Hi,

I work in developer-funded archaeology (a term I prefer to commercial 
archaeology, as the implication that the intention is to make a profit is 
usually not the case) in England and have undertaken a fair amount of 
contemporary archaeology in that context. Whilst I agree that there is some 
prejudice against contemporary archaeology in developer-funded archaeology 
I have generally found it to be non-specific, as it is usually part of a 
wider view that all archaeology of the Modern or Post-Medieval periods is 
of lesser value.

The main issue with developer-funded archaeology is that it usually follows 
a 'brief' set by a member of a county archaeology office or similar 
individual. If the 'brief' doesn't include 'contemporary archaeology' (or 
even specifically excludes it by having some form of cut-off date) then 
even with the best will in the world there is little that the organisation 
undertaking the work can do about it.

I work primarily in urban archaeology, which I think is rather different to 
rural archaeology. In most cases in rural archaeology the 'contemporary 
archaeology' element is temporally divorced from the primary focus of 
study, be that Bronze Age, Roman or whatever. It is effectively only linked 
by spatial proximity. In urban contexts the 'contemporary archaeology' is 
much more often part of a continuum with the rest of the archaeological 
sequence. It is in fact the same 'place' as well as the same 'space', 
providing a much more compelling and interesting link to those undertaking 
the fieldwork.

The work we do can broadly be divided into below ground excavation and 
above ground standing building recording. We often excavate early 20th 
century assemblages with the same care as earlier material, indeed we 
recovered two such groups from a site in the last fortnight. The only 
reason that I haven't excavated later assemblages is that, so as I am aware 
I have never encountered any significant post-WWII deposits. We also record 
contemporary standing buildings, both 20th century structures and earlier 
buildings that have 20th century alterations/additions. In part this is 
simply because on urban sites it is often impossible to understand the 
earlier phases without understanding the more recent. This work almost by 
default contains a 'contemporary' element. Thinking of one project I was 
involved with I was stuck by the fact that in one commercial premises some 
rooms had the chairs and tables very neatly organised as part of the 
abandonment process, whilst in another they were in complete disarray. 
Aspects like this were recorded, relatively inadvertently, as part of the 
general photographic record.

Developer-funded archaeology is, by definition, undertaken in advance of 
development. I was struck on the same project how the development that was 
funding our work was effectively a manifestation of various broad long-term 
trends at the site that could certainly be traced back to the mid 19th 
century, and probably to the 18th century. I therefore undertook some 
'recording' of what the results of the development were, not so much in 
physical terms of what was built but the nature of the businesses etc that 
occupied the area after the development was completed.

I don't think that what we are doing is that exceptional and it is 
certainly paralleled at a number of other organisations. There are, 
however, issues relating to publication. The time-lag between fieldwork and 
publication on a big project can be quite long and therefore doesn't 
reflect current practise. More worryingly I know of a number of 
developer-funded projects where a fair amount of 'contemporary', 20th and 
19th century archaeology was undertaken in the field, but these are either 
largely or totally absent from the final publication. As I wasn't involved 
with the actual publication phases of these projects I don't know on what 
basis the decision to exclude the later material was made.

Craig Cessford



On May 18 2012, Dan Broadbent wrote:

> I've recently been working for a commercial archaeology unit on a rural 
> site ahead of major development. There are a number of modern structures 
> across the site, all of which will be lost to the development. These 
> include sheds and improvised animal enclosures. Interestingly several of 
> these have been constructed from motorway crash barriers. My employers 
> have little interest in these structures but I feel they should be 
> recorded. Might they not provide an insight into modern farming practices 
> which might otherwise be lost? Is there not a bias in considering them 
> less 'worthy' than buried prehistoric or Roman remains?
>
> I am considering developing a project based upon such contemporary 
> features and their place within commercial archaeology. I wonder if 
> anyone has any thoughts on this kind of work. Do you feel it would be 
> worthwhile? Does anyone know of any similar projects elsewhere?
>
>Many thanks,
>Dan Broadbent
>
>--------------------------
>contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
>in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
>for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
>-------
>For email subscription options see:
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
>-------
>Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
>http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
>--------------------------
>

--------------------------
contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
-------
For email subscription options see:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
-------
Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
--------------------------