Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology

Andrews, Gill; Barrett, John C.; Lewis, John

doi:10.1017/s0003598x00059871

Cited by 71 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Originally known as Perry Oaks, the Heathrow Terminal 5 project became the largest archaeological fieldwork project that has ever taken place in the UK (Brown et al 2006). The Framework approach is underpinned by a philosophical and practical fieldwork methodology, developed by the project's academic consultants Gill Andrews and John Barrett, which prioritizes interpretation as part of the fieldwork process, rather than postfieldwork, and which aims to develop a historical narrative as part of the recording process (Andrews et al 2000). On-site recording on Framework sites gives primacy to the interpretative-how a context formed, how it relates to other contexts-over the descriptive, and the responsibility for making this interpretation lies with the person who is doing the digging.…”

Section: Preservation By Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grey Literature, Academic Engagement, and Preservation by Understanding

Aitchison

2010

Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

________________________________________________________________Archaeological practice in the UK produces considerable amounts of reportage that is never intended for formal publication. This grey literature forms a resource which has, historically, been poorly used by academic archaeologists, and problems of access have been blamed for this. This paper argues that this problem does not lie with accessing the resource, but has been of awareness, attitude, and understanding. Structures are now in place which can allow the comprehensive interpretation and reinterpretation of fieldwork results by any archaeologists who choose to do so. ________________________________________________________________Résumé: La pratique de l'archéologie au Royaume-Uni génère de nombreux reportages qui ne sont jamais destinés à la publication officielle. Cette littérature grise forme une source d'information qui, par le passé, a été mal utilisée par les archéologues universitaires, qui ont reproché des problèmes d'accès. Cette étude soutient que ce problème ne se situe pas au niveau de l'accès aux sources d'information, mais au niveau de la prise de conscience, de l'attitude et de la compréhension. Les structures sont désormais en place pour permettre une interprétation générale et une nouvelle interprétation des résultats des travaux sur le terrain par les archéologues qui choisissent de le faire. ________________________________________________________________Resumen: La práctica arqueoló gica en el Reino Unido produce gran cantidad de material informativo que nunca se destina a su publicació n formal. Esta literatura gris supone un recurso que, histó ricamente, ha sido desaprovechado por los arqueó logos académicos, de lo cual se ha responsabilizado a los problemas de acceso. En este trabajo se argumenta que el problema no reside en el acceso al recurso, sino más bien en la falta de concienciació n, actitud y compresió n. Ya existen estructuras que permiten la interpretació n y reinterpretació n exhaustiva de los resultados de campo por parte de cualquier arqueó logo que lo desee. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

show abstract

Section: Preservation By Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grey Literature, Academic Engagement, and Preservation by Understanding

Aitchison

2010

Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As part of their demystification of the archaeological enterprise, postprocessual archaeologists emphasized the nature of fieldwork as a highly interpretative practice. Tilley (1989), for example, described excavation as a form of theater, Hodder (1989) reflected on the nature of the field report, Shanks (1992) explored the erotic symbolism associated with excavation (see below), while Andres et al (2000) addressed the relationship between archaeological theory and excavation. Yet as Colin Richards (1995) has argued, although the nature of the archaeological record has come under much scrutiny, fieldwork methodology and the practice of excavation itself has received little analysis.…”

Section: The Significance Of Fieldwork In Archaeology's Disciplinary mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork and Its Gendered Associations

Moser

2007

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the disciplinary culture of archaeology, focusing in particular on the role of fieldwork in shaping the sense of identity for the profession. Based on the examination of the professionalisation of Australian archaeology, it is argued that there is a distinctive suite of attributes relating to the activity of fieldwork, which are central to the organizational culture of the discipline. These attributes can be seen to have a gendered dimension, revealing the extent to which archaeology is shaped by different gender regimes.Keywords Disciplinary culture . Archaeological fieldwork . GenderOf central relevance to feminist research in archaeology is an understanding of the gendered dimensions of our disciplinary culture. Yet, while advances have been made in delineating some of the equity issues in archaeology, there is still much to be done in terms of systematically investigating the professional or organizational culture in which we work. Understanding disciplinary culture, or the social context within which we practice archaeology and develop a shared professional identity, is essential for feminist archaeology as it has the potential to yield important insights into the development of ideas, research themes and methodologies in archaeology, and how these might be related to the social makeup of the community. In this paper I therefore explore the role that fieldwork plays in the disciplinary culture of archaeology, arguing that it is a key domain in which the gender regimes of our practice are established. More specifically, I outline what archaeologists have had to say about the disciplinary culture of their field, and discuss the insights into the nature, formation and dynamics of disciplinary culture that have been developed by scholars engaged in sociological and historical research in other disciplines-most notably the field sciences like geology whose culture not only parallels archaeology, but influences it. This discussion is then followed by an analysis of the gendered

show abstract

“…Stanford University T here have recently been a number of attempts to develop reflexive field methods in archaeology (eg Andrews et al 2000, Bender et al 1997, Chadwick 1998, Dowdall and Parrish 2003, Faulkner 2002, Fotiadis 1993, Gero 1996, Hodder 1999a, Lucas 2001, Politis 2001. It might be argued that this turn to the reflexive in archaeology is ironic.…”

Section: Ian Hoddermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I am concerned here with how these collaborative and integrative projects have an impact on field methods. The following points derive from several years of developing new methods at the excavation of the 9000 year old site of Çatalhöyük in central Turkey (Hodder 2000), and from the published accounts of the new methods being developed in Britain at Heathrow Terminal 5 by Framework Archaeology (Andrews et al 2000), and from other projects in the United States (eg Ludlow Collective 2001, Dowdall andParrish 2003).…”

Section: Towards Reflexivity In Field Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" Voice

Hodder¹

2003

anq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology

Cited by 71 publications

References 5 publications

Grey Literature, Academic Engagement, and Preservation by Understanding

Grey Literature, Academic Engagement, and Preservation by Understanding

On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork and Its Gendered Associations

Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About