Paul Everill

Pedagogy and Practice: The Provision and Assessment of Archaeological Fieldwork Training in UK Higher Education

With significant job losses across the UK heritage sector resulting from the recent economic crisis and subsequent austerity measures, and UK higher education on the brink of effective privatisation, the teaching of applied archaeological techniques and its relationship to graduate employability has never been more keenly scrutinised. In February and March 2011 the author collected data relating to the provision and assessment of fieldwork from all 44 UK higher education institutions (HEIs) then offering archaeology (or closely related) degree programmes. The results indicated that there were 4,718 undergraduate students (approximately 1,591 per year group) on those programmes, being taught by a total of 708.61 full-time equivalent academic and support staff. An average of 66.47 per cent of staff in each department were actively engaged in archaeological fieldwork. The results also demonstrated the diversity of approaches to assessed fieldwork training across the sector, with over a quarter reporting either no fixed policy, or no requirement. Of the rest, the greatest numbers required four or six weeks. Thirty-two per cent of HEIs reported that their fieldwork was mostly UK-based with some overseas projects, while 30 per cent predominantly worked in their home region. In terms of assessment, 41 per cent of respondents assessed their students in the field — giving either an overall mark or individual marks for each task — supported by assessed written work, predominantly in the form of site diaries.

Training and Teaching in the Historic Environment

On 19 June 2012, the University of Winchester’s Centre for Applied Archaeology and Heritage Management, in association with Dr Kenneth Aitchison under the aegis of Landward Research, hosted a one-day conference entitled ‘21st Century Archaeologists: Teaching, Training and Professional Development’. The conference was provoked by a need to examine the effectiveness of current archaeological training, and to consider recent developments and initiatives in this field. In 2008 the Archaeology Training Forum had expressed its concern at ‘an ongoing level of disconnect between the expectations of archaeological employers, employees, training providers and students of archaeology in terms of the objectives of training and its outcomes’.1 There was a general widespread feeling across the sector that there was no coherent overview of the differing schemes and approaches to training. This conference sought to investigate these ideas, and to interrogate differing approaches to pedagogy and andragogy.

The lost fortress of Onoguris? Newly discovered sixth-century AD fortifications at Khuntsistsikhe, western Georgia

The village of Khuntsi is located in the Martvili municipality of Samegrelo, western Georgia, on the west bank of the Tskhenistskali River, on the road that links Martvili, Khoni and Kutaisi. A few short sections of wall on Kukiti Hill (known locally as ‘Najikhu’, translating roughly from Mingrelian as ‘ruins (remains) of a castle’) indicate the presence of a fortress. Six years ago, the installation of a mobile phone mast and associated infrastructure without consultation with the appropriate archaeological agencies revealed and damaged archaeological structures. Animal bone and fragments of pottery were retrieved, and are currently stored in the school in Khuntsi. It was information from a local school teacher, Zoya Gadelia, that led the Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi to investigate the site in 2015.

Archaeological Working Conditions and Public Perception

This chapter discusses how the on-the-ground realities of archaeological fieldwork mesh with how the process and findings of archaeology are presented to the general public in print media such as Archaeology magazine. The authors discuss whether or not “field archaeology” is described accurately in the popular media, what they think the reading public thinks about archaeology and what, in their experience, makes a “good” archaeological story. In particular, Everill highlights that the gulf between the public perception and the reality of archaeology is never wider than when one considers the commercial, “contract” sector; in comparison, Young discusses the best ways to “sell” archaeology to the public. In discussion, both authors are struck by the apparent disconnect between the daily working life of an archaeologist and the public face of archaeology.

The Parkers of Heytesbury: Archaeological Pioneers

Abstract This paper uses original documentary evidence held in the archives of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society in Devizes to reassess the work of William Cunnington, FSA, carried out on behalf of Sir Richard Colt Hoare, and the contribution of his two principal excavators, Stephen and John Parker, of Heytesbury, in Wiltshire. Previously the Parkers have been regarded as little more than regular labourers on Cunnington’s pioneering excavations; the evidence now suggests that they (and in particular John) were, in fact, key to the success of Cunnington’s work. By the time of Cunnington’s death in 1810, John Parker was identifying new sites on the Wiltshire Downs and, on occasion, taking sole responsibility for excavating and interpreting them. After 1810 Hoare sponsored few further excavations and, though John was employed on at least one occasion, in 1814, the Parkers dropped back into obscurity and poverty without the regular employment, and perhaps protection, provided by Cunnington. Although John’s obituary in 1867 described him as Cunnington’s ‘principal pioneer’, no research has previously been undertaken that specifically considers the contribution of the Parkers in those early British excavations. This paper seeks to redress that oversight. Résumé Cette communication se sert des indices documentaires d’origine qui se trouvent dans les archives de la Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society [Association d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Naturelle du Wiltshire] à Devizes dans le but de réévaluer les travaux de William Cunnington, FSA, exécutés pour le compte de Richard Colt Hoare, et l’apport de ses deux fouilleurs principaux: Stephen et John Parker de Heytesbury, Wiltshire. Jusque là, on estimait que les Parkers n’étaient guère que des travailleurs ordinaires pour les fouilles novatrices de Cunnington; les indices suggèrent à présent qu’ils étaient en fait la clé du succès (en tout particulier John) des travaux de Cunnington. A l’époque de la mort de Cunnington en 1810, John Parker était en train d’identifier de nouveaux sites dans les Wiltshire Downs et assumait parfois la responsabilité entière des fouilles et de l’interprétation des découvertes. Après 1810, Richard Colt Hoare ne parraina que quelques autres fouilles et, bien que John ait été employé pour au moins l’une d’entre elles, en 1814, sans l’emploi continu, et peut-être sans la protection fournis par Cunnington, les Parkers retombèrent dans la pauvreté et dans l’obscurité. Bien que la notice nécrologique de John, en 1867, l’ait décrit comme le ‘découvreur principal’ de Cunnington, des recherches dans le but de prendre tout particulièrement en considération l’apport des Parkers à ces premières fouilles britanniques n’avaient pas été entreprises auparavant. Cette communication cherche à remédier à cette omission. Zusammenfassung Dieser Bericht stützt sich die Erschließung von orginalen Quellen aus den Archiven der Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society in Devizes um das Werk von William Cunnington, FSA, zu re-interpretieren, und den Beitrag, den die beiden Ausgrabungsleiter Stephen und John Parker, aus Heytesbury, in der Grafschaft Wiltshire geleistet haben, zu bewerten. Bisher wurden die Parkers als wenig mehr als reguläre Arbeiter bei Cunningtons bahnbrechenden Ausgrabungen angesehen; neueste Belege weisen jedoch darauf hin, daß sie (inbesondere John) jedoch der Schlüssel zum Erfolg von Cunningtons Werk waren. Als Cunnington im Jahr 1810 verstarb, entdeckte John Parker immer noch neue Ausgrabungsstätten in den Wiltshire Downs und war gelegentlich allein für deren Ausgrabung und Interpretation verantwortlich. Nach 1810 förderte Richard Colt Hoare nur noch wenige neue Ausgrabungen und obwohl John noch mindestens einmal im Jahr 1814 in einem Arbeitsverhältnis stand, verfielen die Parkers wieder in Obskurität und Armut, ohne reguläre Arbeit und ohne den Schutz, den Cunnington ihnen vielleicht gewährte. Obwohl John’s Nachruf im Jahr 1867 ihn als Cunningtons ‘Hauptpionier’ bezeichnete, wurden bisher noch keine Studien durchgeführt, die sich darauf beziehen, welche Rolle und Beitrag die Parkers in diesen frühen britischen Ausgrabungen geleistet haben. Diese Abhandlung soll diese Lücke füllen.