Assignment 1 Oxford Continued Education Archaeology in practise

I thought I’d post a recent assignment here.

This one was great to think about, limited to just 500 words (!), and used as a precursor to the second assignment. I was really thrilled to not have any feedback/criticisms on this, as this course for me was being used as a warm-up to my master’s degree, and I’m getting back into the swing of academic writing and thinking.

Should sites be chosen for excavation because they are being damaged or because they are well preserved; should small parts of several sites be excavated for comparison, or should money be spent on finding less well-understood archaeological sites?

Choosing excavation sites requires careful consideration of preservation, research value, and funding allocations. The debate is whether to prioritise endangered sites, well-preserved locations, or under-researched areas. Additionally, archaeologists must decide between in-depth single site excavations or comparative analysis across multiple locations, each raising ethical, methodological, and financial challenges.

Rescue excavation is often necessary when construction projects threaten heritage sites. However, these projects are often time sensitive and underfunded, compromising data quality. Everill (2009) argues that development-led archaeology prioritises commercial interests over scientific standards, while Lucas (2012) warns that rushed excavations produce incomplete records. Poorly conducted excavations risk losing valuable contextual information, making subsequent analysis difficult or even impossible (Banning et al., 2017). Additionally, limited time and funding sometimes mean only select portions of sites are investigated, leaving gaps in interpretation and understanding (Greene & Moore, 2010, p. 108). Stricter quality assurance measures and improved funding models are necessary to ensure that rescue excavations contribute meaningful, well-documented findings as discussed by Banning et al (2017)

Well-preserved sites provide optimal excavation conditions, including good stratigraphy, organic remains, and undisturbed contexts that enhance data reliability. Pompeii, preserved under volcanic ash, demonstrates how exceptional conditions allow for detailed reconstructions of past societies. However, excavation is inherently destructive, raising ethical concerns about excavation before technological advancements enable better analysis (Renfrew & Bahn, 2004, p. 547).

This preference for well-preserved sites can introduce bias, as funding often prioritises locations with clear research potential while lesser-known or poorly preserved sites remain unexplored, reinforcing a cycle where established sites dominate research agendas, limiting broader archaeological understanding (Roosevelt, 1999; Banning et al., 2017). Roosevelt (1999) highlights this with the discovery of lesser-known prehistoric Amazonian settlements, which reshaped perspectives on early societies.  Rodrigo Pérez Ortega (2023) discussed how LiDAR technology uncovered significant archaeological findings in the Amazon, suggesting many more sites remain undiscovered. A strategic funding model, integrating remote sensing and surveys, could ensure a fairer distribution of resources and encourage exploration of lesser known sites.

Comparative excavation offers a means of expanding understanding beyond a single site. Greene and Moore (2010, p. 105) argue that partial excavations may not always yield more information than full-site studies. However, sampling across multiple sites may reveal broader settlement patterns, providing insights single-site excavations cannot. Yet, fragmented excavations risk weakening contextual understanding and limiting analytical depth (Lucas, 2012). While comparative excavation is valuable, it must be balanced with in-depth investigations to ensure that the data collected is meaningful and not overly generalised.

Archaeological excavation requires a strategic balance; Rescue excavations must prevent loss while ensuring rigorous documentation, well-preserved sites offer valuable research opportunities but should only be excavated when necessary, comparative excavation enhances regional understanding but must be carefully managed to preserve contextual integrity, while under-researched sites deserve more attention with the progression of technological advances. Funding distribution should be reassessed to prevent biases that limit archaeological progress.

A more integrated approach that balances preservation, research priorities, and financial allocation is essential to ensuring that archaeological heritage is both protected and studied responsibly.

References

1.      Banning, E. B., Hawkins, A. L., Stewart, S. T., Hitchings, P., & Edwards, S. (2017). Quality Assurance in Archaeological Survey. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24.  Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9274-2 (accessed: 15 February 2025)

2.      Everill, P. (2009). The Invisible Diggers: A Study of British Commercial Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Available at https://cris.winchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/353060/443443_Everill_InvisibleDiggers2ndEd_original.pdf (accessed: 12 February 2025)

3.      Greene, K., & Moore, T. (2010). Archaeology: An Introduction (5th ed.). London: Routledge.

4.      Harding, D. W. (2012). Iron Age Hillforts in Britain and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5.      Lucas, G. (2012). Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6.      Ortega, R.P. (2023). Laser mapping reveals hidden structures in the Amazon, hints at thousands more. Science. Available at https://www.science.org/content/article/laser-mapping-reveals-hidden-structures-in-amazon-hints-thousands-more (accessed: 25 February 2025)

7.      Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (2004). Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice (4th ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.

8.      Roosevelt, A. C. (1999). The development of prehistoric complex societies: Amazonia, a tropical forest. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 9, 13–33. Available at  https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.1999.9.1.13 (accessed: 16 February 2025)