Review of The Archaeology of Post-Medieval Religion

European Journal of Archaeology, 2013

AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology, 2016

2013

This review offers a critical appraisal of key arguments advanced in the book "Making Archaeology Happen: Design versus Dogma" by Prof Martin Carver.

in An Integrated Approach for an Archaeological and Environmental Park in South-Eastern Turkey: Tilmen Höyük, Cham, Springer, pp. 11 – 42, 2020

At Tilmen Höyük we carried out an experience in Inclusive Archaeology, which describes an approach based on an integration of views, techniques and methods. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and hybridization become part of an anthropological perspective in which archaeology is seen as fully integrated within the broader frame of social sciences. Inclusive Archaeology is based on openness, towards local and regional communities (science does not live in isolation but has an impact on and needs feedback from those communities), towards the scientific community (dissemination of newly produced data is the core mission of scientists), towards the global community (digital technologies must be used to build new forms of integrated datasets which may be used freely through the web). The Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition at Tilmen Höyük tried this approach when several technologies were still in their infancy (digitally speaking) and can now offer after several years a rare follow-up of the results obtained at the time and managed since. Reporting after a dozen years since an experience in public archaeology allows at least two main advantages: a meditated assessment on the faults and gains of the thenselected approach and how it stood the test of time in terms of material durability and social interaction. The conclusions which I present here, and which are detailed by the authors of this volume, concern diverse scientific communities as well as decisionmakers and the public in general. One basic assumption stemming from my own experience-one which may certainly be challenged-is that field archaeologists must lead, or at least be strongly involved into the process of turning an archaeological excavation into a public area equipped for visitors: this must be so because, I believe, the ultimate vision is embedded in the very excavation strategy which at times must be changed to accommodate concerns stemming from the project of public archaeology (as I argued elsewhere, Marchetti 2008e), and which interweaves with conservation.

Routledge, 2013

This book is intended to change the way we understand archaeology, the way it works, and its recent history. Offered are seventeen conversations among some of its notable contemporary figures, edited and with a commentary. They reveal an understanding of archaeology that runs counter to most text book accounts, delving deeply into the questions that have come to fascinate archaeologists over the last forty years or so, those that concern major events in human history such as the origins of agriculture and the state, and questions about the way archaeologists go about their work. Many of the conversations highlight quite intensely held personal insight into what motivates us to pursue archaeology, what makes archaeologists tick; some may even be termed outrageous in the light they shed on the way archaeological institutions operate – excavation teams, professional associations, university departments. Something of an oral history, this is a finely focused study of a creative science, a collection of bold statements that reveal the human face of archaeology in our contemporary interest in the material remains of the past.

The relationship between archaeologists and architects dealing in cultural heritage is not always idyllic. It can be complex, tense and sometimes, even hostile with each discipline being characterized by seemingly incompatible principles and criteria. The issue is part of a wide and heated debate focusing on the preservation and enhancement of archaeological heritage, using this term both for ancient buildings and areas subjected to the excavation activities of archaeologists. The recent increase in conferences, study days and publications demonstrates the attention that professionals are paying to this problem 1 . There seems to be a desire to find the meeting point where profound reflection can occur with respect to the meaning of the work of archaeologists and architects regarding the protection, enhancement and communication of historical places. The Intensive Programme 'Archaeology's places and contemporary uses' appears strictly related to this topic. Students belonging to faculties of Architecture and Archaeology coming from Italy, Spain and The United Kingdom have been involved in the creation of temporary shelters for archaeological sites in the Triveneto region. During the first days they were arranged into mixed groups, awakening them to the many differences imposed by university education, culture, outlook and modus operandi which they were expected to overcome in order to fulfil project requirements to a certain degree of quality. Specific areas of X Regio Augustea were selected to highlight the different needs and priorities required by each different site. The groups had to analyse aspects such as the history of the area, its relationship with the environment, protection from natural and human elements and, last but not least, its improvement. The result was a tense dialogue with no-holds barred: tension, friction, ideas merging and clashing in a practical demonstration of the importance of collaboration among differing professionals. As the archaeologists' tutor for this edition as well as the previous one I pondered at length the potential impact that an experiment like this could have on the growth of young archaeologists and designers who wanted to practice in the field of archaeological heritage. It constituted an occasion for a strict analysis of ethical and social responsibilities, strengths and weaknesses that characterize both of the disciplines. It wasn't easy. Let's face it: we think in dissimilar ways and view problems from dissimilar perspectives. Not even languages are the same. An example which is more significant than it may at first appear is the use of the term 'ruins' commonly used by architects as opposed to 'archaeological evidence' preferred by archaeologists. Clearly synonyms, but even in this case the students seemed to want to distinguish the same notion into different streams of thought. For students of Architecture the term 'ruins', rather than evoke Houel, Goethe or Maupassant's romantic vision, it emphasized their decay. Ruins reach the present through a series of passages that have eroded its original form thus representing fragments of an intangible past but creating a new entity at the same time: a sort of Chimera. Although mysterious and fascinating, ruins for them remained unrelated to contemporary reality, frozen in their timeless dimension. Creating a link between the old and the new was often the young architects' conceptual premise. They gave fundamental value to the redevelopment of the ruins, resurrected only through the creative impulse of their work.

Antiquity, 2019

Current archaeological practice in the UK and elsewhere focuses on the collection of empirical data. While scholars have proposed theoretical advances in field techniques, very few of these methods have been adopted in commercial archaeology. A combination of increased time pressure on development projects and the conservatism of the sector contribute to challenging times for archaeological practice. Additional complexity is introduced by large-scale infrastructure projects unsuited to standardised field techniques. This article explores these issues, calling for a flexible, consultative approach to project design and implementation, to ensure the longevity of both archaeology and the archaeological profession.