Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:00:11.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The best we can do?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Martin Carver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is certainly a strange business: on the one hand, the thrill of discovery, the glory of gold, the flattery of the media and the purring of officialdom; on the other, the agonised frustrations of academics whose job it is to make sense of everything brought to light on this island. An editor is supposed to remain neutral, but in this case there is no contest. Antiquity champions research — so while we are happy to welcome the arrival of a mass of shiny things, we are bound to lament the loss of an opportunity to understand what they mean. Then there is the paradox of the English system: the treasure hunters are applauded and rewarded, but the archaeologists are seemingly obliged to lurk in the shadows, anxious not to spoil the party. Does it have to be like this?

Type
Research article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 85 , Issue 327 , March 2011 , pp. 230 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aston, M.A, Martin, M.H. & Jackson, A.W. 1998. The potential for heavy soil analysis on low status archaeological sites at Shapwick, Somerset. Antiquity 72: 838–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S. 1975, 1978, 1983. The Sutton Hoo ship burial. Volumes 1–3. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 2005. Sutton Hoo, a seventh-century princely burial ground and its context (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 69). London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. Forthcoming. Making archaeology happen. The Rhind Lectures for 2010. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H., Sanmark, A. & Semple, S. 2010. Signals of belief in Early England. Anglo-Saxon paganism revisited. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Dean, S., Hooke, D. & Jones, A. 2010. The 'Staffordshire hoard': the fieldwork. Antiquaries Journal 90: 139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebsgaard, M.B., Gilbert, M.T.P., Arneborg, J., Heyn, P.Allentoft, M.E., Bunce, M., Munch, K., Schweger, C. & Willeslev, E. 2009. The Farm beneath the Sand· an archaeological case study on ancient 'dirt' DNA. Antiquity 83: 430–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herries, A.I.R. 2009. New approaches for integrating palaeomagnetic and mineral magnetic methods to answer archaeological and geological questions on Stone Age sites, in Fairbairn, A., O'Connor, S. & Marwick, B. (ed.) New directions in archaeological science (Terra Australis 28): 235–54. Canberra: ANU-E Press.Google Scholar
Hjulstro, B. & Isaksson, S. 2009. Identification of activity area signatures in a reconstructed Iron Age house by combining element and lipid analyses of sediments. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 174–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W. 2005. Traces of use and concepts of space, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–99 seasons (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara monograph 38): 355–98. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research & British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.Google Scholar
Larsson, L. 2007. The Iron Age ritual building at Uppåkra, southern Sweden. Antiquity 81: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar