The International Symposium: 12th International Conference of the UISPP Commission on Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Times: Excavating in the Land of the Devil: Past and Current Research on Prehistoric Flint Mines, Worthing (West Sussex), 6–8 May 2025

Papers representing the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the UISPP Commission on Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Times (Madrid, 14-17 October 2009).

The Union Internationale des Sciences Pré- et Protohistoriques (UISPP) commission on "Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Times" was created at the 12th meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (Cracow, Poland, 19th-24th September 2006). The aim was to perpetuate the tradition of organizing international symposia on flint, established by the Limburg Branch of the Dutch Geological Society in 1969 at Maastricht. The commission intends to maintain cooperation in archaeological research on siliceous rock mining (flint, chert, hornstone, radiolarite, jasper and obsidian), by presenting and discussing methods and results. Major fields of interest include the different stages of chaînes opératoires of manufacture, specialisation of labour and circulation of raw materials, as well as the study of flint mining sites in relation to pre- and protohistoric settlement patterns. The objective of the commission is to promote these lines of research into flint mining and its methods, thus enabling a better understanding of the various phenomena and processes taking place in pre- and protohistoric times. This volume contains the papers of the Paris conference held on 10th-11th September 2012, together with some additional papers presented at Vienna 2010 and Florianópolis 2011. A first set of contributions concerns the main topic of the conference, which was lithothèques and reference collections. A further group of papers concerns the second conference theme: workshops, from excavation to chaînes opératoires reconstruction.

<i>Prehistoric Flint Mines in Europe</i> presents the results of the UISPP Commission, Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Europe. It offers a review of major flint mines dating from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The eighteen articles were contributed by archaeologists from ten countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden – using the same framework in order to propose a uniform view of the mining phenomenon. At the same time the book reflects various research methods and traditions. Each article deals successively with the geographical and geological context, mining zone topography, research history, methods of exploitation of raw material, dating of archaeological features and structures, characteristics of lithic production, organization of labour, miners'' settlements, distribution of products and symbolic aspects of mining activity. Part I includes the well-known flint mines at Spiennes in Belgium, Grime’s Graves in England and Rijckholt-Sint Geertruid in the Netherlands, as well as the equally fascinating Defensola mine from Italy. Part II contains presentations of other European flint mines. The book is abundantly illustrated with large, colour photographs and drawings, and is aimed not only at archaeologists, who will find valuable data and further literature, but also at any reader seeking up-to-date information on prehistoric flint mining communities in Europe.

Neolithic flint mines are well-studied in the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland. However their spatial structure and diachronic history is still poorly understood especially due to the poor preservation of the mine relief on the surface. The paper presents results of ALS data analyses conducted on the Dąbrówka-I site which is the first Prehistoric flint mine in the region that has been studied recently on the basis of the surface relief. LiDAR analyses combined with technological analyses of collected cores gave us grounds to identify two phases of flint mining at the site dated to Lengyel-Polgar cycle and Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age. The obtained results show the extent to which a multiproxy non-destructive approach may give ground for in depth studies of flint mines.

The Neolithic flint mines of Britain have been identified as sites of intense flint extraction. They occur chronologically in two phases: the earlier Neolithic examples in Sussex and Wessex (including the sites of Cissbury, Harrow Hill, Blackpatch, Church Hill, Easton Down, Martin's Clump, Long Down and Stoke Down) and the later Neolithic flint mine at Grimes Graves in Norfolk (Barber et al. 1999). Interpretations of prehistoric flint mines have commonly focused on the functional aspects of flint extraction: the method of extraction and quantity of flint that resulted (e.g. Mercer 1981a, 1981b; Sieveking 1979; Sieveking et al. 1973). Only recently has it been argued that prehistoric flint mines were monumental spaces and hence should be considered as monuments in their own right (Russell 2000, 2001). This paper further challenges the functional interpretation of flint mines as simple abstraction sites by discussing hidden in situ chalk art found within them. This art has wider parallels in markings discovered at other Neolithic sites and the examination of these mine and non-mine chalk examples suggests that collectively they indicate an early Neolithic art tradition that has hitherto been ignored.

