MIK

EP

ITTS

/ALE

XAN

DER

KEI

LLER

MU

SEU

M,A

VEB

UR

Y

10|British Archaeology|November December 2007

Photo: Traditionallythe history ofarchaeology hasbeen written fromcorrespondence,photos andmanuscripts – thisis a selection fromthe AlexanderKeiller archive inAvebury museum.Now soundrecordings arebecomingincreasinglyimportant, wherethe interviewee isaware of thehistorical interest

In 1950, a divisive controversy burstopen within the Cambridge Faculty ofArchaeology and Anthropology. MeyerFortes (1906–83) had been appointed asthe William Wyse professor of socialanthropology. He felt that EthelLindgren, who had become a lecturerjust before his own appointment,should be replaced by Edmund Leach(1910–89). Leach was more appropriateto the faculty’s new theoretical outlookand teaching demands. Thiscontroversy split the faculty betweenthe older, moneyed “amateurs” of the1920s and 30s and the younger, poorer“professionals”. A new intellectual erafor archaeology and anthropology wasushered in and Leach became one ofthe leading anthropologists of his time.This change in power supported thelater development of David Clarke’s(1937–76) profoundly influentialanalytical archaeology in the 1960s.

How does one assess this 1950academic controversy today? There arethree differing oral-historical accounts,one from the then secretary for thefaculty, and two from former post-graduate students. Cambridgearchaeology professor Glyn Daniel’s(1914–86) version of events is printed

British Archaeology|November December 2007|11

Pamela Jane Smith has dedicatedherself to the pleasurable pursuit of

interviewing older archaeologists andthose who knew them. As her tapesstart to become available online, she

explains how she works and why it matters

GATHERINGROSES IN WINTER

candidly in his book, Some SmallHarvest (Thames & Hudson 1986).Committee and board minutes thatrecord discussions and decisions aresaved at the Cambridge Universitylibrary. Finally, there are Fortes’s andLindgren’s revealing privatecorrespondence, saved by friends,families and the faculty.

Spoken accounts can be placedalongside equally solid writtenevidence. I use oral-historical evidenceas a small piece of a large project. Oralresponses are only quoted whencorroborated from other types ofsources. I always attempt to establishwhat philosopher, Alison Wylie, termsa “network of resistances”. Anacademic turning point at a keyuniversity may then be more fairlyanalysed using several lines ofinformation to reconstruct political,academic, social and intellectualchanges.

I believe that all knowledge iscommunity based. I found, 20 yearsago, that secondary, published materialdid not yet exist for the stories I wishedto tell; unpublished sources had alsonot then been located. My presentresearch into the history ofarchaeology in early 20th centuryBritain, and my previous work in the

history of 20th century Canadian andFirst Nations archaeology have beensubstantially based on informationdiscovered with the generous help ofthose I interviewed.

Numerous conversations withelderly archaeologists, their families,their students and their colleagues andfriends have resulted in the uncoveringof new material and in the creation ofarchives. Much of this has been placedin the Cambridge University LibraryManuscripts Department. Approvedtapes are stored at the Society ofAntiquaries of London, and interviewsand transcripts will appear on itswebsite. The first is with the medievalarchaeologist John Hurst, atcms.sal.org.uk/newsandevents/interviewofthemonth.

Reliable witnessesWhen using evidence from livingsubjects and from archived interviews,I followed standard ethical procedures.Firstly, all people interviewed approvedanything I used. For example, I firstwrote to Grahame Clark in 1987 to seekpermission to study his life and career.He read all my articles prior topublication. Both Clark and his wife,Lady Clark, never interfered withinterpretations. Very seldom has

anyone requested changes. DorothyGarrod’s family was always stronglysupportive. Miles Burkitt’s family wasalso kind and generously helpful. Less-known but equally importantarchaeological players such as theCambridge Archaeology Faculty “tea-boy”, Charles Denston, offered theirdiaries, correspondence, unpublishedphoto albums, unpublished personalnotes and draft copies of excavationand technical reports. This material,often at first held by the families, wasalways extremely valuable; I alwaysrequested permission before using it.

Occasionally, to use anotherexample, one unique and reliablewitness, respected within a small socialcommunity, may augment thin writtenevidence. Dorothy Garrod’smomentous election, on May 6 1939, asthe first female professor at Cambridgeor Oxford is barely mentioned in anyofficial record. Regardless of her grandarchaeological accomplishments,Garrod has remained a “shadowyfigure”. The scant, unrevealing minutesfrom elections to professorships arethe only existing document. The eight,all-male electors, pillars ofrespectability and representatives ofextreme British academic power,appear to have met in the usual way,discussed an apparently small field ofcandidates, reconvened the following

Grahame Clark(1907–95), Burkitt’smost brilliantstudent, was a self-proclaimed man ofscience who believedthat prehistoricarchaeology mustbecome arationalised,professionaliseddiscipline. He servedas CambridgeDisney professor ofarchaeology1952–74. Clark istoday rememberedas a pioneer of anecologicallyoriented,functionalistapproach toprehistoricarchaeology. In 1932,he founded theinterdisciplinaryFenland researchcommittee whichbrought together upto 42 scientificspecialists, tointerpretarchaeological,

12|British Archaeology|November December 2007

MIL

ESB

UR

KIT

TFA

MIL

YM

INA

LETH

BR

IDG

E/C

AM

BR

IDG

EM

USE

UM

OF

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

Y&

AN

THR

OP

OLO

GY

botanical, faunal,geological andgeographicalevidence retrievedfrom waterloggedsites. The committeepresaged today’sinterdisciplinaryteam approach toBig Science. ThePlantation and

Peacock’s Farmexcavations(pictured, 1934) areregarded as alandmark in Britisharchaeologicalmethod, heralding awidespread changein approach toBritish prehistoricarchaeology

In 1915 a shy MilesBurkitt (1890–1971), described byhis formerCambridge studentsas kind and uncon-ventional, becamethe first in Britain tooffer an undergrad-uate degree courseof lectures on pre-historic archaeolo-gy. Early in world

war one, he hadbegun to believethat humans“moved Godward…partly owing tostruggles againstoverwhelmingodds”; evil couldhelp a nation and aperson mature. Heargued that throughstudying the past,we gain knowledge

of ourselves.Cambridge men,educated in prehis-tory, would be pub-lic-spirited, just,intelligent leadersand fair, peacefuladministrators. Thegoal of studyingarchaeology was todevelop personalcharacter and self-reliance. Prehistory

must remain in thehands of amateursmotivated by love,not money or hon-ours. Here he isduring a visit toBrno museum withhis wife, Peggy, atalented drafts-woman who illustrated manyarchaeological publications

Charles BernardDenston (b1921)was known as “BoyDenston” whenhired in 1937 as anable teenager tomake tea, clean andguard theCambridge Museumof Archaeology andAnthropology. Froma poor, money-wisefamily, son of a

Cambridge tailorwho made clothingfor the undergradu-ates, Denstondescribed facultymembers as “toffs”whom he addressedas “Sir”. “I neverfelt I was one ofthem”, he wrote inhis unpublishedautobiography.Through helping at

undergraduate lec-tures he absorbedthe equivalent of adegree, concentrat-ing on physicalanthropology. Afterreturning from adifficult secondworld war (he was aprisoner under theJapanese), hebecame assistant toJack Trevor, direc-tor of the newDuckworthLaboratory ofPhysicalAnthropology. By1950, theDuckworth hadBritain’s largestcollection ofhuman skeletalmaterial. Denstoncoauthored hisfirst archaeologi-cal site report on

skeletal remains in1954, and was soleauthor by 1958. Byretirement in 1986,he had produced255 reports, 45 pub-lished physicalanthropologicalstudies and hadbeen awarded anhonorary MA by theUniversity ofCambridge

morning and quickly voted for Garrod,the first woman elected to any suchposition since Cambridge Universityhad been founded in about 1260. Thereis no hint of controversy surroundingthis important election which later ledto women being finally admitted toCambridge as degree students in 1948.

However, the testimony of LadyJeffreys, formerly Bertha Swirles(1903–99), greatly enhanced this scarcewritten evidence. By good chance, Imet someone in the CambridgeUniversity library tea-room who hadcome up to read archaeology andanthropology during the second worldwar. Months later, she suggested that Ispeak to her friend, Lady Jeffreys, amathematical physicist, then in hermid 90s. At that time, I was living as aguest of Elisabeth Leedham-Green, theerudite deputy keeper of universityarchives at the University ofCambridge. Leedham-Green knew thewider Cambridge and British academy.She assured me that Lady Jeffreys was ahighly-respected member of the tightCambridge community, known for herclarity, good memory, astute judgementand intelligence. She would be reliable.

