Two-Centre Field Schools: Combining Survey and Excavation in Ireland and Wales or the Isle of Man

Chapter

Abstract

The Castell Henllys Ireland and Wales Field School, and now the Ireland and Isle of Man Field School, combine training and research in two countries and with a variety of research aims and methods. The advantages and challenges of this approach to archaeological field training can be assessed after over 15 years of such programmes. The tensions between research and pedagogic goals, the methods and expectations of students and the discipline of archaeology in different countries, and the ways in which linking a North American-style field school with a British-style training excavation can create a particular dynamic are explored.

Keywords

Microwave Europe Mold Beach Excavation 

References

  1. Barker, P. A. (1977). Techniques of archaeological excavation. New York: Universe Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carver, M. (2009). Archaeological investigation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Drewett, P. L. (1999). Field archaeology: An introduction. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gold, A. (2008). Grade conversion and credit transfer for exchange students. Paper delivered at the BUTEX international conference 2008. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://www.butex.ac.uk/?q=node/28
  5. Kratz, A. (2008). Credit or grade transfer. A case for grade transfer. Paper delivered at the BUTEX international conference 2008. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://www.butex.ac.uk/?q=node/28
  6. Murphy, K., & Mytum, H. (2005). Excavations at Troedyrhiw defended enclosure. Archaeology in Wales, 45, 92–94.Google Scholar
  7. Murphy, K., & Mytum, H. (2007). Excavations at Berry Hill inland promontory fort, near Newport, Pembrokeshire, 2007: Interim report. Archaeology in Wales, 47, 82–88.Google Scholar
  8. Mytum, H. (1999a). Pembrokeshire’s pasts. Natives, invaders and Welsh archaeology: The Castell Henllys experience. In P. G. Stone & P. Planel (Eds.), The constructed past. Experimental archaeology, education and the public (pp. 181–193). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Mytum, H. (1999b). Castell Henllys. Current Archaeology, 161, 164–171.Google Scholar
  10. Mytum, H. (2000). Recording and analysing graveyards. Council for British archaeology handbook 15. New York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
  11. Mytum, H. (2002). A comparison of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Anglican and nonconformist memorials in North Pembrokeshire. The Archaeological Journal, 159, 194–241.Google Scholar
  12. Mytum, H. (2004a). Artefact biography as an approach to material culture: Irish gravestones as a material form of genealogy. Journal of Irish Archaeology, 12(13), 111–127.Google Scholar
  13. Mytum, H. (2004b). A long and complex plot: Patterns of family burial in Irish graveyards from the 18th century. Church Archaeology, 5(6), 31–41.Google Scholar
  14. Mytum, H. (2006). Popular attitudes to memory, the body, and social identity: The rise of external commemoration in Britain, Ireland, and New England. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 40(1), 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mytum, H. (2009). Mortality symbols in action: Protestant and catholic early 18th-century West Ulster. Historical Archaeology, 42(1), 160–182.Google Scholar
  16. Mytum, H. (2010). Biographies of projects, people and places: Archaeologists and William and Martha Harries at Henllys Farm, Pembrokeshire. Postmedieval Archaeology, 44(2), 294–319.Google Scholar
  17. Mytum, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The evolution of an Irish graveyard during the 18th century: The example of Killeevan, Co. Monaghan. Journal of Irish Archaeology, 11, 131–146.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Manx Studies, School of Archaeology, Classics, and EgyptologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations