Cambridge Archaeology Interview Questions and Mock Interviews

Part of a fossil skeleton of an extinct ape-like creature is found. The pelvis is short and wide, with blades that flare sideways. The thigh bones angle inward from the hip to the knee, so the knees would sit close to the body's midline. The foot bones show a clear arch and a big toe lying alongside the other toes, not spread out to the side. The finger bones are slightly curved. Which of these features suggest walking upright on two legs, and why? What do the curved fingers add to the picture, and what could you not say about how this creature lived?

Some people say that archaeology is simply history for the times before writing. Others say it is a different kind of study, with its own questions, its own evidence and its own limits. Which view do you find more convincing, and where would anthropology fit in?

A circular enclosure forty metres across was built from a bank of earth with a ditch on the inside of the bank and a single entrance facing east. Inside, archaeologists found very few household objects, but they did find many small pits, each holding a single animal skull. One writer says it was a place for gatherings, another that it was a place for ceremony, and a third that it was a pen for keeping animals. Choose the reading you find strongest, make the best case for it, and then say what you would need to find to give it up.

Archaeologists excavate a village of twelve houses. In every house the floor has been swept clean and the hearth is cold and empty, but each house has one broken grindstone left by the door. Some argue that the villagers fled in a hurry. Others argue that they left calmly and took everything useful. Which reading do you find more convincing, and what might the broken grindstones suggest?

Wild chimpanzees use stones to crack nuts, and some crows shape twigs into hooks to pull out insects. Some people say that making tools is what makes a creature human. Do you agree? Where, if anywhere, would you draw a line between human and not human in the fossil record, and what would you base that line on?

Excavators in an ancient settlement find a smooth, curved piece of bone with a row of small notches along one edge. In a community living today, people use a similar-looking notched piece of bone to scrape the fibres from plant stems. A researcher suggests that the ancient object was used in the same way. How far can a comparison with a living community's practice help us interpret an ancient object, and what are its dangers? What other evidence would make you trust the comparison more?

A king has an inscription carved on a rock face beside a road. It says that he defeated an enemy army, that thousands were killed, and that peace followed. No other written account of the battle survives. Is a ruler's own inscription better evidence of what happened, or of what the ruler wanted people to believe? What can it show well, even if the details are inflated?

In a cemetery of about 150 graves, one adult is buried wearing a single bronze bracelet. Most other graves have no objects at all. A student says this person must have been wealthy. What other evidence from the grave, the cemetery or the wider settlement would help you test that claim, and what other explanations are there for the bracelet?

A piece of charcoal from the middle of a burnt roof beam is sent for radiocarbon dating. The result comes back as a range of dates, not a single date. A colleague says, 'This tells us when the house was built.' In outline, what does a radiocarbon date measure, and why might the date and the building of the house be different?

A team walks in straight lines across a ploughed field and collects every piece of pottery it sees. Nearly all the pieces are found in one corner of the field, and the field slopes down towards that corner. A team member says, 'There must be a settlement under that corner.' What other explanations could produce the same pattern, and what would you do next to find out which is right?

In a rubbish heap beside an ancient lake, a team recovers 3,000 fish bones and 12 cattle bones. A visitor says this shows the people nearby ate far more fish than beef. Does it? What could make that conclusion unreliable, and what other evidence could you bring in?

A tooth from a burial has been tested for a chemical signature in its enamel, called a strontium isotope ratio. Tooth enamel forms in childhood and takes up strontium from the food and water a child has, and that strontium reflects the rocks and soils of the place where the food was grown. The signature matches rocks found 80 km from the burial site and not the rocks under the site itself. A report says: this person was a migrant. What does the signature actually show, and which parts of the report go further than the evidence?

Ancient Egyptian cemeteries on the dry desert edge have preserved cloth, wood, baskets and food placed in tombs, and sometimes bodies. Imagine the desert edge had been as damp as the river floodplain. What would archaeologists probably know less about, and what kinds of evidence would they have to rely on instead?

Imagine our ancestors had never learned to control fire. Using what you know about food, bodies, warmth and daily life, what would you expect to be different? And what traces in the ground would you look for to test whether early people used fire at a particular site?

Archaeologists find beads of a blue stone in a farming village. The nearest source of that stone is 800 km away. Suppose the only route between the two places had been blocked for a generation. What would you expect to see in the village's remains, and how would you tell this apart from people simply changing their taste?

Imagine an ancient script, used for hundreds of years on temple walls and storage jars, had never been deciphered. We still have the buildings, the objects and the signs themselves. What could archaeologists still say about the people who used it, and what would stay out of reach? What might the signs alone, such as how often each one appears and where, still tell us?

Think of an object in a museum, or a photograph of one, that has stayed in your mind. What did you notice about it, what did the label leave out, and what would you want to find out next?

Tell me about something you have read, watched or listened to about the human past that you only partly agreed with. What was the weak point in the argument, and how might its author reply?

Think of a place connected with the past that you have visited or studied closely, such as a ruin, a museum, a field or a street. What did you notice that a quick visitor might miss, and what question did it leave you with?

Choose one subject you are studying at the moment and describe a way of thinking it has taught you. How could you use that way of thinking to study the human past, and what is it not able to do?

A museum holds a carved wooden figure that a visitor took from a village many generations ago. People from the village now ask for it to be returned. The museum says its store protects the figure from damp and that visitors from many countries can see it. The villagers say the figure was made for a purpose that a glass case cannot serve. How would you weigh these claims, and what other facts would you want to know?

A collector wishes to give a university museum fifty ancient pots in perfect condition. There is no record of where or how they were dug up. Should the museum accept them? How much does it matter that nobody recorded where the pots lay?

Builders digging foundations for a new hospital uncover an old burial ground with hundreds of graves. Who should decide whether the graves are excavated, and what should happen to the remains afterwards? Consider the value of the research, the wishes of any descendants who can be found, and the needs of the living.

A site on farmland is in no danger at present. A team of archaeologists could excavate it now and answer a question they care about, but excavation destroys what it digs. Others say the site should be left untouched for future researchers with better methods. How would you decide? Would your answer change if the site were being worn away by a river?