Archaeological Practice in Great Britain

Schofield, John; Carman, John; Belford, Paul

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09453-3

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PPG1 General Policy and Principles 1992 and Section 26 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, draw attention to 'material considerations'; the latter states that there is 'a presumption in favour of development proposals which are in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise'. 23. Planning authorities should also ensure that they are fully informed about the nature and importance of the archaeological site and its setting.…”

Section: The 1990s: Planning and Archaeology Mergementioning

confidence: 99%

“….'. 17 The Institute's creation was a critical step for London archaeology. Sir Charles Peers, President of the Society of Antiquaries and Inspectorate of Monuments following General Pitt-Rivers, had said: British archaeology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 Following the Institute of Archaeology's 'Conference on the future of archaeology' was held in 1943 and the Congress of Archaeological Societies' response to the exposure of archaeological remains after the war, the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) was set up to 'promote archaeology and co-ordinate research programmes and policy'. 23 The CBA gave the Society of Antiquaries the role of planning post-war investigation, which set up the Roman London Excavation Committee (later changed to Council) supported by the Ministry of Works, which appointed W.F. Grimes as supervisor of excavations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Policy and Practice of London’s Historic Environment

Morel

2019

The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An original approach to understanding Londonone of the world's most prominent global citiesand its constant reform and modernisation of governance, planning and the historic environment through the first broad collection of social history. The past 40 to 50 years have seen successive governments attempt to resolve issues of governance, institutional structures and planning. The city, both in government and its institutions, is in a continuous state of fluxlike many other global citiesand struggles with shifting boundaries of power as it attempts to strategically govern a range of social, economic, political and environmental challenges. The following paper evidences significant events that have influenced the shaping of planning and archaeology in London, and the organisations and legislation relevant to the practice of London archaeology in a unique way, enriching the basic skeletal history of legal frameworks and changing institutions with historical narratives offered by London archaeologists from a series of 55 in-depth interviews conducted between 2012 and 2013.

show abstract

Section: The 1990s: Planning and Archaeology Mergementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Policy and Practice of London’s Historic Environment

Morel

2019

The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various local solutions emerged from arrangements that had previously relied on volunteers coordinated by museums, university departments and ad hoc excavation committees. Although these rescue units were grant-aided by central government, they remained independent organisations, often structured as charitable trusts committed to community benefit (Thomas 2007;Schofield et al 2011). Several district and county authorities appointed archaeologists to support the rescue programme.…”

Section: A Brief History Of Commercial Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This publication was made possible by funding from Jisc as part of the 'Institution as e-textbook publisher' project: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/institution-as-e-textbook-publisher.This book is dedicated to Tim Schadla-Hall who has led the teaching and study of public archaeology at UCL for two decades, and inspired and supported a generation of public archaeologists. vii AcknowledgementsThis book has been a long time in the making, and I must first express my thanks to everybody involved for their formidable patience. The collection of papers originates in the MA Public Archaeology at UCL, devised and taught over many years by Tim Schadla-Hall and others. Most of the contributors to this volume have taught on the MA course and several are graduates, while others carried out doctoral research within what is becoming known as the 'London school' of public archaeology. This is the appropriate place to acknowledge the leadership and vision of the late Peter Ucko, whose understanding of archaeology as a politically engaged practice entangled in everyday life gave rise to the teaching programme in public archaeology at UCL Institute of Archaeology at both undergraduate and graduate level, as well as the creation of the journal Public Archaeology, still hosted in that department. The Ucko tradition of public archaeology as both scholarship and practice has been maintained over the last two decades by Tim SchadlaHall, Neal Ascherson, Nick Merriman, Ulrike Sommer, Andrew Reid and many others in the Institute of Archaeology, and continues to this day. The publication of this volume has been guided with great patience and vision by Lara Speicher of UCL Press and her colleagues and I am grateful for their faith in the project. Public archaeology is founded upon the belief in breaking down divisions between professionals or academics and the wider world: UCL Press' commitment to Open Access publishing is a beacon in this broader campaign to share knowledge freely beyond the pay-walls and prohibitive prices of traditional elite academic publishing. Finally, my thanks to Maria Phelan and my family who have endured my moaning about this book for too long.

show abstract

“…A common, often implicit, convention is to use Gordon et al 2016;Joyce 2008;Schofield et al 2011). In some cases, definitions have limited archaeological practice to refer to field practices (e.g.…”

Section: Archaeological Perspectives On Practice and Knowledge Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation

Huvila

Huggett

2018

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defining what constitute archaeological practices is a prerequisite for understanding where and how archaeological and archaeologically relevant information and knowledge are made, what counts as archaeological information, and where the limits are situated. The aim of this position paper, developed as a part of the COST action Archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment (www.arkwork.eu), is to highlight the need for at least a relative consensus on the extents of archaeological practices in order to be able to understand and develop archaeological practices and knowledge work in the contemporary digital context. The text discusses approaches to study archaeological practices and knowledge work including Nicolini's notions of zooming in and zooming out, and proposes that a distinction between archaeological and archaeology-related practices could provide a way to negotiate the 'archaeologicality' of diverse practices.

show abstract

Archaeological Practice in Great Britain

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Policy and Practice of London’s Historic Environment

Policy and Practice of London’s Historic Environment

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About