Bridging the Two Cultures – Commercial Archaeology and the Study of Prehistoric Britain

Abstract

This paper was given at a meeting of the Society held on 12 January 2006 and it discusses the relationship between academic research and developer-funded archaeology in Britain today, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. It considers the relationship between archaeological theory and practice and discusses the changing roles of academics, fieldworkers and managers. It argues that important issues need to be resolved, including the dissemination of information from recent archaeological fieldwork and the use of 'grey literature' in informing more ambitious interpretations of the past.For at least forty years it has seemed as though there are two distinct traditions in field archaeology: one devoted to academic research and the other to the documentation of antiquities threatened with destruction. Each is undertaken by different people, funded by different sponsors and their results are disseminated in different ways. The contrasts between them seem so pervasive that it is tempting to describe them as two cultures.It is worth considering who has undertaken the main field projects over the last century, for the institutional framework in which they are conducted has changed. For a long time fieldwork was undertaken by national organizations such as the Royal Commissions, by major museums, by universities and, especially in the early days, by skilled amateurs who contributed as much as anyone to the discipline. Although many projects were intended to display particular monuments to the public, the remaining work was generally undertaken as part of a programme of research. Its objectives were to produce a detailed and seemingly objective record of the surviving remains of the past and to put them in order. ä1 The result was the definition of a series of type-sites and the publication of a number of key stratigraphic sequences. More precise questions could also be asked by field archaeology, although these were often informed by historical sources. Here a key influence was the philosopher and Roman scholar Robin Collingwood. It was his insistence on clearly formulated questions and answers that so impressed his former student Christopher Hawkes and influenced Stuart Piggott and Mortimer Wheeler. ä2The situation started to change during the Second World War when state involvement in archaeology extended from field survey and work on the presentation of monuments to what later became known as rescue excavation. ä3 From this point onwards the professional staff of the various national bodies were supplemented by a number of freelances contracted to undertake and publish excavations. In time it led to a system by

Making the Dead Visible: Problems and Solutions for “Big” Picture Approaches to the Past, and Dealing with Large “Mortuary” Datasets

“…In contrast, there is currently no policy in place to enforce the dissemination of the so-called "grey literature" generated by commercial archaeological units which has, to some extent, been seen as inaccessible. As recent research by Bradley (2006; behaviour within Britain has been heavily influenced by the different administrative and professional practices of both university academics and commercial archaeological units across the country. Thus, data for "big picture" projects can be very challenging to access.…”

A Arqueologia e a lógica do capital: puxando o freio de emergência

“…As únicas ocasiões em que estes relatórios técnicos entram na discussão arqueológica ocorrem quando um acadêmico obtém financiamento para dar sentido e analisar os dados brutos registrados (cf. BRADLEY, 2006). Nas raras ocasiões em que se chega a esta síntese, os resultados são muito úteis e informativos, porém para que isto aconteça é necessário iniciativa e financiamento que venham de fora deste sistema empresarial.…”

Arqueologia Distópica: a implementação da lógica do capital na gestão do patrimônio

“…Estas estruturas diferenciaram-se das estruturas arqueológicas acadêmicas ou governamentais anteiores em seus meios (financiadas por empresas) e objetivos (resgate e/ou registro). Esta transformação em uma indústria com fins lucrativos foi criticada, mas só nos últimos anos, e depois de quase quarenta anos de arqueologia comercial temos a distância temporal necessária para começar a entender suas consequencias negativas (SHANKS & MCGUIRE, 1996;DARVILL et al, 2002;BERGMAN & DOERSHUK, 2003:95) e alguns de seus resultados construtivos (BRADLEY, 2006).…”