“Roman Villa Otrang near Fleissem. Excavation: a part of the villa rustica, PAP 2011.” By Dr. Christian Credner.
Archaeology is fortunate to have such a distinctive method at the heart of
its discipline. Excavation affords an encounter with material remains that is
qualitatively different from the encounter that occurs, for example, between
historians and documents, geologists and rock strata, or geographers and
land-/cityscapes. The excavation site is where archaeologists come into direct
physical contact with unfolding material evidence that has the capacity to
‘kick back’ against applied ideas, models and theories. As any digger can
testify, what is unearthed in the course of that engagement can often confound
or surprise, forcing modification of schemes of interpretation. This is where
theories can be tested against a touchstone of reality, and remoulded in a
collaborative and creative act of interpretation that takes account of the
resistance of emerging evidence. It is in an important sense the practical
ground of archaeological knowledge. We lose touch with it at our peril!
A problem is that the very structure of the archaeological profession
encourages us to do exactly that – to lose touch with excavation, impelling
us on a career progression into management or teaching. We become project
managers, research associates and professors, who rarely get the time to go
out in the field, and mostly rely on others to excavate for us. The irony here is
that as soon as we become good at the practice of excavating, achieving some
sort of mastery of it, we are forced to leave it behind. That is, in my opinion,
a great loss not only to the individuals concerned (though they themselves
may not see it that way), but also to the craft of archaeological excavation
itself, for much of the expertise entailed in excavating is embodied knowledge:
there is a tacit dimension to it that cannot be taught in a classroom or put into
a procedures manual.
