Abstract

No abstract

The process of archaeological excavation is one of destruction. It normally provides archaeologists with a singular opportunity to recognise, define, extract and record archaeological evidence: the artefacts, features and deposits present in the archaeological record. It is expected that when archaeologists are excavating in a research, commercial or forensic setting the methods that they utilise will ensure a high rate of evidence recognition and recovery. Methods need to be accepted amongst the archaeological and scientific community they are serving and be deemed reliable. For example, in forensic contexts, methods need to conform to scientific and legal criteria so that the evidence retrieved is admissible in a court of law. Two standard methods of grave excavation were examined in this study with the aim of identifying the better approach in terms of evidence recovery. Four archaeologists with a range of experience each excavated two similarly constructed experimental 'single graves' using two different excavation methods. Those tested were the arbitrary level excavation method and the stratigraphic excavation method. The results from the excavations were used to compare recovery rates for varying forms of evidence placed within the graves. The stratigraphic excavation method resulted in higher rates of recovery for all evidence types, with an average of 71% of evidence being recovered, whereas the arbitrary level excavation method recovered an average of 56%. Neither method recovered all of the evidence. These findings raise questions about the reliability and so suitability of these established approaches to excavation.

This article examines the development, impact and integration of interdisciplinary approaches in British Higher Education Institutions. It evaluates how the concept of interdisciplinarity has become popularised over time and embraced by disciplines such as archaeology. It then explores the extent to which interdisciplinary approaches have impacted research agendas, first, by evaluating the interdisciplinary research calls from 2019 for seven UK-based research councils and then, at a discipline level, using archaeology as an exemplar. Overall, interdisciplinary research calls only accounted for, at best, 11.9% of a council’s budget. Interrogation of the funding requirements of four of the largest archaeological-research funders demonstrated that successful archaeology-themed grant applications are reliant on interdisciplinarity. The influence of interdisciplinarity on British University’s research and education agendas was examined through analysing the strategic plans of eight universities, followed by an analysis of the availability and potential benefits of interdisciplinary undergraduate and research programmes. This indicated that interdisciplinary approaches are interwoven into university’s research aspirations but displayed variation in relation to their educational goals, with only 20% of institutions offering specific interdisciplinary degree programmes. Despite this, the skillset and research outputs produced as a result of interdisciplinary collaboration were found to be highly valued, thereby suggesting that interdisciplinarity will increasingly feature in the research and education strategies of British universities.

No abstract