Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:19:47.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whither archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2019

Sadie Watson
Sadie Watson*
Affiliation:
MOLA, Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, LondonN1 7ED, UK (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current archaeological practice in the UK and elsewhere focuses on the collection of empirical data. While scholars have proposed theoretical advances in field techniques, very few of these methods have been adopted in commercial archaeology. A combination of increased time pressure on development projects and the conservatism of the sector contribute to challenging times for archaeological practice. Additional complexity is introduced by large-scale infrastructure projects unsuited to standardised field techniques. This article explores these issues, calling for a flexible, consultative approach to project design and implementation, to ensure the longevity of both archaeology and the archaeological profession.

Keywords

field archaeologycontracting sectorempiricismarchaeological project design
Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 93 , Issue 372 , December 2019 , pp. 1643 - 1652
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aitchison, K. 2010. United Kingdom: archaeology in economic crisis, in Schlanger, N. & Aitchison, K. (ed.) Archaeology and the global economic crisis: multiple impacts, possible solutions: 25–30. Tervuren: Culture Lab Editions.Google Scholar
Altschul, J.H. 2017. Fostering synthesis in archaeology to advance science and benefit society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 114: 10999–11002. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715950114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, G., Barrett, J.C. & Lewis, J.S.. 2000. Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology. Antiquity 74: 525–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00059871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. 2016. Archaeology after interpretation: returning humanity to archaeological theory. Archaeological Dialogues 23: 133–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203816000167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. & Tilley, C.. 1997. Leskernick: stone worlds; alternative narratives, nested landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 147–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00002413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, A. 2012. Comments on Matt Edgeworth ‘Follow the cut, follow the rhythm, follow the material’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 45: 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.679425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, A. & Hodder, I.. 2003. Social practice, method and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity 68: 421–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3557102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, M. 1994. What future for British Archaeology? (Oxbow Lecture 1). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. 1995. ‘Whither archaeology’ revisited, in Kuna, M. & Venclava, N. (ed.) Whither archaeology? Papers in honour of Evzen Neustupny: 24–35. Prague: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Caruso, F., Cecchetti, A. & Latini, T.. 2018. Glocal archaeology in the UK. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 33: 147–67.Google Scholar
Carver, M. 2009. Archaeological investigation. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carver, M. 2011. Making archaeology happen: design versus dogma. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. 2003. Post-processualism, professionalisation and archaeological methodologies: towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues 10: 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203803001107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, A. 2010. What have the post-processualists ever done for us? Available at: https://bit.ly/2HlRzwZ (accessed 16 August 2019).Google Scholar
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. 2014. Code of conduct. Reading: CIfA.Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. 2011. Still not digging, much. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper-Reade, H. 2015. Commercial archaeology: looking backwards, looking forwards or just going round in circles, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 34–43. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Cumberpatch, C. 2015. In conclusion…, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 270–83. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Darnault, M. 2018. Les archéologues, nouveux damnes de la terre. La Liberation 21 June 2018. Available at: https://next.liberation.fr/arts/2018/06/21/les-archeologues-nouveaux-damnes-de-la-terre_1661003 (accessed 16 August 2019).Google Scholar
Demoule, J.-P. 2010. The crisis—economic, ideological and archaeological, in Schlanger, N. & Aitchison, K. (ed.) Archaeology and the global economic crisis: multiple impacts, possible solutions: 13–18. Tervuren: Culture Lab Editions.Google Scholar
Demoule, J.-P. 2011. We still have to excavate—but not at any price. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1990. Planning policy guidance 16: archaeology and planning. London: DoE.Google Scholar
Dufton, J.A. 2016. CSS for success? Some thoughts on adapting the browser-based archaeological recording kit (ARK) for mobile recording, in Averett, E.W., Gordon, J.M. & Counts, D.B. (ed.) Mobilizing the past for a digital future: the potential of digital archaeology: 373–98. Grand Forks: Digital Press and University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M. 2011. Excavation as a ground for archaeological knowledge. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English Heritage. 2010. English Heritage recording manual. Portsmouth: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. 2012. Archaeology and the repeatable experiment: a comparative agenda, in Jones, A.M., Pollard, M., Allen, M.J. & Gardiner, J. (ed.) Image, memory and monumentality. Archaeological engagements with the material world: 295–306. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dhcs.40Google Scholar
Everill, P. 2009. The invisible diggers: a study of British commercial archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Everill, P. 2015. Editorial foreword, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: xi. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Farid, S. 2000. The excavation process at Çatalhöyük, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards a reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük: 19–36. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Fulford, M. & Holbrook, N. (ed.). 2015. The towns of Roman Britain: the contribution of commercial archaeology since 1990 (Britannia Monograph 27). London: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.Google Scholar
Fulford, M. & Holbrook, N.. 2018. Relevant beyond the Roman period: approaches to the investigation, analysis and dissemination of archaeological investigations of the rural settlements and landscapes of Roman Britain. Archaeological Journal 175: 214–30. https://doi.org.uk/10.1080/00665983.2017.1412093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves-Brown, P. 1997. S/he who pays the piper: archaeology and the polluter pays principle. Assemblage issue 2. Available at: https://assemblagejournal.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/she-who-pays-the-piper-by-paul-graves-brown.pdf (accessed 16 August 2019).Google Scholar
Green, C., Gosden, C., Cooper, A., Franconi, T., Harkel, L. Ten, Hamash, Z. & Lowerre, A.. 2017. Understanding the spatial patterning of English archaeology: modelling mass data from England, 1500 BC–AD 1086. Archaeological Journal 174: 244–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2016.1230436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, W.F. 1968. The excavation of Roman and medieval London. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Guermandi, M.P. 2016. Birth and crib death of preventive archaeology in Italy, in Novaković, P., Horňák, M., Guermandi, M.P., Stäuble, H., Depaepe, P. & Demoule, J.-P. (ed.) Recent developments in preventive archaeology in Europe. Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016: 301–12. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S. 1999. Lost in translation? A comment on the excavation report. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 10: 1–8. Available at: http://www.pia-journal.co.uk/articles/abstract/10.5334/pia.140/ (accessed 16 August 2019). https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, F. 1997. Beyond the surface: comments on Hodder's ‘reflexive excavation methodology’. Antiquity 71: 1020–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00085938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilen, M., Ciolek-Torello, R. & Grenda, D.. 2016. Enabling archaeological research within a cultural heritage management context: a view from the United States, in Novaković, P., Horňák, M., Guermandi, M.P., Stäuble, H., Depaepe, P. & Demoule, J.-P. (ed.) Recent developments in preventive archaeology in Europe. Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016: 41–54. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1997. Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71: 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00085410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1999. The archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2000. Towards a reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Holbrook, N. 2015. Reflections from the head of a commercial fieldwork organisation, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 74–77. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2006. Studying archaeological fieldwork in the field: views from Monte Polizzo, in Edgeworth, M. (ed.) Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, material transformations: 81–94. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
HS2 Ltd. 2017. Historic environment research and delivery strategy: phase one. Birmingham: High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd.Google Scholar
Isaac, G.L.L. 1971. Whither archaeology? Antiquity 45: 123–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00069283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landward Research Ltd. 2019. State of the archaeological market 2018. London: Landward Research Ltd.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (ed.). 2006. Landscape evolution in the Middle Thames Valley: Heathrow, Terminal 5 excavations volume 1: Perry Oaks (Framework Archaeology Monograph 1). Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.Google Scholar
Lucas, G. 2001a. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203132258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G. 2001b. Destruction and the rhetoric of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 31: 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650119347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millett, M. 2017. Roman Britain since Haverfield, in Millett, M., Revell, L. & Moore, A. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Roman Britain: 22–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. & Wright, H.. 2018. Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording. Journal of Field Archaeology 43: 136–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustupny, R. 1971. Whither archaeology? Antiquity 45: 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00069027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, T. 2017. What about Southport? A report to CIfA on progress against the vision and recommendations of the Southport Report (2011), undertaken as part of the 21st-century challenges in archaeology. Available at: http://www.archaeologists.net/21st-century-challenges-archaeology (accessed 16 August 2019).Google Scholar
Noel Hume, I. 1978. Into the jaws of death walked one, in Bird, J., Chapman, H. & Clark, J. (ed.) Collectanea Londiniensia: studies in London archaeology and history presented to Ralph Merrifield (LAMAS Special Paper 2): 7–22. London: LAMAS.Google Scholar
Novakoviç, P., Horňák, M., Guermandi, M.P., Staüble, H., Depaepe, P. & Demoule, J.-P. (ed.). 2016. Recent developments in preventive archaeology in Europe. Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Orange, H. & Perring, D.. 2017. Commercial archaeology in the UK: public interest, benefit and engagement, in Moshenka, G. (ed.) Key concepts in public archaeology: 139–50. London: UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vxm8r7.14Google Scholar
Powesland, D. 2015. Crisis in the countryside, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 107–20. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Rocks-Macqueen, D. 2018. Have we reached peak archaeologists? (in the United Kingdom): a Landward Research white paper on commercial archaeology job demand. Sheffield: Landward Research Ltd.Google Scholar
Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spence, C. 1993. Recording the archaeology of London: the development and implementation of the DUA recording system, in Harris, E.C., Brown, M.R. & Brown, G.J. (ed.) Practices of archaeological stratigraphy: 23–46. London: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-326445-9.50008-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, R. 2012. Often fun, usually messy: fieldwork, recording and higher order of things, in Cobb, H., Harris, O.J.T., Jones, C. & Richardson, P. (ed.) Reconsidering archaeological fieldwork: exploring on-site relationships between theory and practice: 31–52. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, R. 2015. Between Pangloss and Cassandra: tendering, politics, risk, research, and the conduct of archaeology in England, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 175–200. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Trow, S. 2018. Archaeology and the state we're in: defining a role for Historic England in the archaeological practice of the twenty-first century. The Historic Environment Policy and Practice 9: 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2018.1456718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. 2015. ‘What force or guile?’ A light from the past on our present, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 201–10. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
Westman, A. 1994. Archaeological recording manual. London: Museum of London.Google Scholar
Wills, J. 2018. The world after PPG16: 21st century challenges for archaeology. Reading: Historic England & CIfA.Google Scholar
Wilmore, M. 2006. Landscapes of disciplinary power: an ethnography of excavation and survey at Leskernick, in Edgeworth, M. (ed.) Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, material transformations: 114–25. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 2016. Romano-British archaeology in the early twenty-first century, in Millett, M., Revell, L. & Moore, A. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Roman Britain: 43–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yarrow, T. 2003. Artefactual persons: the relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650307296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarrow, T. 2008. In context: meaning, materiality and agency in the process of archaeological recording, in Knappett, C. & Malafouris, L. (ed.) Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach: 121–38. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorzin, N. 2016. New managerial strategies in British commercial archaeology, in Resco, P.A. (ed) Archaeology and neoliberalism: 297–325. Madrid: JAS Arqueologia.Google Scholar