Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Whither archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice

  • Sadie Watson (a1)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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: 2530. Tervuren: Culture Lab Editions.
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: 1099911002. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715950114
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/S0003598X00059871
Barrett, J. 2016. Archaeology after interpretation: returning humanity to archaeological theory. Archaeological Dialogues 23: 133–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203816000167
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/S0079497X00002413
Berggren, A. 2012. Comments on Matt Edgeworth ‘Follow the cut, follow the rhythm, follow the material’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 45: 9294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.679425
Berggren, A. & Hodder, I.. 2003. Social practice, method and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity 68: 421–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3557102
Biddle, M. 1994. What future for British Archaeology? (Oxbow Lecture 1). Oxford: Oxbow.
Bintliff, J. 1995. ‘Whither archaeology’ revisited, in Kuna, M. & Venclava, N. (ed.) Whither archaeology? Papers in honour of Evzen Neustupny: 2435. Prague: Institute of Archaeology.
Caruso, F., Cecchetti, A. & Latini, T.. 2018. Glocal archaeology in the UK. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 33: 147–67.
Carver, M. 2009. Archaeological investigation. London & New York: Routledge.
Carver, M. 2011. Making archaeology happen: design versus dogma. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.
Chadwick, A. 2003. Post-processualism, professionalisation and archaeological methodologies: towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues 10: 97117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203803001107
Chadwick, A. 2010. What have the post-processualists ever done for us? Available at: https://bit.ly/2HlRzwZ (accessed 16 August 2019).
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. 2014. Code of conduct. Reading: CIfA.
Cherry, J.F. 2011. Still not digging, much. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 1017. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000055
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: 3443. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.
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.
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).
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: 1318. Tervuren: Culture Lab Editions.
Demoule, J.-P. 2011. We still have to excavate—but not at any price. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000043
Department of the Environment. 1990. Planning policy guidance 16: archaeology and planning. London: DoE.
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.
Edgeworth, M. 2011. Excavation as a ground for archaeological knowledge. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 4446. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000109
English Heritage. 2010. English Heritage recording manual. Portsmouth: English Heritage
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: 295306. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dhcs.40
Everill, P. 2009. The invisible diggers: a study of British commercial archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.
Everill, P. 2015. Editorial foreword, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: xi. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.
Farid, S. 2000. The excavation process at Çatalhöyük, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards a reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük: 1936. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
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.
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/10.1080/00665983.2017.1412093
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).
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/10.1080/00665983.2016.1230436
Grimes, W.F. 1968. The excavation of Roman and medieval London. New York: Praeger.
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.
Hamilton, S. 1999. Lost in translation? A comment on the excavation report. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 10: 18. Available at: http://www.pia-journal.co.uk/articles/abstract/10.5334/pia.140/ (accessed 16 August 2019). https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.140
Hassan, F. 1997. Beyond the surface: comments on Hodder's ‘reflexive excavation methodology’. Antiquity 71: 1020–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00085938
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: 4154. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.
Hodder, I. 1997. Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71: 691700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00085410
Hodder, I. 1999. The archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodder, I. 2000. Towards a reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Holbrook, N. 2015. Reflections from the head of a commercial fieldwork organisation, in Everill, P. & Irving, P. (ed.) Rescue archaeology: foundations for the future: 7477. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.
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: 8194. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.
HS2 Ltd. 2017. Historic environment research and delivery strategy: phase one. Birmingham: High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd.
Isaac, G.L.L. 1971. Whither archaeology? Antiquity 45: 123–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00069283
Landward Research Ltd. 2019. State of the archaeological market 2018. London: Landward Research Ltd.
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.
Lucas, G. 2001a. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203132258
Lucas, G. 2001b. Destruction and the rhetoric of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 31: 3546. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650119347
Millett, M. 2017. Roman Britain since Haverfield, in Millett, M., Revell, L. & Moore, A. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Roman Britain: 2242. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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/10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488
Neustupny, R. 1971. Whither archaeology? Antiquity 45: 3439. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00069027
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).
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): 722. London: LAMAS.
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.
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.ctt1vxm8r7.14
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.
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.
Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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: 2346. London: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-326445-9.50008-3
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: 3152. New York: Springer.
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: 175200. Hertford: RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust.
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: 83101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2018.1456718
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.
Westman, A. 1994. Archaeological recording manual. London: Museum of London.
Wills, J. 2018. The world after PPG16: 21st century challenges for archaeology. Reading: Historic England & CIfA.
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.
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: 4362. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yarrow, T. 2003. Artefactual persons: the relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36: 6573. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650307296
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.
Zorzin, N. 2016. New managerial strategies in British commercial archaeology, in Resco, P.A. (ed) Archaeology and neoliberalism: 297325. Madrid: JAS Arqueologia.

Keywords

Whither archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice

  • Sadie Watson (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed