The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

• 8 • Ian Ralston and John Hunter
The restructuring of field archaeology to counter the increasing erosion of the archaeological
record occurred differently in the constituent parts of the country; its development was ad hoc
and inconsistent, and archaeologists today are still burdened by its legacy. Some parts of Britain
received greater archaeological attention and resources than others, based on local demands at
the time, not on a rational analysis of longer term need. Only Wales developed a coherent, fullynationwide
system, whilst funding (tied to present day population sizes rather than to archaeological
resources or the scale of the threats to them) was most generous in England (see Chapter 17).
This biasing is inevitably reflected in the work carried out and in the distribution of data recovered.
The uneveness of the record emerges too in the chapters that follow; but it afflicts some periods
more than others and is also a measure of the frameworks within which research has taken place
as much as regional disparity of resources. For example, at chronological extremes, studies of
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers have for long drawn on evidence from across Britain, whereas
innovation and change in the Industrial Revolution is characterized as much in south Wales and
west-central Scotland as in some parts of England. Contrastingly, the existence of a first-millennium
AD Anglo-Saxon zone of Germanic influence in central and eastern England, and broadly Celtic
influences in contemporary northern and western zones of Britain, have contributed to traditions
of relatively independent archaeological study. In some areas, too, the study of some periods is
only now generating overviews: the first-ever synthesis of medieval Scotland from an archaeological
perspective (Yeoman 1995) appeared only while the present work was in preparation.
The period since 1980 has also seen substantial alterations in the way in which the practice of
field archaeology is structured; and many current archaeologists face new kinds of problems, not
always of an ‘academic’ kind, in examining the record (Hunter and Ralston 1993; Chapter 17
here). Some have railed against these changes, seeing the outcome as one in which British
archaeology ‘finds itself in a curious position of self-doubt and indecision’ (Biddle 1994, 16).
Changes have included a significant trend away from large-scale excavation in favour of small
field evaluation exercises, designed in part to test for archaeological remains with a view to
protecting them in situ rather than excavating them. The driving force has been the enactment of
European Union directives in British regulations, and the publication of new advice on archaeology
in relation to planning matters by central government. Archaeological remains in Britain are now
considered as a finite, non-renewable resource for protection for future elucidation by active
management rather than benign neglect, and for use for public enjoyment and education. In
many ways they have become less of an exploitable raw material for the nourishment of
archaeological research.
DISSEMINATING THE RECORD
The diverse development of British archaeology has undoubtedly benefited from the publication
of overviews, and several of the following chapters make reference to key texts that have served
as markers of particular approaches or as ‘snapshots in time’. Several of these are either major
period-based syntheses, or studies of longer timespans (e.g. Renfrew 1974; Megaw and Simpson
1979; Bradley 1984; Longworth and Cherry 1986; Darvill 1987). These, and others written for
more specialist readerships (e.g. Vyner 1994), have enabled archaeologists both to take stock and
to formulate new hypotheses, and allow students to assimilate information and perspectives that
are normally diffused through a wide range of publication outlets. This is a continuing process,
and recent years have seen in particular important series of introductory accounts, either periodbased
or framed round major sites, emerging from English Heritage and Historic Scotland (e.g.
Bewley 1994; Ashmore 1996), some of which are noted in the following chapters.