John Carman

Archaeological Practice in Great Britain

In what case do you like reading so much? What about the type of the archaeological practice in great britain book? The needs to read? Well, everybody has their own reason why should read some books. Mostly, it will relate to their necessity to get knowledge from the book and want to read just to get entertainment. Novels, story book, and other entertaining books become so popular this day. Besides, the scientific books will also be the best reason to choose, especially for the students, teachers, doctors, businessman, and other professions who are fond of reading.

‘Herding Cats’: Building Archaeological Communities

ABSTRACT Periodically archaeologists turn their gaze inwards towards their own field, to consider it as a craft activity or as a community of interest in its own right. The phrase ‘archaeological community’ is one widely used but rarely defined, and there is always a tendency towards the division of archaeology into a variety of distinct specialisms: yet one of the major aspects of academic life is in the construction of communities of shared interests. Here I draw upon my own experiences of encouraging others to become involved in efforts to develop those areas of enquiry that interest me. This includes the construction of formal networks but also more ‘covert’ activities by inserting contributions into conferences and sometimes publications where they may not have been initially welcomed. It was awkward and slightly dangerous work, especially early in my career, and I am not sure it always achieved what I intended.

Walking the Line Between Past and Present: ‘Doing’ Phenomenology on Historic Battlefields

The purpose of the Bloody Meadows Project1 (Carman and Carman 2006a, b, 2007, 2009) is to investigate historic battlefields of all periods, and we choose to do so from a broadly ‘phenomenological’ perspective. Our aim is specifically not to recreate what the battlefield was like on the day of battle or the events of that day, but rather to explore the historicity of particular kinds of places through the experience of being there.

A Response to Responses to ‘“Herding Cats”: Building Archaeological Communities’

I am very grateful to the four respondees for their interesting and insightful comments on the original paper. I wrote the paper to encourage debate and reflection on our own contexts and it has clearly had this effect. I see no deep issues of philosophy that I feel need to be challenged in any of them and I think we all fundamentally agree on the key points. This is most evident in Anne Pyburn’s response, with which I disagree hardly at all, although I find the suggestion that I regard public archaeology as a separate field a bit confusing. The point about inserting such discussions into sessions on prehistoric archaeology was precisely to overcome others’ assumptions that this was the case. I do challenge her assertion that Conflict Archaeology serves to ‘normalize evil’. As Natasha Ferguson suggests but does not say, many of us in Conflict Archaeology work in the field precisely because we are pacifists and wish to de-naturalise violence (see, e.g. Carman and Carman, 2007). Perhaps we can draw a parallel with gender archaeologies here: the imposition of fixed gender roles is something archaeology is challenging by an overt consideration of alternatives; working on gender in archaeology does not normalize ascriptions of roles as ‘male’ or ‘female’ in the present, but indicates how such categories are always socially and contextually constructed, shifting and contingent. Our work on conflict in the past and the present seeks to do something similar. Don Henson’s suggestion that the kind of discussion (I hesitate to call it an ‘analysis’!) I offered about the internal workings of academic archaeology could be turned outwards, towards other kinds of archaeological community, is an interesting one and it would be enlightening to see such an effort. From this perspective, Kristian Kristiansen’s challenge that I need to consider the rise of interdisciplinary mixes of which archaeology is only a part is also interesting. This is partly in the light of an (albeit slightly tongue-in-cheek) effort to deny archaeology any authority in the heritage field (Waterton and Smith, 2010). I have no objection to interdisciplinary fields nor the idea of a ‘Critical Heritage Studies’—indeed I would claim that I have played my own part in helping the latter develop (see, e.g. Carman, 1996; 2002; Sørensen and Carman, 2009)—but I also have my own critical views on how the latter has developed (Carman, 2015). I am also sure that a close look at how the Critical Heritage Studies community has been created would reveal that it has followed the same processes of inclusion and exclusion that I described in my article. In fact the very way in which Kristiansen describes it indicates that the emerging discipline of Critical Heritage Studies is also seeking to establish its legitimacy and authority by creating a distinct identity. Natasha Ferguson’s very enlightening description of the postgraduate response to the Fields of Conflict ‘monopoly’ (if I can call it that) of Conflict Archaeology is one I find a little worrying. It suggests that what may emerge is precisely what kept discussions of public archaeology and heritage on the fringe of archaeology for so long: two parallel but unconnected sets of discourses. Although the one I described was of a division between research into the past and its role in the present, which are arguably separable, in Ferguson’s example it is of two discourses about exactly the same thing. Hers is a useful corrective to a view of Conflict Archaeology built upon only my own experience,

Introduction to Great Britain

Welcome to Britain. Let us begin with a story. Some friends from Canada on their first visit to Britain arrived exhausted at their destination. The long flight from Toronto had been fine: experienced travellers, they had even slept through large parts of it. What tired them out was not the flight, but the 2 h drive from the airport of arrival. In Canada, they were used to long rides through a landscape that changed little from one region to another, and which had little traffic; but in southern Britain over a short space they encountered urban space, open countryside, more urban space, forest, villages, more open countryside and more urban space, all repeated in quick succession. Their exhaustion was not helped by the overcrowded roads. It was as if they had travelled the equivalent of hundreds of miles while in fact travelling only a few. This is not an unusual effect upon new visitors to Britain. For a small island – a mere 800 miles (1,280 km) north to south and 400 (640 km) from east to west at maximum stretch – containing some 60 million people and so relatively crowded, it offers a wide diversity of landscape types and much more (apparently) uninhabited space than might be expected.

Legal and Administrative Frameworks

This quotation, from the former employer of one of the authors, sums up the need to be aware of two elements in any field where there is a measure of legal regulation: the legislation itself and what it prescribes or proscribes, and the sets of less formal practices and principles that also determine how things should be done. In Britain, since the introduction of ancient monuments legislation in 1882, two systems have operated in parallel, whether enshrined in formal documentation or otherwise: a system of designation of sites worthy of some form of protection under specific laws; and a system whereby archaeologists have gained access to sites for the purposes of investigation.

Acquiring Data During Excavation and Survey

In the previous chapter, we described some of the desk-based research methods that can precede fieldwork. We looked at mapping, archives and aerial photographs, and the ways in which these sources can be combined to respond to the desk-based assessment typically stipulated in a project ‘brief’. Here, we take it one step further. Of course, all of the methods associated with desk-based assessment can stand alone as a study in their own right, without any intention of following this up with fieldwork. But in the commercial sector, fieldwork is a typical next stage. Here, we not only look at excavation, but also some non-intrusive methods, such as surveying earthwork sites and buildings, and the various standards that any work in these areas should achieve.

Acquiring Data, Before Fieldwork

Having now reviewed the types of archaeological evidence that one finds in Britain, and the administrative and legal frameworks through which it is managed and curated, we now turn to address the procedures and practices that precede excavation projects. We then review the procedures of excavation itself in the next chapter, recognising that these procedures can be different from country to country. It is important to recognise also that the methods and techniques described here in the context of preparing for excavation can also stand alone as archaeological methods. It may be, for example, as is often the case, that historical or aerial photographic survey is required or desired as an end in itself, and not merely in preparation for an excavation. Excavation may be the technique most commonly associated with archaeological practice, but it is not the be all and end all. Excavation is a particular method for retrieving and understanding archaeological evidence, alongside numerous other methods, some of which we outline here.

Opportunities, Funding and Keeping Safe

Having now followed the various processes involving archaeologists and heritage practitioners in Britain, from the desk-based assessment to post-excavation analysis and publication, this chapter outlines some of the opportunities that exist for working in the heritage sector in Britain. The chapter is as complete and comprehensive as space allows, and covers most types of opportunity, whether one is seeking full-time employment, part-time, seasonal or voluntary work, or exploring possibilities for further education. It will examine, first, what opportunities exist where and how to find out about them; second, how to obtain funding for research, and finally the conditions of employment, health and safety and other practical considerations. Inevitably this overview cannot be comprehensive as the numbers and types of vacancies will vary according to political and economic circumstances. We also indicate websites and publications where more information is available.

Achieving Results: Analysis, Application, Publication and Dissemination

Fieldwork is only part of a programme of archaeological research. For many archaeologists, it is the most interesting bit, but just as important (and for some just as much, if not more fun) are the ‘post-excavation’ stages – sorting out what you have found and making sense of it, and then telling your story to the rest of the world.