Peter Gathercole, museum anthropologist, teacher, archaeologist, biographer of V.G. Childe and long-time supporter of the aims of WAC, died on 11 October in Kernow/Cornwall, UK. The funeral was held on 5 November in Cambridge, where his partner Bobbie Wells lives. A lifelong Marxist, it was Peter’s undergraduate involvement with the Communist Party that brought him into early contact in 1949 with past WAC President, Jack Golson, at Cambridge University. They remained firm friends until Peter’s death, both leaving the Communist Party in the 1950s as the contradictions of Stalinism became ever-clearer. It was Jack who encouraged Peter to switch to Archaeology from History for his first degree (awarded 1952). Peter had come to University after his military service in Egypt in the Royal Army Education Corps, while Jack had resumed his studies after conscription as a ‘Bevin Boy’ in the Nottinghamshire coalfields. Peter took out a Postgraduate Diploma at the Institute of Archaeology in 1954, studying under Vere Gordon Childe. It was Jack Golson again who encouraged Peter a few years later in 1958 to make the move to New Zealand to take up the second academic appointment created in archaeology in that country. Jack, in Auckland on the North Island in 1954, was of course the first such appointment. Peter quickly established the University of Otago in Dunedin on the South Island as the second great centre of archaeological teaching and research. The friendly rivalry between these two key New Zealand departments of anthropology continues to this day. Peter had started his post-degree professional career working at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery from 1954 to 1956, and before heading overseas had been the Curator of the Scunthorpe Museum and Art Gallery from 1956 to 1958. After his New Zealand interlude ended in 1968 he again took up his museums career at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, moving to Cambridge in 1970 as Curator of the University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. During the rest of his career he produced numerous publications in the field of museum anthropology, often returning to consideration of Pacific and of course particularly New Zealand Maori artefacts and their meanings. O B IT U A R Y

The site was discovered in 1921 and identified as a prehistoric striped flint mine in 1922. It is notable for its excellently preserved prehistoric industrial landscape, particularly discernible in the valley of the Kamienna river. It was excavated for the first time in 2017. In 2018, the site was nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List together with the Krzemionki Opatowskie mine. Flint artefacts and radiocarbon dates set its chronology as the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. No bones have been preserved from that period apart from a fragment of a long bone in two parts. Microscopic analysis of thin sections has identified the fragment as a bone of a red deer (Cervus elaphus). The article concludes with remarks about the 2019 centenary of research on prehistoric flint mining in Poland.

The Historical and Archaeological Museum in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski, since takeover to administer the „Krzemionki” prehistoric striped flint mines in 1978 along with creating its branch there (Krzemionki Archaeological Museum and Reserve) has been actively engaging in the process of protection and research as well as popularization of the knowledge about this site. As of 2000, when the Archaeology Department was created, the accomplishment of the objectives became possible based on own professional personnel. As early as in 2001, archaeological works in the area of Great Chambers in Krzemionki were conducted, and between 2003–2004 next, wide-scale research was completed. It preceded the construction of the uniform, underground tourist route. It became a driving force for further development of the Museum. Throughout the next period, the archaeological research led by the institution embraced also other monuments of prehistoric striped flint mining, like „Borownia” along with inherent settlements (2017). These were, among others, the settlement of the Globular Amphora Culture in Krzczonowice (2006–2011) or a multicultural site in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski-Częstocice (since 2009). The findings of the research were presented during a number of scientific conferences in Poland and abroad, along with numerous publications issued; among others the second monograph in the history of Krzemionki devoted to the site (2015). Research works went hand in hand with conservation operations. Apart from wide-scale projects (safety-oriented to the tourists and protection-oriented to the rock mass), the team of the Museum with the participation of specialists (miners), conducted permanent monitoring as well as conservation of prehistoric excavations and exploitation field’s surface. An important stage of the museum’s development was constituted by the moment of building its new premises in 2012. Owing to newly-created exhibition halls, labs and reception-administration base, new capabilities were opened so as to run the activities of museal, scientific as well as educational character. In the discussed period, the Museum organized or co-organized several exhibitions, 8 scientific conferences, 8 editions of the archaeological festival titled „The Krzemionki Meetings with the Stone Age”, and over 20 thousand children and youngsters took part in educational classes. Preparation of the application (commonly completed with the National Heritage Institute in Warsaw and independent experts) to inscribe the Krzemionki Prehistoric Striped Flint Mining Region on the World Heritage List serves as a symbolic summary of twenty-year time of the Museum’s activity for understanding, protection and popularization of prehistoric flint mining. Krzemionki and three neighbouring, outstanding archaeological sites connected with extracting the flint material, appeared on the list in 2019.

