Historical Archaeology and the British

Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 2010

professional divide. It was the keen amateur archaeologists who were the source of inspiration for many who became involved in the discipline in the 1920s and 1930s, as a number of Smith's interviewees confirm. Warwick Bray argues that it took until the early 1960s before the demand for paid employment in archaeology started to disappear along with the need for a private income (Smith 2009: 114). Perhaps that is when the professionalisation process became really entrenched, which fits in nicely with the date of Piggott's 1963 address. Whilst the importance of Cambridge in the interwar years may be exaggerated in Smith's account, her work is undoubtedly groundbreaking. As a result of some determined sleuthing she has uncovered a goldmine of new material-not only from her innovative oral interviews, which are an extraordinarily valuable primary source for historians of archaeology, but also in respect of many of the documentary sources she has uncovered. Particular mention should be made of the tracking down of the Garrod papers in France, plus the Tom Lethbridge material, and what would appear to be important unpublished memoirs and papers in relation to Thurstan Shaw, C. W. Phillips and Miles Burkitt. One of the great strengths of the study is its ability to switch focus from the 'big beasts' like Grahame Clark and Dorothy Garrod, and to examine some of the supporting players. It would have been good to hear even more about the previously unsung Palestinian excavator Yusra (Smith 2009: 85), which addresses both sexual and racial biases in much archaeological writing. Similarly, the biographical portraits of Maureen O'Reilly and Charles Denston make a refreshing change in their insistence on the importance of two individuals who were significant in the development of archaeology at Cambridge, but who would both normally have been written out of the script due to their less elevated roles (Smith 2009: 65-68).

2008

During the last decades, the strong development of the historiography of archaeology has drawn on post-processual approaches and postmodern attitudes, which have favoured the questioning of the involvement of our discipline in the legitimization of the main ideological, political, nationalist, and colonial trends of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In our view, historians of archaeology should now concentrate their attention on other forms of involvement, more strictly economic and technical. It has indeed been observed that since the creation of modern states, archaeologists have often managed to gain the interest of non-archaeological organs or institutions in order to establish flourishing alliances and to reinforce their own scientific practices – especially in the context of economical and structural upheavals. Relying on the conceptual tools of Science Studies, the analysis of such 'innovative alliances', a promising field of inquiry for the historiography of archaeology's past, offers the opportunity for a better articulation between the history of archaeological ideas and the epistemology of the discipline on the one hand, and the history of archaeological techniques and practices on the other hand. It should also contribute to the development of diachronic perspectives throughout the history of archaeology, from the beginning of modern times up to the immediate past and the present challenges of our discipline. Fundamentally, the critical historiography of archaeological 'lobbying' should eventually contribute to a reflexive approach to sensitive ethical questions such as the current problems of the financing of archaeological research. Résumé L'essor de l'histoire de l'archéologie au fil de ces dernières décennies a tiré avantage des approches post-processuelles et des attitudes postmodernes, qui ont favorisé la mise en question du rôle de notre discipline dans la légitimation des principaux courants politiques, idéologiques, nationalistes et coloniaux des 19e et 20e siècles.

Historical Archaeology

Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 30(1): 6, pp. 1–12, 2020

Archaeology has been an “international” discipline since it emerged as a separate field of intellectual endeavor by the mid-eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century and into the twentieth it gradually became more institutional, as museums increasingly sponsored detailed work and universities began to teach archaeology. However, for its entire existence, the flow of “archaeological capital” has been unidirectional, from “North” to “South”, and archaeology has sometimes served as a cover for less respectable activities. Additionally, during the twentieth century, archaeology, as practiced in major industrial nations and in developing regions, diverged, both in intent and in execution. Furthermore, the practice of archaeology in the Old World and the New World, and in developed and developing nations, has grown in different ways, with foreign actors being at various times eagerly solicited, welcomed, tolerated, denied entry, or expelled. This paper examines these processes, and suggests possible reasons for why archaeology as a discipline has evolved as it has in different parts of the world during the past decades.

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.

1984

Antiquity

2017 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of both the Society for Historical Archaeology, in North America, and the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology, in the UK. Each society celebrated this milestone by publishing a collection of forward-looking essays in their respective journals (see Brooks 2016; Matthews 2016). Although each group of practitioners has followed what might be best described as parallel, but not convergent, intellectual tracks, what they have shared is a common focus on the period of European expansion and colonialism starting in the late fifteenth century. Since that time, the two fields have grown much closer, while the larger intellectual project that is historical archaeology has seen its popularity grow across the globe. In many respects, these three volumes, while different, nevertheless provide a rich collection of chapters that reveal both the widening and deepening of the field.

Current Swedish archaeology, 1993