A

narrower focus on, say, the development of chiefdoms and

city states might more closely reflect the research thrust of

the group.

In Section 4: Science-based Archaeology. The Section

explicitly eschews research foci. Its mission, to contribute

to methodological developments in its various fields of

expertise, and to collaborate with archaeological col-

leagues in investigations of mainstream archaeological

research questions, is well founded. We do, however, feel

that there is a pressing need to define an overarching strat-

egy for development in the mid to long term. These mat-

ters have been addressed above.

The variety of research themes listed by the Sections fairly

reflects the research strengths of the Faculty. Together they

present a broad range of specialisms which give Leiden

Archaeology its distinctive international character.

5.2 Maintaining or Enlarging theChosen Fields

“Does the commission have any suggestions as to the choice

the Faculty faces: maintaining the chosen fields and investing

all resources for developing these foci, or enlarging them so as

to include e.g. the archaeology of Asia and/or the archaeology

of Medieval & Postmedieval Europe (concretely the archaeol-

ogy of Dutch city centres)?” (Assignment for the Quality

Assessment of Archaeology Leiden University, item 6.4).

The staff seems to agree that it would be better to main-

tain and strengthen existing fields than to expand into new

areas, and we agree with this general strategy. A possible

5 Additional advice on specific items


19

exception, discussed below, would be the transfer of exist-

ing Leiden archaeologists from the Faculty of Arts to the

Faculty of Archaeology. One suggested area of expan-

sion—Dutch medieval and postmedieval archaeology—

would require a considerable investment of personnel and

resources and would duplicate strong programs at other

Dutch universities. Some of the potential benefits of

expansion in this area—increased student training oppor-

tunities and better ties with cities and communities

throughout the country—are already being achieved

through the Archol program. This would seem to be a low

priority for the present.

The other suggested area of expansion—Asian archaeolo-

gy—may be possible with the transfer of existing faculty

within the University. Although we have no detailed infor-

mation about the archaeologists in the Faculty of Arts, we

understand that there is an Asian specialist and an Egyptian

Coptic specialist. Transfer of the former could provide a

cost neutral method for expanding into Asian archaeology,

which would presumably be further supported through ties

with CNWS and other Leiden programs in Asia. Both

archaeologists could be seen as expanding the Classical,

Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology section.

The transfer of archaeologists from other faculties has

potential benefits as well as disbenefits. On the positive

side, this would expand the size of the Faculty, which

would be useful for its long-term welfare within the

University. It would add new skills and approaches to the

Faculty, with potential synergistic effects in at least one of

the Sections. The major concern about transferring staff is

the increased service and logistical strains on the Faculty

of Archaeology. To make this feasible, the University

would need to provide additional support resources.

5.3 Fieldwork activities

“Does the committee think that, given the choice for specific

research themes made by the Faculty, a concentration of

financial and human resources on a limited number of long-

term fieldwork activities would be advisable, and which sites /

areas seem to be the most promising at this stage?”

(Assignment for the Quality Assessment of Archaeology

Leiden University, item 6.5).

With the rapidly expanding student body, the possibilities

for fieldwork activities are likely to be mainly local and

Dutch. The present collaboration with Archol and the

planned collaboration with city archaeologists in the region

should be further developed in a more structured way. This

kind of field training deserves to be a priority and to be

stimulated as far as possible since it offers the best job-

opportunities for the future. The appointment to these

projects of specially-trained supervisors, to take charge of

teaching the students, is recommended.

The need to become familiar with all kinds of material evi-

dence of the chronologically and geographically diverse

cultures that have become the focus of research at Leiden

also requires to be approached with a degree of flexibility

since not all groups run an equally varied range of excava-

tion programmes, under their own direction. To provide

such a range of excavation experience, which has the

advantage of exposing students to a spectrum of material

culture and fieldwork methodologies, it would be useful to

explore the possibility of collaborating with other universi-

ties or teams working in the same regions or periods. In

cases where such collaboration already exists, as well as in

new ventures, it would be advisable to establish protocols

to guarantee the quality of the training sought.


20

As regards the choice of specific research themes made by

the Faculty we consider it to be inadvisable to concentrate

financial and human resources on a limited number of

long-term fieldwork activities in any one area, not even

the Netherlands.

The programme should continue to develop all the cur-

rent research topics of the Faculty since, at this stage, none

of the sites/regions under investigation can be considered

to be more promising than any other. Though varied they

are all of high quality.

5.4 Research foci in Science-basedArchaeology

“How does the commission evaluate the perspectives for the

development of one or more specific research line(s) or foci in

Sciences (section 4)?” (Assignment for the Quality

Assessment of Archaeology Leiden University, item 6.6).

The group has particular strengths in bioarchaeology

(including artefact residue analysis) and archaeological

computing. The Commission accepts the case made by the

group that it should maintain its diversity rather than cre-

ate one or two artificial unifying research areas, but is not

of the opinion that this stance removes the need for strate-

gic planning regarding prioritising areas for maintaining,

increasing, or decreasing investment in the future (see

3.4).


21

Since its creation in 1997 the Faculty of Archaeology has

sought to integrate its constituent parts into a seamless

whole. This it has achieved with notable success. While its

four research Sections maintain their individual pro-

grammes a benevolent management structure enables the

Faculty to function well as a single entity with its own dis-

tinct identity. It is clear that the students as well as the staff

feel allegiance both to the Faculty and to their particular

Section. We feel that the time is opportune for the

University to consider enlarging the Faculty by the addi-

tion of staff from the Faculty of Arts currently teaching

Egyptology and the archaeology of Asia. The establish-

ment of a chair in one of these subjects would do much to

give coherence and direction to this important area of

research.

The Faculty’s recent attempts to broaden its range by

developing partnerships with the Universities of

Groningen and Delft are much to be welcomed. Activities

of this kind, together with the further development of

Archol, will create a research network well rooted in the

practice of scientific and public archaeology. Siting the

Faculty in this way gives it added attraction as a research

centre while opening up new opportunities for research

funding.

The doctoral programmes are working well. We were par-

ticularly impressed by the range of highly able students

now on course and the opportunities open to them. We

do, however, recommend that the University gives full

consideration to the implications of attracting more over-

seas PhDs and moves towards formalizing their research

training. The steps which the Faculty is itself taking are

moving in the right direction.

The Faculty is currently carrying out research of high qual-

ity, widely recognized to be of international importance. Its

plans for consolidation and development will, undoubted-

ly, ensure the further enhancement of the Faculty’s reputa-

tion worldwide. In the quality of its research, the broad but

focused scope of its activities and the range of young

researchers which it is attracting the Faculty can fairly

claim to be one of the world leaders in archaeology.

6. Conclusions


22

Appendix I

Assignment for the Quality Assessment of ArchaeologyLeiden UniversityThe Board of the Universiteit Leiden duly observing the

Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003–2009 (SEP) for the qual-

ity assessment of research of public research organisations,

certifies that:

1. A Review Committee for the research programmes in

the Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University has

been appointed.

2. Prof. B. Cunliffe (Oxford University); has been

appointed Chairman and member of the Review

Committee.

3. The following persons have been appointed Members

of the Committee:

Prof. M. Waelkens (Universiteit Leuven)

Prof. M. Smith (Albany, New York) Prof. G. Barker

(Cambridge University)

4. The Board of the Universiteit Leiden has appointed

Dr. S.A.M. Kuypers, MA Secretary of the Review

Committee.

5. In accordance with the SEP, the tasks of the Review

Committee are:

• Retrospective analysis

1. to assess from a national and international per-

spective the quality, productivity, academic and

social relevance, vitality and feasibility of the

research of the entire Institute and of each

research programme or group of the Institute

(the basis of the assessment shall be information

provided by the Institute itself (self-evaluation

document), authorised by the Board of the

University, and obtained through interviews with

the director (or board) of the Institute, the

research leaders, the advisory committee and any

other proper person(s) selected at the discretion

of the Review Committee);

2. to assess the leadership (management), strategy

and (funding) policy and the functioning of the

research organisation including its (human)

resources and facilities;

3. to assess the academic reputation of the Institute

and of each programme / group and the relevance

of both to the national and international academ-

ic community and to society;

• Prospective analysis:

4. to assess according to identical criteria the future

plans of the Institute (strengths and weaknesses)

and each programme / group;

5. to advise on specific changes in the organisation

and mission of the Institute and/or its intentions;

• Judgement

6. to assess these aspects on a five-point scale: excellent,

very good, good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory;

7. if applicable, to judge separately in the assessment

the quality of the research in a national and inter-

national context;

8. if applicable, to make distinctions in the judge-

ments to highlight the excellence of specific parts

of the research;

9. to take into account the standards of any given

academic discipline, the disciplinary and interdis-

ciplinary relations, the national or international

Appendix


23

context of the Institute and its academic fields,

and the mission of the Institute;

6. In addition, the Review Committee is asked to assess

the following aspects (not included in the SEP) con-

cerning the PhD training and supervision:

1. The training and supervision of the PhD stu-

dents, the effectiveness of the policy on this and

its results.

2. The (individual) supervision of PhD students.

And the following additional questions concerning the

research of the Faculty of Archaeology:

3. What does the committee think of the concentra-

tion of the research of the Faculty in the given

research foci, considering the available expertise

at the Faculty and current important research

themes within the field of archaeology?

4. Does the commission have any suggestions as to

the choice the Faculty faces: maintaining the cho-

sen fields and investing all resources for develop-

ing these foci, or enlarging them so as to include

e.g. the archaeology of Asia and/or the archaeolo-

gy of Medieval & Postmedieval Europe (concrete-

ly the archaeology of Dutch city centres)?

5. Does the committee think that, given the choice

for specific research themes made by the Faculty,

a concentration of financial and human resources

on a limited number of long-term fieldwork

activities would be advisable, and which sites /

areas seem to be the most promising at this stage?

6. How does the commission evaluate the perspec-

tives for the development of one or more specific

research line(s) or foci in Sciences (section 4)?

7. Each member of the Review Committee shall give his

or her professional opinion based on competence,

objectivity, independence, impartiality, care and con-

sistency. Members of the Review Committee shall not

experience personal, professional or financial conflicts

of interest from participating in the assessment proce-

dure. Any potential conflict of interest shall be report-

ed in advance to the Board of the Universiteit Leiden

and to the Chairman of the Review Committee.

8. The Review Committee shall decide on its own assess-

ment procedures, taking into account the SEP guidelines.

9. The Review Committee is asked to draw up a report of

the results of the assessment within 6 weeks, in accor-

dance with the SEP and reacting to the additional

questions at 6 above. It is requested to submit the

report simultaneously to the Board of the Faculty and

the Board of the University, after correcting the draft

evaluation report for factual errors or obvious mis-

takes on the basis of the comments of the Director of

the Institute.

10. The Review Committee is asked to draw up a confi-

dential letter to the management regarding personnel

matters, sensitive decisions about future plans, con-

tractual issues and such like, and to submit the letter

simultaneously to the Board of the University and the

Board of the Faculty.

11. The results of the review will be made available in a

public report in accordance with the SEP guidelines,

including the reply of the management of the Institute

to the issues raised by the Review Committee in its

report.


24

Appendix II

Site Visit Programme & Attendance Archaeology Peer Review Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University October 30 – November 2, 2005

Assessment CommitteeProf. B.W. Cunliffe, Professor of European Archaeology

at the University of Oxford (UK), Chair.

Prof. G. Barker, Disney Professor of Archaeology at

the University of Cambridge (UK) and Director of

the McDonald Institute for Archaeological

Research.

Prof. M.E. Smith, Professor of Anthropology, School of

Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State

University (USA).

Prof. M. Waelkens, Professor of Eastern Mediterranean

Archaeology, and Department chair of the

Department of Archaeology, Fine Arts and

Musicology, at the University of Leuven (Belgium).

S. Kuypers, MA Secretary to the Committee.

The full Committee and its Secretary attended all meet-

ings. Unless otherwise indicated, these meetings took place

in room 138 (KITLV Conference Room), Reuvensplaats 2,

Leiden.

Sunday October 30, 2005

• 17.30 Welcome reception & dinner (Prentenkabinet,

Kloksteeg 25)

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen, Dean of the Faculty

Dr. Th. Van Kolfschoten, Chair of Education

Prof. W. Roebroeks, Chair of the Scientific

Committee

Dr. R. Manning, assessment coordinator Faculty of

Archaeology

Monday October 31, 2005

• 09.30–11.00 Closed meeting

• 11.00–12.00 Meeting with the Faculty Board

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen, Dean

Dr Th. van Kolfschoten

Dr M. Janssen, Managing Director Faculty of

Archaeology

Ms M. Boonstra, Student Member

Ms C. Regoor, Executive Secretary to the Faculty

Board

• 12.15–14.15 Lunch (Faculty Club, Rapenburg 6) with

the Dean and members of the Scientific Committee

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen

Prof. W. Roebroeks

Dr M. Hoogland

Dr M.J. Versluys

Dr D. Fontijn

• 14.30–16.30 Meeting with the Research Section

coordinators:

Prof. H. Fokkens (section Prehistory: Agrarian

Communities)

Prof. W. Roebroeks (section Prehistory: Human

Origins)

Prof. J. Bintliff (section Classical Archaeology and

Near East)

Dr C.L. Hofman (section Ancient America:

Caribbean)

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen (section Ancient America:

Mesoamerica)


25

Prof. Harry Fokkens (professor of Prehistoric

Archaeology)

Dr David Fontijn (assistant professor Prehistoric

Farming Communities)

Prof. Leendert Louwe Kooijmans (emeritus profes-

sor Prehistoric Archaeology)

Dr Peter Jongste (postdoc Prehistoric Farming

Communities)

The development of the cultural landscape (2000-

800 BC) Bronze Age research and Heritage policy

Stijn Arnoldussen (PhD candidate Prehistoric


Luc Amkreutz (PhD candidate Prehistoric


Dr Alexander Verpoorte (lecturer in Palaeolithic

Archaeology)

Prof. Wil Roebroeks (professor of Palaeolithic

Archaeology)

Prof. Raymond Corbey (Epistomology/ Human

Origins)

Dr Kathy MacDonald (postdoc Human Origins)

Neandertal learning and subsistence skills Ecology

and evolution of hominin geographic ranges

Nasma Anwar (postdoc Human Origins)

Life histories of fossil hominins, in particular of

Neandertals

Gerrit Dusseldorp (PhD candidate Human

Origins)

• 10.45–11.00 Meeting with the PhDs of the Research

Section Classical Archaeology and Near East

Dave Hahs (self-funded, promotor Bintliff)

Medieval Malta: settlement patterns, lost villages,

and rural architecture

Dr Th. van Kolfschoten (section Science-based

Archaeology)

• 16.30–17.30 Office hour: possibility for individual

members to meet the committee

Prof. L.P. Louwe Kooijmans

• 18.15–19.00 Reception at the office of

Prof. D.D. Breimer, Rector Magnificus,

Leiden University, Rapenburg 70

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen, Dean

• 19.30 Dinner (In den Doofpot, Turfmarkt 9)

Tuesday November 1, 2005

• 9.30–9.45 Meeting with PhDs of the Research Section

Prehistory

Stijn Arnoldussen (internal PhD, promotor

Fokkens)

A living Landscape: Bronze Age settlements in the

Dutch river area, 2000-800 BC

Luc Amkreutz (internal PhD, promotor Louwe

Kooijmans)

A behavioural and taphonomical approach of sites

and finds in the Lower Rhine Basin

Gerrit Dusseldorp (internal PhD, promotor

Roebroeks)

Thoughtful hunters? The archaeology of

Neanderthal subsistence


Prehistory (tenured staff, postdocs and PhDs)