The Enigma of the Hyksos, Volume 1: ASOR Conference Boston 2017—ICAANE Conference Munich 2018—Collected Papers

Professor David Barron died on 2nd January 2012. All of us associated with Software: Practice and Experience remember him as the person who got the journal started in 1971. He joined with C.A. Lang to persuade Wiley to publish the journal, and he was the person who lined up highly regarded researchers to submit articles. Together with Lang, he was the co-editor of the journal from its first issue in 1971 until the end of 1984. After 1984, he continued as a member of the editorial board for many more years. This memoir of David Barron has been authored by Martin Campbell-Kelly, who says that he shared a mutual interest with David in the history of programming that extended over 30 years. We thank Martin for providing this tribute to David Barron. R. Nigel Horspool and Andy Wellings Editors, Software: Practice and Experience When the first computer science degrees were offered in the late 1960s, there was an almost complete absence of programming and software textbooks. David Barron was one of the first authors in the field, and his books were grasped by thankful instructors everywhere. But whereas the names of most other textbook authors have faded with the years, that of Barron is etched indelibly in the mind of everyone who used his books. They were concise and witty and had that most elusive quality—class. In the discipline of computer science, noted for its prosaic subject matter, Barron had a gift for elevating the pedestrian to the positively interesting. His books were practically literature. David William Barron was born on 9 January 1935 in Blackburn, in the north of England. He was the first son and the youngest of three children of G.W. Barron and his wife Mary. His parents were schoolteachers, and he grew up in a secure, lower-middle-class, suburban, semi-detached home. He was an early beneficiary of the 1944 Education Act, winning at the age of 11 a scholarship to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Blackburn. As a student, he was a good all-rounder. He became captain of the fencing team. In the sixth form, he specialized in mathematics and the sciences but gave vent to his literary side by editing the school magazine—an early indication of a ‘two cultures’ outlook that was to become a hallmark of his academic trajectory. Barron found an extraordinarily convivial atmosphere in the laboratory. He was allocated a study place by Wilkes and made to feel welcome. Barron and Wilkes in fact had something in common—they had both undertaken their PhDs in the Cavendish Laboratory's radio-physics research group; although Wilkes had carried out his work before the war, he retained an active interest. Barron had a shy temperament and was initially somewhat in awe of the laboratory staff, particularly David Wheeler, who was his senior by about 10 years. Wheeler had created the EDSAC programming system in 1949; it was one of the most brilliant programming accomplishments of all time, and Barron knew (like everyone else) that it was a bravura performance he could never hope to match. Another staff member he came to know well was Stanley Gill, who had also performed fine work on the EDSAC, writing subroutines for the numerical integration of differential equations, using what came to be known as the Runge–Kutta–Gill method. Whereas Wheeler was to spend all of his academic life in the laboratory, Gill was more urbane and career minded and left the laboratory soon after Barron's arrival. (Gill became a major force on the British computer scene but sadly died in 1975 at the height of his influence.) Barron discovered that, even using the EDSAC and Gill's subroutines, each step in a numerical integration took 20 min, and results had to be coaxed from the machine in long, nighttime sessions. During these sessions, he came to know the other laboratory staff well. His scientific interest was rapidly turning towards computing rather than radio-physics, but he plodded on determinedly and completed his dissertation. The research culminated in a paper coauthored with his supervisor and published in the Journal of Astronomical and Terrestrial Physics in 1960 2. The paper turned out to be something of a classic and was widely cited, although as Rishbeth once remarked, it did his career more good than Barron's, once he had decided to leave the field. One way or another, Barron had become a fixture in the laboratory. After his research studentship expired, Wilkes found him a research fellowship with the remit to ‘make himself useful’ and to assist Wheeler in commissioning the EDSAC's successor. In 1961, he was appointed to a university lectureship, and at the same time, he became a fellow of Downing College. The EDSAC 2 was the world's first computer to be controlled by a microprogram, an invention of Wilkes. The microcode was written by Wheeler with the assistance of Barron. The microcode was stored in a read-only core memory of an unusual construction. The code was hardwired by individually threading cores and then bonding the memory permanently with epoxy resin. There was no second chance to get the code right. Barron discovered, all too late, that one of his routines contained an error. Barron and Wheeler—pragmatists both—‘corrected’ the problem by adjusting the user manual, which now contained a footnote to the effect ‘after executing this instruction, 9 should be added to the instruction counter’. Barron's other contributions to EDSAC 2 included collaborations with Peter Swinnerton-Dyer on the use of magnetic tapes for numerical computation and with David Hartley on debugging procedures 3, 4. He also repeated the calculations undertaken for his dissertation prior to submitting his paper with Rishbeth; work that had taken a year on EDSAC took a week on EDSAC 2. After EDSAC 2 came into service, in 1958, thoughts soon turned to a successor. Although the demand for computing in the university had increased massively in the 10 years that the laboratory had been providing a computer service, funding had not kept pace. The laboratory would have liked a Ferranti Atlas computer (costing £2m plus) like Manchester University, but this could not be afforded. However, Peter Hall, head of Ferranti's computer division, arranged a deal whereby Ferranti would supply a cutdown version of the Atlas (notably without virtual memory) at cost price provided the laboratory collaborated with Ferranti to modify the hardware and develop the systems software. The machine was named Titan. For brilliant they are indeed. Sometimes he shakes his head in disbelief at what is happening. Here he is, an undistinguished graduate from a second-class university in the colonies, being permitted to address by first name men who, once they get talking, leave him dizzied in their wake. Problems over which he has dully wrestled for weeks are solved by them in a flash. More often than not, behind what he had thought were problems they see what are the real problems, which they pretend for his sake he has seen too 5. Developing a multiprogram, batch-processing operating system was in itself no small challenge. However, the plans were thrown into disarray in autumn 1963 when Wilkes returned from one of his periodic trips to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a gleam in his eye. He had seen MIT's Project MAC: timesharing was the new religion, and that was what the laboratory was going to do. It was to Barron's great credit that he was able to regroup and produce a timesharing system that eventually provided a university-wide computing service. Titan was developed in an era before the use of standard programming languages had become universally accepted. A new computer usually betokened a new programming language, and Barron, Hartley, and Wheeler began to explore the possibilities in 1961 6. In the summer of 1962, Wilkes invited Christopher Strachey to join the laboratory as a research fellow. Jointly, they wrote a critique of Algol 60 and decided the laboratory could do better 7. Strachey organized a study group consisting of himself, Barron, and Hartley to design a new programming language CPL—at that time standing for Cambridge Programming Language. It happened that at the Institute of Computer Science (ICS), London University, John Buxton and Eric Nixon were also intending to develop a programming language for a soon-to-be-acquired Atlas computer. They decided to join the Cambridge study group, and CPL was now understood to mean the Combined Programming Language. Strachey was the guiding light of the group, and the others followed in his brilliant wake. Meetings were held regularly, sometimes in Cambridge, sometimes at the ICS, and sometimes in Strachey's family home in Bedford Square, Bloomsbury. Progress was rapid, and Barron, as the group's amanuensis, wrote a paper for the Computer Journal ‘The Main Features of CPL’ 8. Barron and Strachey collaborated well, sometimes working weekends in the Strachey family retreat in Haslemere, Sussex. In summer 1963, they jointly gave a series of nine lectures at the Summer School in Non-numerical Computation organized by Leslie Fox at Oxford University. When written up by Barron, the lectures were effectively a programming primer for CPL 9. Not uncommonly at the time, CPL's specification ran ahead of the realities of implementation. The result was an elegant, powerful, multipurpose language that was beyond the laboratory's resources to implement. The possibility of an implementation took a further setback after Barron ceased direct participation in the project because he had to devote himself full time to the operating software for Titan. He continued to attend the monthly meetings, but mainly in his administrative role as director of the Titan software effort. Although a CPL implementation was never produced at Cambridge, the language itself was highly influential*. As is well known, CPL inspired Martin Richards to develop a systems implementation subset, BCPL; this in turn inspired Ken Thompson to develop B as an implementation language for Unix; and from that effort emerged C—the most important programming language in the post-Algol, post-Fortran world 6. Although Barron lacked the programming star quality of his mentors Wheeler and Strachey, he had his own brilliance as a communicator of programming ideas. He was exceptionally fluent: he could lecture extempore, and he had become author of first resort for programming manuals and documentation in the laboratory. Textbook writing was a natural next move. In the late 1960s, undergraduate programs in computer science were springing up around the world, generally along the lines of the Association for Computing Machinery's Curriculum 68 13. A problem faced everywhere was the lack of suitable textbooks—indeed, the Curriculum 68 bibliography consisted largely of articles rather than textbooks. Barron's books thus helped fill a massive void. Beyond Cambridge University (and later Southampton University), he was known foremost as the author of elegant, witty, and economically written textbooks. His first two books were early entries in the famous Macdonald Monograph series—whose dust jackets portrayed a length of seven-track paper tape of the era 13, 14. The first was Recursive Techniques in Programming (1968). It was highly accessible and was aimed at programmers rather than mathematicians. Barron recalled that although the book went out of print sometime in the 1980s, he continued to receive permission fees for reproducing extracts for many years after. His second volume in the series Assemblers and Loaders (1969) addressed a mundane although essential topic; he had a gift for making such unpromising material if not riveting, then certainly readable. Barron was probably the first computer science author to make use of epigrams—witty quotations at the head of each chapter. They were a delight to savor, and to read them is to imagine Barron sitting in his armchair, a tumbler of whisky to hand, leafing through a dictionary of quotations in search of something to pique the reader. He would sometimes use an epigram as an oblique comment on the material he was obliged to communicate. For example, in Computer Operating Systems (1971), in a chapter on job control languages, it was no doubt as a riposte to the syntactically rebarbative OS/360 Job Control Language that he quoted the music hall artist George Robey: ‘Let us temper our hilarity with a modicum of reserve’ 15. In his Study of Programming Languages (1977), he opened a chapter on suggestions for further reading with ‘Guide me, O thou great Redeemer’ 16. It was enough to make even a jaundiced undergraduate smile. In 1967, at the age of 32, Barron made the surprising decision to become the founding professor of computer science at Southampton University. It was a fork in the road of his professional and private life. Barron could have stayed at Cambridge University with some confidence that he would enjoy a distinguished future. As a researcher, he had been able to keep up with Wilkes, Wheeler, Gill, and the other denizens of the Mathematical Laboratory. Even if he was not in the absolute front rank of research, he had compensating qualities. He was a witty and sociable colleague; he was easily the best writer and communicator in the department, a brilliant lecturer, and a capable administrator. Coming from the background he did, at the time he did, a scholarly life at Cambridge University would have been an achievement of which to be proud. However, after a decade in the laboratory, Barron was beginning to feel somewhat smothered by the close-knit atmosphere and was ready for a change. Even so, he made the move with some misgivings that he would reflect upon in later years. A much easier decision for him was to leave behind his bachelor existence and marry Val Webber, chief computer operator in the laboratory. They went on to have two children. Barron, celebrated as the youngest professor of computer science in the country, was initially situated within the mathematics department at Southampton University. This was quite common in the traditional universities; it tended to be only in the newly founded universities, with fewer vested interests, that computer science departments were set up ab initio. For those in Barron's situation, it could take years to establish an independent department and escape the gravitational pull of mathematics. Also, like others in his situation, Barron was saddled with multiple responsibilities. He was simultaneously head of a computer services facility and a small staff, and he was required to teach computing across the university—which he loved to do, especially when he was able to reach beyond science and engineering. In time, he would be expected to develop undergraduate and postgraduate courses in computing. And there was the matter of research. Barron's greatest personal influences were Wheeler and Strachey, and he was not being falsely modest when he said he was not truly in their league. He was an admirer of broad scholarship, and his heroes included Don Knuth and the ‘Unix Three’, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan. He possibly never had the temperament, introspection, or dedication to match their output, but in any case, life at Southampton University was sufficiently distracting, often pleasantly so, that he never had to fully confront his scholarly demons. There is a chicken-and-egg phenomenon here, since without equipment you cannot build up the reputation that justifies equipment on the expensive scale required. The effect is that in Computer Science research there is a de-facto league system, with Southampton at present probably somewhere in the second or third division. One of the most disturbing aspects of this situation is that there is no established mechanism available for promotion (or relegation!) 17 This was a thinly veiled demand to the powers that if the university wanted to be a force in computing, then it needed to nurture the subject, not least financially. Because of his relative isolation and the lack of an infrastructure, Barron's research horizons were limited. At Cambridge, research had been focused on building computers, and this was the glue that bound researchers together. But by the 1970s, those days were over—computers were now bought not made. Research was becoming more specialized, academic, and fragmented. Barron did not have much enthusiasm for this smaller canvas. It has long been my personal view that the separation of practical and theoretical work is artificial and injurious. Much of the practical work done in computing, in both software and hardware design, is unsound and clumsy because the people who do it have not any clear understanding of the fundamental design principles of their work. Most of the abstract mathematical and theoretical work is sterile because it has no point of contact with real computing 18. There is an analogy with the study of the flow of water. At one extreme you have the theoretical fluid dynamicist, in the middle you have the hydraulic engineer, and at the other extreme is the plumber. (I like to think of myself as the computing equivalent of the hydraulic engineer, though some of my friends would say that what I do is more akin to plumbing.) 17 We were determined to put across the image of a quality product, hence the decision to eschew double-column layout, setting in a single measure across the page with generous margins on good quality paper, and choice of an eye-catching simple red cover. From time to time there have been moves to change things, but the production staff at Wiley will not readily forget the editorial ire which greeted their attempts to economize by using thinner paper, nor the scorn which their ideas of ‘jazzing up’ the cover were received 19. Barron was in the editorial chair until 1984 and the journal—now with 12 issues a year—is in its 40th year of publication. Barron was strongly guided by personal intuitions and a view of computing as a literary endeavor as well as a technical enterprise. He viewed programs as texts and believed that the expressiveness of languages was more important than their efficiency, particularly in an educational context. At Southampton University, this showed most strongly in his advocacy of Pascal. In 1975, he dragooned the computer center (now under its own director) into providing a Pascal service and eventually into developing a compiler for a newly acquired ICL 2970 computer. The university hosted the First International Symposium on Pascal in March 1977, at which he gave the welcome speech. He subsequently edited a contributed volume Pascal—The Language and Its Implementation (1981) and coauthored a Pascal-based textbook on data structures and algorithms Advanced Programming (1984), with his former research student and protégé Judith Bishop (who independently wrote a series of Pascal textbooks) 20, 21. An account of the manner of the Atlas Laboratory's going may be of interest to readers interested in the politics of science and government, and to devotees of the novels of C. P. Snow 22. Quite possibly, the literary allusion was lost on the bureaucrats. At all events, he thought it probably cost him his membership of the council, but to him it was a price worth paying. By the 1980s, computing at Southampton had escaped mathematics and become the Department of Computer Studies (not computer science—a telling choice of nomenclature). In the mid-1980s, a merger was mooted with the department of electronics. Although mergers of computing and electrical engineering were common in the USA, this was unusual in the UK. Except for Barron, his department was universally hostile to the proposal, but he was convinced it was the way forward—it was a case of ‘trust me’, and the merger went ahead. Although he disliked administration generally, he rather enjoyed pulling the bureaucratic strings for his own agenda—he served as chairman for 4 years. He fought for a new building and named it the Mountbatten Building—for another of his heroes. The Department of and Computer Science has since become one of the of computing. By the as the end of his career came into Barron into a He became a member of the research group by Hall, another of his He had been interested in and recalled a in as a at the had a on the He was with of with Another and at the University of become an on and a founding of the journal served as its book As and came to the he became an for the to new programming he wrote his book The of Languages but if to and to then quality in my And if the then the It was a that his of a department and a subject he loved the that to He from Southampton University the David Barron at the for Wilkes, As his for of

To build a human-centric Web, we need a solid understanding of human connections online and of mechanisms for fostering such connections. People both perceive and respond to digital technologies and form connections with one another in diverse ways. Whether the goal is to improve engagement or to foster community, modelling user groups to personalise or tailor experiences can be key. Tailoring and connection-building are particularly crucial in spaces such as healthcare and education, where evidence clearly shows that perceived social support can facilitate learning and enhance outcomes. PC’20 is a half-day workshop including two invited speakers, two discussion papers, and a broader discussion session. The first keynote is from Su White, an Associate Professor at the University of Southampton. She will speak about the facilitation of education online. The second keynote is from Michael Fergusson, CEO of Ayogo Health Inc. He will speak about “The Architecture of Choice: Using Psychosocial Variables to Dynamically Tailor Interventions.” A session will highlight two discussion papers. Firstly, Jennifer Golbeck from the University of Maryland will present her work “Improving Emotional Well-Being on Social Media with Collaborative Filtering”. Secondly, Roushdat Elaheebocus, Poovanen Seenan, Sheekah Beharry and Girishsing Caussyram from the University of Mauritius will present their work “BehaviourCoach: A Customisable and Socially-Enhanced Exergaming Application Development Framework”. Finally, a broader discussion session will consider: tools, techniques and case studies in tailoring and community-building; how these relate to one another; and next steps for Web Science researchers. The workshop builds on health and education communities established through previous Web Science conference workshops. By using these two domains to ground discussion of user modelling and community, we intend to reinvigorate these communities. A summary of the workshop will be created and shared online within two weeks of the event. We thank the members of our program committee: Stephane Bazan (TomKeen) and Charlie Hargood (University of Bournemouth).

