Abstract
Archaeological projects are often complex, and the project team is often large, bringing challenges in terms of communication and the sharing of ideas and results. This chapter compares the experiences of specialists working in different parts of the historic environment sector in England (higher education institutions; small business enterprises, such as commercial archaeological units; government-sponsored bodies; and freelance specialists) and discusses how new media and digital recording systems can aid collaboration. It also examines how recent research on collaboration might help us to achieve better outcomes through new ways of working.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Harm as used in this context is ‘Change for the worse, here primarily referring to the effect of inappropriate interventions on the heritage values of a place’ (English Heritage 2008, 71).
- 2.
A heritage asset is ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’ (National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government 2012, Annex 2: Glossary).
- 3.
A healthy research dynamic is crucial for collaborative research. It comprises a number of elements, namely, trust, shared goals, communication, openness and relationships (Bell et al. 2014).
- 4.
The pursuit of an enterprise or series of enterprises (practice) and the attendant social relations (community) (Wenger 1998, 45).
- 5.
The assessment of an assemblage involves determining its potential to answer the research aims of a project and also its value beyond this. It is a specific project stage in archaeological projects (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014).
References
Aitchison, K., & Rocks-Macqueen, D. (2013). Archaeology labour market intelligence: Profiling the profession 2012-13. Landward Research Ltd. http://www.landward.eu/Archaeology%20Labour%20Market%20Intelligence%20Profiling%20the%20Profession%202012-13.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
Arbuckle, B. S., Kansa, S. W., Kansa, E., Orton, D., Çakırlar, C., Gourichon, L., Atici, L., Galik, A., Marciniak, A., Mulville, J., Buitenhuis, H., Carruthers, D., De Cupere, B., Demirergi, A., Frame, S., Helmer, D., Martin, L., Peters, J., Pöllath, N., Pawłowska, K., Russell, N., Twiss, K., Würtenberger, D., & Shennan, S. (2014). Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across neolithic turkey. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99845.
Bell, N., Strlič, M., Fouseki, K., Laurenson, P., Thompson, A. S., & Dillon, C. (2014). Mind the Gap project: Rigour and relevance in heritage science research. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/mind-the-gap.htm. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. (2014). Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials. http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfAS&GFinds_1.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.
Darvill, T., & Russell, B. (2002). Archaeology after PPG16: Archaeological investigations in England 1990-1999. Bournemouth School of Conservation Sciences Research Report 10: Bournemouth.
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National planning policy framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2015.
English Heritage. (2008). Conservation principles. http://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/. Accessed 29 Dec 2015.
European Commission. (2014). Background document to public consultation ‘science 2.0’: Science in transition. Directorates-General for Research and Innovation (Rtd) and Communications Networks, Content and Technology (Connect). http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/consultation_en.htm. Accessed 29th Dec 2015.
Evans, J., & O’Connor, T. (1999). Environmental archaeology: Principles and methods. Sutton: Stroud.
Fulford, M., & Holbrook, N. (2011). Assessing the contribution of commercial archaeology to the study of the Roman period in England, 1990-2004. The Antiquaries Journal, 91, 323–345.
Kansa, E. (2012). Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology, 44(4), 498–520.
Luff, R., & Rowley-Conwvy, P. (1994). The (Dis)integration of environmental archaeology. In R. Luff & P. Rowley-Conwy (Eds.), Whither environmental archaeology? Oxbow monograph 38 (pp. 1–3). Oxford: Oxbow.
Seddon, A. W. R., Mackay, A. W., Baker, A. G., et al. (2014). Looking forward through the past; identification of 50 priority research questions in palaeoecology. Journal of Ecology, 109, 256–267.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, G.V., Barnett, C., Carruthers, W., Pearson, L., Pelling, R., Smith, D.N. (2018). Changing Perspectives: Exploring Ways and Means of Collaborating in Environmental Archaeology. In: Pişkin, E., Marciniak, A., Bartkowiak, M. (eds) Environmental Archaeology. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75082-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75082-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75081-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75082-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)