Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:20:44.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Gill Andrews,
John C. Barrett and
John S. C. Lewis
Gill Andrews
Affiliation:
4 Beechworth Road, Havant PO9 1AX, England. gill.andrews@virgin.net
John C. Barrett
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, England. j.barrett@sheffield.ac.uk
John S. C. Lewis
Affiliation:
Framework Archaeology, Portway House, South Portway Estate, Old Sarum, Salisbury SP4 6EB, England. j.lewis@wessexarch.co.uk
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The separation of theory and practice is not one that will easily be overcome by academic and philosophical critique, however necessary and important these are.’ (Shanks & Tilley 1992: xxii). Here a team of archaeologists address this difficult theme, in the light of their experiences under the flightpath of Heathrow Airport.

Keywords

archaeological practicestructurationmanagementhistoryresearch designWest London

Information

Type
News & notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 285 , September 2000, pp. 525 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baa, . 1998. Heathrow Terminal 5 Archaeological Strategy: Written Scheme of Investigation.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1987. The Glastonbury Lake Village: models and source criticism, Archaeological Journal 144: 409–23.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 1990. Digging for data: archaeological approaches to data definition, acquisition and analysis, in Francovich, R. & Manacorda, D. (ed.), Lo scavo archeologico: dalla diagnosi all’edizione: 45–120. Florence: Edizioni all’Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 1996. On archaeological value, Antiquity 70: 45–56.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. 1998. Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. http://www.shef.ac.Uk/-assem/3/3chad.htm Google Scholar
English Heritage. 1991. Management of Archaeological Projects. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Framework Archaeology. 1999. Perry Oaks Sludge Works: Archaeological Fieldwork Phase 2 Project Design.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1997. Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a self-reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71: 691–700.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1998. Whose rationality? A response to Fekri Hassan, Antiquity 72: 213–17.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C.. 1992. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & McGuire, R.. 1996. The craft of archaeology, American Antiquity 61: 75–88.Google Scholar