Often Fun, Usually Messy: Fieldwork, Recording and Higher Orders of Things (original) (raw)
"This paper has had a long gestation which began in 1997 as an article Chris Cumberpatch and I (Cumberpatch and Thorpe 1997) began to put together where we questioned the focus of the debate, played out in the pages of Antiquity, between Fekri Hassan and Ian Hodder (Hassan 1997; Hodder 1997, 1998). Later, in 2004, I was fortunate enough to be asked to contribute an overview paper to the proceedings of the Stratigraphy Conference held at York in 2001. Unfortunately the first paper was never completely finished and the publication of the Stratigraphy Conference proceedings has been cancelled. This chapter then draws together aspects of both papers, as the debate is still one with relevance today and includes an expansion of my thinking (up to June 2010) on other areas addressed by my original paper given in the Reconsidering the on-site relationship between subject, object, theory and practice session of the Theoretical Archaeology Group conference in at York in 2007. In the following paper I agree with Shanks and McGuire (1996), Berggren and Hodder (2003) and Chadwick (2003) that for the actual excavator and specialist much current practice is characterised by alienation from the process of interpretation. Where I disagree is with the attribution of the causes of this alienation. In my view the causes do not lie in a tradition of pseudo-objectivity within British Archaeology, nor are they to be found in revisionist and partial readings of the history of the development of approaches to archaeological fieldwork in Britain. Alienation from the process of interpretation is not a consequence of processual field methodology, nor the specific absence of a post-processual field method. Instead, I argue that the current state of archaeological field practice in Britain is due almost entirely to the social, political and economic context of the production of archaeological data. I conclude that any attempt to (re)empower the interpretive arm of the excavator must actively engage with and address, first and foremost, these circumstances "
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
O ver the last 25 years, research in British prehistory and in archaeology more broadly has clearly undergone a number of significant changes. It is not difficult to point to major shifts in the ways that we understand, approach, generate and record our data, or to important organizational, social and political upheavals. The number of people working in archaeology has increased hugely over this period, as have the roles that people play, and the relationships they build in producing archaeological knowledge. In the light of these substantial developments, it is perhaps surprising that few (if any) attempts have been made to produce an integrated narrative of this very important period in archaeology's history. Authoritative accounts have been presented of many of the theoretical, technological, organizational and methodological changes which have characterized the era (e.g. . However, these are typically produced in separate publications, with little endeavour being made to seek the interconnections between different aspects of these developments. Moreover, there has 80 Engaging with Change: Recent Transformations in British Prehistoric Research Practices A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w f r o m C a m b r i d g e 2 3 . 1 : 7 9 -9 6
Theory and Practice in Archaeology- Ian Hodder
This book aims to show through a series of examples that an interpretive archaeology dealing with past meanings can be applied in practice to archaeological data, and that it can also contribute effectively to social practice in the world of today.
Whither Archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice.
Antiquity, 2019
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.
Home Thoughts from Abroad: Some Observations on Contract Archaeology in England
Northeast Historical Archaeology, 1995
This paper was written following a recent visit by the author t~ the United States and Ctinad~. It aims to provide a view of contemporary archaeological practice in England for,North American .readers and to draw comparisons between the working environment of field archaeologists on either side ofthe Atlantic. Reference is made to the relatively recent growth of commercial archaeology in England and to tensions that have .emerged as a consequence of the restructuring of the profession. It is argued that despite a substantial increase in the level of funding available from the private sector there •has been little corresponding advance in research methods or output. As a result, archaeological theory and field practice have drifted ever farther apart. Attention is drawn to the dissatisfaction of a growing mimber of senior archaeologists who have chosen to question the orthodoxy of English• "Archaeological Resource Management" (ARM), suggesting that current legislation and an over-reliance upon developer~led contracting threaten the {ntegrlty of the •subject as a research discipline. • • • Ce texte a ete ecrit apres une recente visite de /'auteur aux Etats-Unis.et au Canada. II vise ii pres~nier au lecteur nord-americain un aperru de Ia pratique archeologique contemporaine anglaise et ii faire une comparaison de /'environment dans lequel travaillent les archeologues de terrain des deux cotes de /'Atlantique. II est fait mention du developpement relativement recent de l'archeologie •commerciale en Angleterre ainsi que des tensions qui: suscite Ia reorganisation de Ia profession. II est dit que, malgre Ia forte augmentation des fonds disponsibles aupres du seCteur prive, il n'y a guere eu d'avance correspondante. de methodes de recherches ou derendement. Aussi Ia theorie archeologique et Ia pratique sur le terrain ne cessent-elles de s'ecarter l'une de /'autre. L'auteur appelle /'attention sur le mecontentement d'un nombre grandissant d'archeologues de longue experience qui mettent en doute l'orthodoxie de /'English Archaeological Resource Management (ARM), ce qui porte ii penser que Ia legislation actuelle et Ie recours excessif ii l'archeologie ii contrat mettent en danger l'integrite.de l'archeologie en tant que discipline de recherche.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.