Gods, Goddesses, and Mortals for the 21st Century: The Reinstallation of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts Collection of Ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Art

Joined-up boats: maturing maritime archaeology - George F. Bass (ed.). Beneath the Seven Seas: Adventures with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology. 256 pages, 433 b&w & colour illustrations. 2005. London: Thames & Hudson; 0-500-05136-4 hardback £24.99. - George F. Bass, Sheila D. Matthews, J. Richard Steffy & Frederick H. van DoorninckJr Serçe Limani, an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck Volume 1: The Ship and its Anchorage, Crew and Passengers (Ed Rachal Foundation Nautical Archaeology series in association with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology). xvii+558 pages, 253 illustrations, tables. 2004. College Station (TX): Texas A&M University Press; 0-8906-947-7 hardback £92.50. - Peter Clark (ed.). The Dover Bronze Age boat. xvi+340 pages, 255 illustrations, 64 tables. 2004. Swindon: English Heritage; 1-873592-59-0 paperback £75. - Volume 81 Issue 311

AN exhibition of pottery of the Early Bronze Age at the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London was opened by the Earl of Athlone, Chancellor of the University, on March 10. This pottery was excavated at Vounous in Cyprus by an expedition sponsored by the British School of Archaeology at Athens and under the direction of Mr. James Stewart. The exhibition, as was pointed out by the Chancellor in declaring it open, is the first to be held in England of the results of an important excavation of purely British origin in Cyprus; and this fact is indeed of special significance in view of the attempts which have been, and are being, made to arouse interest in Great Britain in the early history and antiquities of Cyprus. The cost of the excavation was defrayed by subscription, among the principal subscribers being the University of Cambridge, Sir Charles Hyde, and Sir Charles Marston. The last-named has presented the main part of the finds allotted to him to the Institute of Archaeology, and they form the nucleus of the present exhibition with supplementary loans from the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, and the Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery. After the exhibition had been declared open Mr. Stewart gave an account of the site and its excavation. The Vounous site is a cemetery on the east and north sides of a low hill in the foothills of the Kyrenia Mountains. The north side had already been excavated by Dr. Dikaios, and the present work was confined to the east side. The tombs are open caves approached from a forecourt. Burial is in a contracted position, with burial gifts of pottery and food. The entrance was sealed with a single stone and covered in. Sometimes graves had been opened by an iron age grave-digger, who had again sealed the tomb after inserting a votive offering, with, as Mr. Stewart said, “confusing effect”. The chronology of the site falls into three periods, dated tentatively from 2900–2500 B.C., 2500–2300 B.C. and 2300–2050 B.C.

Preface