Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:55:15.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘If not for you’. The nation state as an archaeological context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Nathan Schlanger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rather than being bashed around in view of its contents, the nation state – or at least the ‘state’ part of this compound term – needs to be cherished for the context it provides. Without the state, instilling regulations, procedures and common purpose, archaeology will not really thrive. This is confirmed through an exemplary case study, namely the seemingly measured and consensual retrenchment of the state occurring in England over the past 25 years. A brief presentation of the structure of English archaeology serves to highlight the situation of each of its main sectors, commercial contractors, curators at local levels and national bodies. Recent changes at the last level, involving English Heritage Trust and Historic England, highlight the risks posed by state disengagement, by funding withdrawal and by the enforced commercialization of public services.

Keywords

Archaeological heritage management in Englandpreventive archaeologycontractors and curatorslocal archaeology officersEnglish HeritageHistoric England
Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , June 2016 , pp. 48 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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., 2012: Breaking new ground. How archaeology works, Sheffield.Google Scholar
Aitchison, K., 2015: Archaeological market survey 2015, Landward Research for CIFA/FAME, at www.landward.eu/Archaeological_Market_Survey_2015.pdf.Google Scholar
Aitchison, K., and Rocks-Macqueen, D., 2014: Discovering the archaeologists of the United Kingdom 2012–14, Landward Research/EU project, at www.discovering-archaeologists.eu/national_reports/2014/UK%20DISCO%202014%20UK%20national%20report%20english.pdf.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 2006: Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of British prehistory, Antiquaries journal 86, 1–13.Google Scholar
Carman, J., 2015: Archaeological resource management. An international perspective, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, M., 2011: Making archaeology happen. Design versus dogma, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
Council for British Archaeology, 2015: Evidence submission to inform the Culture White Paper, 9 December 2015, at http://new.archaeologyuk.org/Content/downloads/3896_CBA%20letter%20to%20Ed%20Vaizey%20re%20Culture%20White%20Paper2.pdf.Google Scholar
D'Andrea, A., and Guermandi, M.P. (eds), 2008: Strumenti per l'archeologie preventiva, Esperienze, Normative, Tecnologie, Budapest.Google Scholar
Demoule, J.-P., (ed.) 2007: L'archéologie préventive dans le monde. Apports de l'archéologie préventive à la connaissance du passé, Paris.Google Scholar
Demoule, J-P., 2012: Rescue archaeology. A European view, Annual review of anthropology 41, 611–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everill, P., 2012: The invisible diggers. A study of commercial archaeology in the UK, 2nd edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
Flatman, J., 2012: The past, present and future of rescue archaeology in England, Post-classical archaeologies 2, 279–98, available at www.postclassical.it/vol.2_files/PCA2_Flatman.pdf.Google Scholar
Guermandi, M-P., and Salas Rossenbach, K. (eds), 2013: Twenty years after Malta. Preventive archaeology in Europe and in Italy, Bologna, available at http://online.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/I/libri/pdf/twenty_years_after_malta_26_09_2013web.pdf.Google Scholar
HM Treasury, 2015: Spending review and autumn statement 2015, at www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2009: Contract archaeology in Europe. An experiment in diversity, World archaeology 41, 641–48.Google Scholar
Ralston, I., and Hunter, J. (eds), 2006: Archaeological resource management in the UK. An introduction, 2nd edn, Stroud.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 2012a: Entre la France et l'Angleterre. L'archéologie à l'aune de la crise, Nouvelles de l'archéologie 127, 16–20, available at http://nda.revues.org/pdf/1304.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 2012b: Preventive archaeology, in Neil Asher Silberman, ed., The Oxford companion to archaeology, 2nd edn, Oxford, 661–65.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., 2013: Entering history? Archaeologists as intellectuals à la recherche du temps perdu, Archaeological dialogues 20 (1)58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlanger, N., and Aitchison, K. (eds) 2010: Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions, Brussels, available at www.archeonet.be/images/Archaeology-and-the-Crisis-Schlanger-Aitchison.pdf.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G., 2000: Time please, Antiquity 74, 909–43.Google Scholar
Willems, W., and van den Dries, M. 2007: The origins and development of quality control in archaeology, in Willems and Van den Dries (eds), Quality management in archaeology, Oxford, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar