7th March 2006, 05:37 PM
Invisible, I agree there are a whole new set of factors influencing the way archaeology is done related to commercial archaeology and that neutrality is impossible, but I don't think Bradley means that - he suggests that our basic techniques should be theory driven. I can only think of two ways in which 'theory' could influence field techniques, depending on what he (and others) mean by theory:
1) Someone come up with a new theory about the use of, say, SFBs in which it becomes vitally important to record the nature of the fills.
Depending on the level of detail they want, either a) its covered by our existing suite of techniques, or b) it isn't possible. As long as we (field archaeologists) know about this change in theory, we can make sure that we record in sufficient detail. I would suggest that such new theories, i.e., ones that can be directly examined on site, are few and far between and that usually we do change our techniques to deal with them (e.g., the careful, three dimensional recording of possible 'structured deposits' in prehistoric pits).
2) It becomes (again/still?) fashionable to discuss the way that features of archaeological sites would have structured individuals' response to these sites in antiquity (or some such).
In this case, the records we produce should be up to the task (plans showing position of features, and dating and phasing of said features) even if such issues are not tackled directly in the report. Short of recording our emotional response to each post hole, I'm not sure what else could be done! These kinds of shift in theory can't cause a change in fieldwork.
If he means the former kind of instance, then I think he is overstating the crisis (I'm not saying there is no problem - the issue of communication between the university and the trowel face is real)and anyway it doesn't call for a radical shift in technique, but if, as I suspect, he means the latter, then I am still in the dark.
1) Someone come up with a new theory about the use of, say, SFBs in which it becomes vitally important to record the nature of the fills.
Depending on the level of detail they want, either a) its covered by our existing suite of techniques, or b) it isn't possible. As long as we (field archaeologists) know about this change in theory, we can make sure that we record in sufficient detail. I would suggest that such new theories, i.e., ones that can be directly examined on site, are few and far between and that usually we do change our techniques to deal with them (e.g., the careful, three dimensional recording of possible 'structured deposits' in prehistoric pits).
2) It becomes (again/still?) fashionable to discuss the way that features of archaeological sites would have structured individuals' response to these sites in antiquity (or some such).
In this case, the records we produce should be up to the task (plans showing position of features, and dating and phasing of said features) even if such issues are not tackled directly in the report. Short of recording our emotional response to each post hole, I'm not sure what else could be done! These kinds of shift in theory can't cause a change in fieldwork.
If he means the former kind of instance, then I think he is overstating the crisis (I'm not saying there is no problem - the issue of communication between the university and the trowel face is real)and anyway it doesn't call for a radical shift in technique, but if, as I suspect, he means the latter, then I am still in the dark.