Degrowth in development-led archaeology and opportunities for change. A comment on Zorzin

Abstract

Zorzin’s paper offers compelling discussion surrounding the various issues that face the practice of archaeology today. I would like to take some aspects of his paper and dive deeper into the implications for myself and my colleagues working within development-led archaeology in the UK and elsewhere. My own career has not been framed within a theoretical or academic sphere so my opinions about this topic will be accordingly pragmatic – although like many, I alternate between desiring a complete destruction of the existing structures within which I have been forced to operate and taking a more measured consideration of how to approach the revolutionizing of those current structures, which (currently anyway) seem intractable. My knowledge of degrowth as a concept has been expanded by Zorzin’s paper, which provides a coherent and relevant introduction to the subject. Ironically, as a post-doctoral researcher without a university account, I am not able to refer to the list of references in Flexner or Zorzin’s papers, so foundmyself on the back foot slightly, although entering fully into the competitive and expensive world of academic publishing is not an attractive proposition inmany ways, and like others I would prefer open access of everything, for everybody. First, I have to confess to some personal disquiet about the concept of degrowth when my own livelihood and capacity to care for my family (rent, food, school uniforms) have depended entirely on a salary from development-led archaeology and I am therefore an established participant in the neo-liberalism Zorzin describes. I was also a senior member of the field team described in Zorzin (2016b), although I did not work on the specific project he discusses in that paper. I have some issues with Zorzin’s (2016b) approach to participant observation, which was undertaken without informing some of the participants, and also with the publication of clearly identifiable photographs of the site team and project. The concluding remarks about sabotaging the project are unnecessarily provocative, in my opinion; this would merely increase pressure on the supervisory staff, which is hardly in the spirit of solidarity. I agree with most of the rest of the content, (particularly the idea that we have been instrumentalized by developers), bar the idea that early professional archaeology was somehow a ‘better environment’, given that it developed within a conservative class-based patriarchy. I should also confront the reality that, despite my efforts at activism (union activity, lobbying our professional body and other organizations), there have been few significant improvements in the living and working conditions of archaeologists over recent years and the profession of archaeology remains exclusionary and predominantly open only to those who have come from a white, abled, economically secure background. Here my own position as one of those woolly liberals who is wholly embedded in capitalist structures is clear; I reluctantly nailed my colours to that mast when I committed to work on road schemes rather than protest against them back in the mid-1990s.1 I have operated as an archaeologist within the rules and time frames of the construction industry ever since and fully accept Zorzin’s critique that my adherence to the structures means I have bought into the idea that working within them is my sole option. With these various caveats out of the way, certainly have no argument with Flexner’s statement that there is something wrong with capitalism (Flexner 2020, 159), but I would take issue with the