Back to top: Legacy
The notion of legacy
see primacy
An increasing number of research projects is focusing on the study of original excavation records, seeking to extract from them information that did not make it into the original reports (for an important recent contribution to this topic see Raja 2023 Shaping Archaeological Archives). This recognizes the importance and, in a sense, the primacy of the excavation unit as the place and the moment when the primary record is brought to light. But there are two major problems.
- Even the original records tend to very selective. They generally consist of journal entries that describe in a synthetic view hte results of a given day of excavation. Even when they are extensive, they remain essentially synthetic summaries that reflect the final understanding by the writer and the macro-strategy that was aimed at implementing the intial research design.
- They are generally written by the director of the excavation, including at times one assistant. This means that they do not cover the entirety of the observations made by each and everyone of the participants in the excavation, omitting in particular decisions that guided the process at a micro-strategic level.
hidden recognition of value of excavation record as the objective archaeological data,
apart from structures and objects, which are the best know part of the “record”
in a sense, our delayed work (e.g. Amer) is legacy
move to implementation?
see Raia, De Benedictis
Back to top: Legacy