Advertisement

Contract Archaeology

  • Isto Huvila
  • Lisa Börjesson
Chapter

Abstract

The rapid expansion of contract archaeology as the primary sector of archaeological knowledge-making in many developed countries make it an illustrative example of which effects the organization and re-organization of a particular knowledge-producing sector affects the conditions for how knowledge can be made. The proliferation of contracted extra-mural work in different countries has shown the importance of adequate guidelines and careful consideration of how and what to regulate to reach desirable outcomes. In addition, contract archaeology provides insights into the difficulties of keeping together extra- and intra-mural knowledge-making enterprises even when they share the same outspoken objectives.

Keywords

Contract archaeology Archaeology Cultural heritage Fieldwork Quality Conditions Information sources 

References

  1. Aitchison, K. (2009). After the ‘gold rush’: Global archaeology in 2009. World Archaeology, 41(4), 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitchison, K. (2015). Professional archaeology in the UK in 2015. Cultural Trends, 24(1), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitchison, K., Alphas, E., Ameels, V., Bentz, M., Bors, C., Cella, E., et al. (2014). Discovering the archaeologists of Europe 2012–14: Transnational report. York: York Archaeological Trust.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, C., Lagerlöf, A., & Skyllberg, E. (2010). Assessing and measuring: On quality in development-led archaeology (with comments and reply). Current Swedish Archaeology, 18, 11–28.Google Scholar
  5. Berggren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421–434.Google Scholar
  6. Bibby, D. (2013). Die arbeitsgruppe archaeological archives des europae archaeologiae consilium und das culture 2007–2013 project arches. eine kurze vorstellung. In S. Winghart (Ed.), Archäologie und Informationssysteme (pp. 115–117). Hameln: Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege.Google Scholar
  7. Börjesson, L. (2015). Grey literature—Grey sources? Nuancing the view on professional documentation: The case of Swedish archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1158–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Börjesson, L. (2016). Research outside academia? An analysis of resources in extra-academic report writing. In Proceedings of the 2016 ASIS&T Annual Meeting, Copenhagen (pp. 1–10). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301036.
  9. Börjesson, L. (2017). Resources for scholarly documentation in professional service organizations. Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  10. Börjesson, L., Dell’Unto, N., Huvila, I., Larsson, C., Löwenborg, D., Petersson, B., et al. (2016). A neo-documentalist lens for exploring the premises of disciplinary knowledge making. Proceedings from the Document Academy, 3(1), Article 5. http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/docam/vol3/iss1/5.
  11. Börjesson, L., Petersson, B., & Huvila, I. (2015). Information policy for (digital) information in archaeology: Current state and suggestions for development. Internet Archaeology, 40. Google Scholar
  12. Bradley, R. (2003). Seeing things: Perception, experience and the constraints of excavation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 3(2), 151–168.Google Scholar
  13. Carter, S. (2002). Contract archaeology in Scotland. Antiquity, 76(293), 869–873.Google Scholar
  14. Carver, M. (1999). Field archaeology. In G. Barker (Ed.), Companion encyclopedia of archaeology (pp. 128–181). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Cleere, H. (1989). Archaeological heritage management in the modern world (Vol. 9). London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  16. Cumberpatch, C., & Blinkhorn, P. (2001). Clients, contractors, curators and archaeology: Who owns the past? In M. Pluciennik (Ed.), The responsibilities of archaeologists: Archaeology and ethics (pp. 39–46). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
  17. Dallas, C., Chatzidiakou, N., Benardou, A., Bender, M., Berra, A., Clivaz, J., et al. (2017). European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities—Highlights report. Paris: DARIAH. Google Scholar
  18. De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J., Crombé, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J., et al. (2012). Development-led archaeology in flanders: An overview of practices and results in the period 1990–2010. In Development-Led Archaeology in North-West Europe: Proceedings of a Round Table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009 (pp. 29–55).Google Scholar
  19. De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2016). Information flows as bases for archaeology-specific geodata infrastructures: An exploratory study in Flanders. JASIST, 67(8), 1928–1942.Google Scholar
  20. Degraeve, A. (2012). L’accessibilité de nos collections patrimoniales et l’Union européenne. In Documentation du patrimoine, vol. 2 of Thema & Collecta (pp. 36–41). Bruxelles: ICOMOS Wallonie-Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  21. Demoule, J.-P. (2007). Scientific quality, control and the general organization of French archaeology. In W. J. H. Willems & M. H. v. d. Dries (Eds.), Quality management in archaeology (pp. 135–147). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  22. Demoule, J.-P. (2012). Rescue archaeology: A European view. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Demoule, J.-P. (2016). Preventive archaeology: Scientific research or commercial activity? In P. Novaković, M. Horňák, M. P. Guermandi, H. Stäuble, P. Depaep, & J.-P. Demoule (Eds.), Recent Developments in Preventive Archaeology in Europe: Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016 (pp. 9–19). Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Everill, P. (2012). The invisible diggers: A study of British commercial archaeology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  25. Faniel, I., Kansa, E., Whitcher Kansa, S., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL’13 (pp. 295–304). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  26. Green, W., & Doershuk, J. F. (1998). Cultural resource management and American archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 6(2), 121–167.Google Scholar
  27. Groarke, L., & Warrick, G. (2006). Stewardship gone astray? Ethics and the SAA. In C. Scarre & G. Scarre (Eds.), The ethics of archaeology (pp. 163–177). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gustafsson, A., & Magnusson Staaf, B. (2001). Rapport om rapporter – en diskussion kring kvalitetsbedömningar av arkeologiska rapporter (Report 2001:3). Stockholm: RAÄ.Google Scholar
  29. Haggrén, G. (2014). Haloo muinaisjäännösrekisteri: kylät mukaan! [Hello sites and monuments record: include village sites!] SKAS, 1, 2.Google Scholar
  30. Harrison, R. (2011). Surface assemblages: Towards an archaeology in and of the present. Archaeological Dialogues, 18(2), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodder, I. (2000). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  32. Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work—A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. Diss., Åbo Akademi University, Åbo. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-765-337-9.
  33. Huvila, I. (2009a). Ecological framework of information interactions and information infrastructures. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 695–708.Google Scholar
  34. Huvila, I. (2009b). Steps towards a participatory digital library and data archive for archaeological information. In Proceedings of the 10th Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) 2009 Conference. Dubrovnik and Zadar, Croatia (pp. 149–159). Zadar: University of Zadar.Google Scholar
  35. Huvila, I. (2011). The politics of boundary objects: Hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. JASIST, 62(12), 2528–2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huvila, I. (2012). Being formal and flexible: Semantic wiki as an archaeological e-science infrastructure. In M. Zhou, I. Romanowska, Z. Wu, P. Xu, & P. Verhagen (Eds.), Revive the Past: Proceeding of the 39th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Beijing, 12–16 April 2011 (pp. 186–197). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. http://dare.uva.nl/aup/nl/record/412958.
  37. Huvila, I. (2014). Archaeologists and their information sources. In I. Huvila (Ed.), Perspectives to archaeological information in the digital society (pp. 25–54). Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  38. Huvila, I. (2016a). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huvila, I. (2016b). ‘If we just knew who should do it’, or the social organization of the archiving of archaeology in Sweden. Information Research, 21(2), Paper 713. http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/paper713.html.
  40. Huvila, I. (2017). Land developers and archaeological information. Open Information Science, 1(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ireland, T., & Schofield, J. (Eds.). (2016). The ethics of cultural heritage. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Jensen, O. W. (Ed.). (2012). Histories of archaeological practices: Reflections on methods, strategies and social organisation in past fieldwork. Stockholm: National Historical Museum.Google Scholar
  43. Kinahan, J. (2013). Heat and dust: Some reflections on contract archaeology in southern Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 68(197), 1–2.Google Scholar
  44. Kristiansen, K. (2009). Contract archaeology in Europe: An experiment in diversity. World Archaeology, 41(4), 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kritz, A. (2010). Kriterier för bedömning av kvalitet i uppdragsarkeologin (Report). Stockholm: RAÄ.Google Scholar
  46. Kulturminneslagen [Swedish Cultural Heritage Act] 1988:950.Google Scholar
  47. Lucas, G. (2001). Critical approaches to fieldwork contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Luoto, K. (2015). Vastine Muinaistutkijan (3/2015) pääkirjoitukseen “Firmat, kilpailu ja arkeologia” [Reply to the Editorial of Muinaistutkija (3/2015) “Firms, competition and archaeology”]. Muinaistutkija, 4, 54–55.Google Scholar
  49. Museiverket. (2016). Kvalitetsanvisningarna för de arkeologiska fältarbetena i Finland [Quality guidelines for archaeological fieldwork in Finland]. Helsingfors.Google Scholar
  50. Ndlovu, N. (2014). Contract archaeology in South Africa: Some ethical concerns. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 49(2), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Novaković, P., Horňák, M., Guermandi, M. P., Stäuble, H., Depaep, P., & Demoule, J.-P. (Eds.). (2016). Recent Developments in Preventive Archaeology in Europe: Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Oikarinen, T., & Kortelainen, T. (2013). Challenges of diversity, consistency, and globality in indexing of local archeological artifacts. Knowledge Organization, 40(2), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olsen, B. (2012). Archaeology the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olsson, M. (2015). Making sense of the past: The information practices of field archaeologists. In Presentation at the i3 Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
  55. Olsson, M. (2016). Making sense of the past: The embodied information practices of field archaeologists. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pearce, S. M. (1995). On collecting: An investigation into collecting in the European tradition. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. RAÄ. (2012). Uppdragsarkeologi (2 kap, 10–13 §§). Rapportering och dokumentationsmaterial (Rapport). Stockholm.Google Scholar
  58. RAÄ. (2015). Uppdragsarkeologi: Rapportering, förmedling och arkeologiskt dokumentationsmaterial. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  59. Rocabado, P. (2015). Neoliberal multiculturalism and contract archeology in northern Chile. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(4), 775–790.Google Scholar
  60. Salle, M. L., & Hutchings, R. (2016). Commercial archaeology in British Columbia. The Midden, 44(2), 8–16.Google Scholar
  61. Schofield, J., Carman, J., & Belford, P. (2011). Archaeological practice in Great Britain: A heritage handbook. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Seppänen, L. (2014). Is the output worth of input? Estimating the value of past excavations for new information. In Presentation at the CHNT 2014 Conference, Vienna, Nov, 2014.Google Scholar
  63. Seymour, D. J. (2009). Introduction: International perspectives on the archaeological grey literature. Grey Journal, 5(2), 64–66.Google Scholar
  64. Shanks, M., & McGuire, R. H. (1996). The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity, 61(1), 75–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/282303.
  65. Shepherd, N. (2007). What does it mean ‘to give the past back to the people’? Archaeology and ethics in the postcolony. In Archaeology and capitalism: From ethics to politics (pp. 99–114). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sinn, D., & Soares, N. (2014). Historians’ use of digital archival collections: The web, historical scholarship, and archival research. JASIST, 65(9), 1794–1809.Google Scholar
  67. Skyllberg, E. (2013). Uppdragsarkeologins målgrupper – en utvärdering av publik arkeologisk verksamhet och av hur de arkeologiska resultaten tas om hand i samhällsplaneringen och i skolan (Rapport) [Many target groups of development-led archaeology – an evaluation of public archaeology and how archaeological results are used in societal planning and in schools]. Uppsala: Länsstyrelsen i Uppsala län.Google Scholar
  68. Stjernberg, F. (2010). Comments on assessing and measuring: On quality in development-led archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology, 18(1), 47–51.Google Scholar
  69. Styhre, A. (2018). Intersectionality and professional work in the life sciences: Constructing identities on the basis of affirmation, dis-identification, and professional distancing. Ephemera, 18(1), 51–79.Google Scholar
  70. Thomas, J. (2006). The great dark book: Archaeology, experience, and interpretation. In J. Bintliff (Ed.), A companion to archaeology (pp. 21–36). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tilley, C. (1989). Excavation as theatre. Antiquity, 63(239), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Toms, E. G., & O’Brien, H. L. (2008). Understanding the information and communication technology needs of the e-humanist. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 102–130.Google Scholar
  73. Willems, W. J. H. (2005). Contract archaeology and quality management in the Netherlands. In M. van den Dries & W. J. H. Willems (Eds.), Innovatie in de Nederlandse Archeologie (pp. 153–161). Gouda: SIKB.Google Scholar
  74. Willems, W. J. H., & Dries, M. H. v. d. (2007). Quality management in archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  75. Witmore, C. L. (2004). On multiple fields. Between the material world and media: Two cases from the Peloponnesus, Greece. Archaeological Dialogues, 11(2), 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zimmerman, L. J., & Branam, K. M. (2014). Collaborating with Stakeholders. In J. Balme & A. Paterson (Eds.), Archaeology in practice: A student guide to archaeological analyses (pp. 1–25). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  77. Zorzin, N. (2010). The political economy of a commercial archaeology: A Quebec case-study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/344777/.

Suggested Readings

  1. Börjesson, L. (2015). Grey literature—Grey sources? Nuancing the view on professional documentation: The case of Swedish archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1158–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Börjesson, L., Petersson, B., & Huvila, I. (2015). Information policy for (digital) information in archaeology: Current state and suggestions for development. Internet Archaeology, 40.  https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.4.
  3. Everill, P. (2012). The invisible diggers: A study of British commercial archaeology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  4. Jensen, O. W. (Ed.). (2012). Histories of archaeological practices: Reflections on methods, strategies and social organisation in past fieldwork. Stockholm: National Historical Museum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ALMUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations