An Overlooked Frontier? Scenes from Development-led Archaeology Today

Abstract

It is with great interest, that I have read Gavin Lucas’ and Christopher Witmore’s thoughtprovoking paper on the commitment to theory in contemporary archaeology. Particularly, as the central question – what is theory in archaeology and how does it work – resonates with thoughts coming out of my own recent explorations of the conditions and processes of knowledge formation in development-led archaeology (Beck 2019, 2021, in press). Today, development-led archaeology is in a situation where increasing demands of societal relevance and decreasing understanding among developers and politicians simultaneously challenge the existing practice and create a need for rethinking how things are done (e.g. Statsrevisorerne 2018, Milek 2018, Barreiro et al. 2018, Knoop et al. 2021). At the same time, I find that the challenges development-led archaeology meets today serve as an excellent illustration of the conflict between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ theorization as described by Lucas and Witmore. Therefore, I will follow their call and join the conversation by asking, if development-led archaeology could be a hitherto overlooked frontier for rethinking theory in archaeology? My studies show that knowledge formation within development-led archaeology is not directed by any specific theoretical paradigm in the traditional sense but instead refers to a messy, complex, undefined – and sometimes even contradictory – mix of ideas including elements from all of the major archaeological paradigms. Discussing theory in development-led archaeology is therefore not a matter of discussing one theoretical paradigm against another. Instead, the formation of knowledge can be said to take place in a tension between two different kinds of theorization: the practice of fieldwork and the structure of heritage management. The practice of fieldwork includes the processes of uncovering, exploring, interpreting and documenting the archaeological material as a source for theorization (Edgeworth 2012, Marila 2017, Sørensen 2018). Even if the actual practices can vary, these processes can be recognized in all kinds of archaeological fieldwork. What differentiates fieldwork in development-led archaeology from other archaeological fieldwork, though, is that the site has been picked out by modern development, and not as the result of a long and thorough research process. The object of research, thus, is most often unknown or at least only provisionally identified. This circumstance, I will argue, gives the fieldwork in development-led archaeology a particular sensitivity towards the unpredicted and possible, which necessarily puts the investigated object at the centre. Following the object, moreover, means that methods and strategies need to be flexible and ready to adapt if demanded by the object and can as such not always be predefined (Andersson et al. 2010,