Here
are the same eight questions from exercise 8.4. They come from an interview with
a British archaeologist. Now
you have the answers to the questions - but there are two answers below for each
question. Click on the one you think is the real answer to the question.
The other one is written in correct English, but just doesn't answer the
question.
What range of activities does archaeology encompass?
It's
rather difficult to say, but from personal experience, I would say that
our field encompasses people from all walks of life. It is by no means
limited to white collar professionals! Some of the best people I've worked
with have developed their skills as building labourers, in fact.
Most people are unaware of the incredible
diversity of archaeological work. Most people seem to think it's limited
to digging up prehistoric remains, but in fact much of our work is done on
much more recent artefacts, using many tools and techniques to analyse
both material and environmental data.
How do you analyse objects
excavated from archaeological sites?
That very much depends on what kinds of objects they are, but all objects are measured and photographed and then placed on a database which can be accessed by the international research community.
Sometimes,
it's as much a case of luck as judgement, to be perfectly frank. Of
course, we use tools to survey the ground and we take great care not to
disturb anything until this has been completed. However, it's still the
case that some of the most important objects continue to be found by
chance.
How accurately can you date objects found in archaeological digs?
This can depend on the age and type of object, but advances are happening all the time, allowing us to be increasingly precise in our estimates.
Carbon-dating
is almost always used for very old or particularly significant remains.
Costs do quickly build up, however, with the use of this technology, which
still requires the use of specialist laboratories.
Does the archaeological evidence allow us to form a coherent view of everyday a thousand years ago?
Yes,
I'm afraid that is very much the case. Arguments over the interpretation
and significance of individual artefacts or even of whole sites have
certainly not gone away. If anything, I would say that the field has
become more contentious over the last few decades.
The details of this picture are still emerging, but we are beginning to form a clearer picture of village life at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period. My own work aims to bring together the vast amount of evidence already obtained and my new book, I hope, will provide the kind of ‘birds-eye view’ you are referring to.
What proportion of important British sites still remain to be excavated?
This
really depends on the co-operation of property owners, since excavation
can be a time-consuming and rather expensive process. However, we have
been mostly satisfied with the positive attitude from government
departments as well as private developers.
It’s really impossible to say. Sometimes I feel that everything worth finding has already been
found, only to read about an incredible new discovery the very next day!
How would you
categorise your own research?
Generally,
I start the process with a funding application and if that is successful,
I put together a team of relevant specialists and volunteers and draw up a
schedule. Of course, there's never enough time to do the job properly, but
we do what we can within the constraints of our time, budget and manpower.
I’ve moved increasingly away from direct research, digging up remains etc – unfortunately – and now I spend a lot of my time re-analysing published data using statistical procedures to establish patterns of probability.
So I tend to be perceived as a quantitative researcher, though I do feel
that's unfairly limiting.
What have been the most significant
developments in archaeology during your career?
What
I
would single out are the political moves making what is known as Cultural Resource Management a standard part of the planning process. Despite some criticisms, I believe that many
important sites have been made available to archaeologists, particularly in the cities.
I
would say that the slight increase in numbers of archaeology students,
perhaps as a result of greater exposure in the media and on television,
will probably prove to be no more than a phase rather than an indication
of any important long-term development in the field.
Would you say that modern archaeology is too complex for amateurs?
Yes,
very much so. The improvements in technology, in particular, have tended
to make what were once expensive and complex pieces of equipment
significantly more user-friendly and accessible. Some people have even
spoken of a golden age of archaeology - perhaps it's a little too early to
be sure of that!
Not
at all. Traditionally, our field always depended heavily on interested non-professionals and that is still very much the case, although
some
of the analysis of evidence has become a rather technical field, it’s true.