26

Marina Gkiasta (Saripolio Foundation University

of Athens, promotor Bintliff)

The Historiography of Landscape research in Crete

Tatiana Ivleva (self-funded, promotor Bintliff)

Roman Britain outside Britain: representation of the

island in the Roman literature, art, and coinage and

by Britons themselves

Erik van Rossenberg (self-funded, parttime; pro-

motor Bintliff)

Between households and communities. Layers of

social life in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age

Kyriakos Savvopoulos (self-funded, promotor

Bintliff)

The Egyptian face of Alexandria and its contribu-

tion to the Greco-Egyptian interplay

Hannah Stöger (self-funded, promotor Bintliff)

Society and urban infrastructure at the city of Ostia

Noor Winckel (internal PhD, promotor Geertman)

Design principles and construction history of atri-

um-peristyle houses in the social context of pre-

Roman Pompeii

Arne Wossink (internal PhD, promotor Bintliff)

Human settlement during the Early and Middle

Bronze Age in the marginal zone of Jezirah, Syria

Dianne van der Zande (self-funded/parttime, pro-

motor Bintliff)

Relations between Town and Country in the Near

East in Roman-Byzantine times: an analysis of

domestic space)


Classical Archaeology and Near East (tenured

staff, postdoc’s and PhDs)

Prof. John Bintliff (professor of Classical and

Mediterranean Archaeology, Head of Classical,

Mediterranean and Near Eastern Section)

Dr Gerrit van der Kooij (assistant professor /

Ancient Near East)

Dr Diederik Meijer (associate professor / Ancient

Near East)

Dr Miguel-John Versluys (assistant professor /

Hellenistic and Roman World)

• 12.00–13.30 Lunch (Faculty Club, Rapenburg 6)


Section Ancient AmericaAlistair Bright (Internal PhD, promotor Jansen)

Amerindian occupation and the intra- and inter-

insular relationships on the southern Lesser Antillean

islands

Daan Isendoorn (internal PhD, promotor Jansen)

The provenance of raw materials in the pre-

Columbian insular Caribbean

Alice Samson (Internal PhD, promotor Jansen)

Living and dying in a Taino community.

Organisation of settlement space and residence rules

among the Taino, the indigenous people of the

Caribbean encountered by Columbus


Ancient America (tenured staff, postdoc’s and PhD’s)

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen (Professor of Archaeology

and History of Mesoamerica / Head of Section

focus Mesoamerica)

Dr Corinne L. Hofman (associate professor/ Pre-

Columbian Caribbean / Head of section focus

Caribbean)


27

Dr Menno Hoogland (assistant Professor / pre-

Columbian Caribbean)

Dr Arie Boomert (postdoc / pre-Columbian

Caribbean)

The Exchange of Materials and Exotics among insu-

lar societies in the Pre- Columbian Caribbean

Dr Rafael Panhuysen (postdoc / pre-Columbian

Caribbean)

Human Skeletal Remains

Dr Adriana Churampi (postdoc / Ethnohistiry

Caribbean)

Ethnohiatorical sources on the Taino

Alistair Bright (PhD candidate Caribbean)

Daan Isendoorn (PhD candidate Caribbean)

Alice Samson (PhD candidate Caribbean)


Section Science-based Archaeology

Yvonne Lammers-Keijsers (internal PhD, promo-

tor Louwe Kooijmans)

Use-wear analysis of shell, flint and stone artefacts

from Morel and Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe

Welmoed Oud (internal PhD, promotor Bakels)

The landscape, with an emphasis on vegetation and

its potential and constraints concerning subsistence,

of the wet parts of The Netherlands during the Late

Mesolithic and early Neolithic (6000-3500 cal BC)

• 15.30–16.15 Visit to the labs of the Research Section

Science-based Archaeology


Science-based Archaeology (tenured staff, post-

doc’s and PhD’s)

Dr A. van As (lecturer in Ceramic Technology)

Dr A.L. van Gijn (Associate professor in Material

Culture Science)

Dr H. Kamermans (associate professor / Computer

Applications in Archaeology, Predictive Modelling,

GIS)

Dr Th. van Kolfschoten (Co-ordinator of the

Section; associate professor in Paleo-and

Archaeozoology)

Prof. ir. H. van der Plicht (Visiting professor /

Isotope research, scientific leader of C-14 labora-

tory Groningen)

Dr Joanne Mol (lecturer Quaternary Geology)

Dr Chiara Cavallo (Lecturer Archaeo-zoology)

Yvonne Lammers-Keijsers

Welmoet Out

• 17.15–18.30 Drinks in the Library of the

Archaeological building (Reuvensplaats 4)

All members of the Faculty of Archaeology invited

• 19.30 Dinner (Rice table at Indonesian Restaurant

Surakarta, Noordeinde 51-53) with the Faculty

Board and Faculty of Archaeology professors



Dr M. Janssen

Ms Marije Boonstra

Prof. L.P. Louwe Kooijmans

Prof. W. Roebroeks

Prof. H. van der Plicht

Prof. R. Corbey

Prof. J. Bintliff

Prof. H. Fokkens


28

Wednesday November 2, 2005

• 9.30–10.00 Meeting with the Dean and the Chair of

the Scientific Committee,

Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen and Prof. W. Roebroeks

• 10.00–10.45 Possibility for PhDs and Postdocs to

meet with the Committee (no researchers made

use of this possibility)

• 10.45-16.30 Closed meeting of the Review

Committee/start of Report

• 12.30 Working lunch

• 16.30–17.00 Exposé of the Committee’s first

impressions (Archaeology Library)

Faculty Board and Research Section coordinators



Ms M. Boonstra

(Dr M. Janssen)

(Ms C. Regoor)

(Dr R. Manning)

Prof. H. Fokkens

Prof. W. Roebroeks

Prof. J. Bintliff

Dr C.L. Hofman

• 17.00 Drinks in the Library of the Archaeological

building

Faculty Board and Research Section coordinators



Ms M. Boonstra

(Dr M. Janssen)

(Ms C. Regoor)

(Dr R. Manning)

Prof. H. Fokkens

Prof. W. Roebroeks

Prof. J. Bintliff

Dr C.L. Hofman

• 18.30 Individual dinner arrangements


29

Appendix III

Evaluation tablesThe tables are to be found in the “Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organisations”, p. 39 – 41.

• Evaluation Table ad Chapter 2 : Faculty of Archaeology

(Institute) Faculty as a wholeEvaluation of the institute with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5




1.5 Funding policies 4,5

1.6 Facilities 4,5


1.8 Societal Relevance of the institute 5

1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses of the institute 4,5

Overall assessment of the institute 4,5

5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory


30

• Evaluation Tables ad Chapter 3: Research Sections

3.1 Research Section Prehistoric Archaeology

1. Research Programme - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5


1.3 Strategy and policy 5


1.5 Funding policies 5

1.6 Facilities 5


1.8 Societal Relevance 5

1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 5

Overall 5

2. Quality - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 5

2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 5

2.3 Coherence of the research programme 4,5

2.4 Publication Strategy 4,5

2.5 Prominence of the programme director 5

2.6 Prominence of the other members of the research group 4,5

2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4,5

2.8 Quality of other results 5

Overall assessment of quality 5


3. Productivity - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 5

3.2* Number of scientific publications 5

3.3 Number of professional publications 5

3.4 Other results (if applicable) - - - - -

3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 5

Overall assessment of productivity 5

4. Relevance - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate

the relevance of the research with respect to: 5 4 3 2 14.1 The advancement of knowledge 5

4.2 The dissemination of knowledge 4,5

4.3 The implementation of knowledge 4,5

Overall assessment of relevance 4,5

5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and

facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 5

5.2 In view of future plans and ideas 5

5.3 In view of staff age and mobility 5

Overall assessment of vitality 5


31



32

Summary evaluation Section Prehistoric Archaeology / tables 1 - 5 5 4 3 2 1

1 Overall evaluation of the programme 5






3.2 Research Section Classical Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology

1. Research Programme - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 4,5



1.4 Adequacy of the resources 3,5


1.6 Facilities 5

1.7 Academic reputation 4,5


1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 3,5

Overall 4

2 Quality - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 3,5

2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 4,5

2.3 Coherence of the research programme 4




2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4

2.8 Quality of other results - - - - -

Overall assessment of quality 4


33


3. Productivity - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 3,5

3.2* Number of scientific publications 4



3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 5

Overall assessment of productivity 4,5

4. Relevance - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate

the relevance of the research with respect to: 5 4 3 2 14.1 The advancement of knowledge 4,5

4.2 The dissemination of knowledge 4

4.3 The implementation of knowledge 4

Overall assessment of relevance 4

5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and

facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 4,5



Overall assessment of vitality 4,5


34



35


Summary evaluation Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology / tables 1 - 5 5 4 3 2 1




4 Overall assessment of relevance 4

5 Overall assessment of vitality 4,5


36


3.3 Research Section Ancient America

The ratings below are based on the Caribbean programme and on the Mesoamerican codex research programme.

1. Research Programme - Section Ancient AmericaEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5





1.6 Facilities 5



1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 4

Overall 5

2. Quality - Section Ancient AmericaEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 5

2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 4,5





2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4,5

2.8 Quality of other results* ? ? ? ? ?

Overall assessment of quality 4,5* in the framework of this research assessment, no ‘other results’ were shown to the Committee.


37


3. Productivity - Section Ancient AmericaConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 5

3.2* Number of scientific publications 4,5



3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 4,5

Overall assessment of productivity 5

4. Relevance - Section Ancient AmericaConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate





5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Ancient AmericaConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and

facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 5





38


Summary evaluation Section Ancient America / tables 1 – 5 5 4 3 2 1


2 Overall assessment of quality 4,5





39


3.4 Research Section Science-based Archaeology

1. Research Programme - Section Science-based ArchaeologyEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 3





1.6 Facilities 4,5

1.7 Academic reputation 4,5

1.8 Societal Relevance 4,5

1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 3,5

Overall 4

2. Quality - Section Science-based ArchaeologyEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 4,5

2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 5



2.5 Prominence of the programme director* - - - - -

2.6 Prominence of the other members of the research group 4

2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4

2.8 Quality of other results* - - - - -

Overall assessment of quality 4* not applicable

3. Productivity - Section Science-based ArchaeologyConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 4

3.2* Number of scientific publications 4,5



3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 4,5

Overall assessment of productivity 4,5

4. Relevance - Section Science-based ArchaeologyConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate





5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Science-based ArchaeologyConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and

facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 4,5





40



41


Summary evaluation Section Science-based Archaeology / tables 1 - 5 5 4 3 2 1







42

Appendix IV

List of abbreviations

Archol Archeologisch Onderzoek Leiden BV (Archaeological Research Leiden BV), a company founded

(and housed) by the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.

CNWS Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies, Faculty of Arts)

KNAW Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences

NWO Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

(Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research )

OIO Onderzoeker in opleiding. (PhD researcher -NWO funded)

PDP Personal Development Plan

SEP Standard Evaluation Protocol (for Public Research Organisations)

VSNU Vereniging van Universiteiten (Association of the Universities in the Netherlands)


43

The report on the research assessment of the Faculty of Archaeology, carried out by an international peer committee, has

been discussed by the faculty board and by the different programme leaders. The conclusions of that discussion were the fol-

lowing:

The preparation of the self-evaluation document implied a comprehensive documentation and evaluation of the perform-

ance of the last years and to a detailed discussion and reflection on the future directions of the research. This was a much

needed and very fruitful exercise, which has made the faculty’s research community more aware of its strengths and weak-

nesses. In that sense, the evaluation was already a success before the committee arrived.

The review itself has been conducted in a very professional way. The committee was well prepared, had excellent knowledge

of the documentation, including the contents of the publications, and had given these matters a lot of thought already before

coming to Leiden. During the site visit it made an in-depth analysis of the goals, organisation and production of the research

programmes, examining also their infrastructure and to some extent their relationship with the teaching programme. The

interviews with all layers of the research community were efficient, intense, clear and to the point. It was obvious that all

members of the committee had an impressive experience with this type of work, which enabled them to make comparisons

with different international practices and standards, both in Europe and in the USA.

The community of PhD candidates appreciated the special attention it received from the committee. The comments of the

committee, already expressed during the site visit, contain valuable suggestions for the further developing a structured PhD

programme, as already in existence in other countries.

The conclusions of the review give an objective image of the faculty’s functioning and potential, and show the road to go. The

committee is positive about the main direction of the research community, which has been defined in line with overall

University policy (as stated in “Kiezen voor Talent”). It approves of the overall direction, confirming the main ideas of the

board and of the research community in this respect, but it makes also important observations and valuable recommenda-

tions on concrete issues. The faculty board will take into account these recommendations and will try to implement them in

the coming years. Given the limited means at our disposal, the board will make a list of priorities. As an example we may sig-

nal a few specific points.

The board will of course continue its policy to safeguard and improve the real time available for research, to stimulate pub-

lishing in international peer reviewed journals and to intensify efforts in obtaining funds from NWO and other institutions.

The faculty board will discuss with the Faculty of Arts and with the Board of the University (College van Bestuur) the sug-

gestion to incorporate several archaeologists who are still part of the Faculty of Arts.

Response of the Faculty of Archaeology on the peer review report


44

In the area of Prehistory the possibilities to maintain research expertise in the Neolithic will be explored.

As for the archaeology of the Classical World and Near East, efforts will be made to enhance coherence and to improve the

funding policy. Fortunately at the end of last year NWO granted already a major subvention to a project of Profs. Akkermans

and Van der Plicht in Syria. The innovative collaboration with the geophysical team from Ljubljana will be expanded.

The faculty board will search for means to reinforce the Ancient American section with an experienced Mesoamerican field

archaeologist and with adequate arrangements to create further support with ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological expertise.

Impulses will be given to the development of the science-based archaeology, both in the area of strategic thinking and in

securing concrete projects. The link with the University of Delft (through CAAS) will be further strengthened. Within the

faculty building measures will be taken to improve the laboratory space.

A formal PhD teaching programme, with a personal development plan, is already in the process of being developed.

In order to maintain good fieldwork within the Netherlands and to provide adequate training for students, the cooperation

with ARCHOL will be continued and intensified. The recommendation to appoint a specially-trained supervisor to take

charge of teaching the students, has already been put in practice.

So far, the faculty has focused on research-intensive programmes and less on the practical area of cultural heritage management.

Although the review committee supports this choice, the board intends to explore the possibilities to develop certain teaching

and research activities in this area, especially the cultural heritage management with an international dimension (“world her-

itage”), in order to enhance the profile, relevance and practical application of our work in the modern social context.

Prof.dr. Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansen

Dean, Faculty of Archaeology

RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGYRESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

In this series, the following reports have been published:

• Computer Science Delft University of Technology / Leiden University 1996-2002

• Applied Physics Delft University of Technology / Physics Leiden University 1998-2002

• Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Vrije Universiteit / Leiden University 2003

• Pallas Research Institute for Historical, Art-Historical and Literary Studies, Leiden University 1998 – 2003

• Biology Leiden University 1998-2004

• Psychology Leiden University 1998-2004

• Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions, Leiden University 1999-2004

• Archaeology Leiden University 2000-2005

Colophon

• Bestuursbureau / Academische Zaken

• GrafiMedia

Universiteit Leiden. The university to discover.

Leiden UniversityResearch AssessmentArchaeology2000 - 2005

Leiden University Research Assessment Archaeology 2000 - 2005 · • Applied Physics Delft...

Documents

Transcript of Leiden University Research Assessment Archaeology 2000 - 2005 · • Applied Physics Delft...