In fine, vivid detail, Lady Jeffreysremembered how she had met “outsideelector”, Manchester professor ofgeography hj Fleure (1877–1969), on atrain back to Manchester the morningfollowing Garrod’s election in 1939. Sherecounted Fleure’s humour and highspirits, the sepia light drifting throughthe train window; Fleure’s memory ofthe vice-chancellor’s response whenthe electors gave their decision was,“Gentlemen, you have presented uswith a problem”. When I cross-checked with classicist Alison Duke,then also in her 90s, she confirmed thatthe wording was exactly his.

Jeffreys’ memories helped greatly inthe reconstruction of Garrod’sacademic and archaeological career.Why was she, a woman, elected? Fleurewas amused, Jeffreys said. He was fromManchester, where women were

already admitted to degrees and he wasaccustomed to the idea of women inhigher academic ranks. He found nodifficulty in promoting a woman as acandidate.

Additional information was gainedduring an interview with MinaLethbridge, (1919–2000). Mina offeredher husband’s, Tom Lethbridge’s(1901–71), diary. Tom had taught Anglo-Saxon archaeology at Cambridge foryears and had also put in for theprofessorship at the request of thoseopposed to an outsider. Probably the“candidate from outside” wasMortimer Wheeler, whom Daniel (inSome Small Harvest) states wanted theposition. Wheeler at that time washonorary director of the Institute ofArchaeology in London which he andhis wife, Tessa, founded in the mid1930s. He had not formally applied butthe British archaeological communitywas small and an informal inquirywould have been sufficient. He was “abrilliant organizer, a born excavator, adynamic and forceful character” but,writes Daniel, was also considered a“bounder” by some members of theCambridge Faculty. By implication oneof the electors who might have votedfor Wheeler was diverted byLethbridge’s candidacy. The vote wassplit. A highly qualified, scandal-free,established British-born woman wasapparently a more pleasing alternativethan any outsider. “All went well,”Lethbridge wrote in his diary, “theproper man got in”.

Moving intimacyI have always found that unstructuredinterviews are best for collecting oralhistories and uncovering writtensources, but a structured interview –essentially an oral questionnairefocusing on a narrow enquiry for aspecific purpose – is often a good start.My early 1994 work on the history ofthe Fenland research committee is anexample of how this method can beapplied. The committee, which

British Archaeology|November December 2007|13

CH

AR

LES

DEN

STO

N

occupied a mythical presence inarchaeological minds, existed justbeyond living memory. When I startedmy investigation over a decade ago,little was known as to how it wasfounded, its day-to-day goals andactivities, who was involved, whatexcavations were conducted and whatpublications resulted. Few realised thatthe committee was the predecessor ofthe Cambridge Sub-department forQuaternary Research and that itdeveloped the stratigraphic-geologicalapproach for archaeology so widelyused in Britain today.

In search of sources, I interviewed asample of 34 people, including the thenonly surviving committee memberssuch as Stuart Piggott. Eventssnowballed as each person put me in

touch with others. In this case, thestructured interview led toconsiderable relevant information. Amass of useful information thusemerged. My publications based onthis information have become theoriginal scholarly research upon whichlater work by other authors is nowbased.

My research on Garrod is anotherexample of the effectiveness ofstructured interviews. Persistentrumours suggested that she had burnther literary remains. In consequence,Garrod’s life and brilliant career hadnot been thoroughly documented.After much intensive questioning ofmany people, in 1996, I approached theCambridge University roll office andfound L Pulvertaft-Green who studiedarchaeology in 1948. Pulvertaft-Greenwas the first to mention a counter-rumour. Grahame Clark had years agotold her that Garrod had savedcorrespondence and field notes andthat this unpublished material wasstored in France. I contacted PaulBahn, a good friend of Suzanne Cassoude Saint-Mathurin who had excavatedwith Garrod in France and Lebanonand stayed with her in the Charente. Aletter from Bahn written in April 1996states “I have just returned from Paris...There is indeed considerable Garrodmaterial... now gone to the Musée desAntiquités Nationales”. When Saint-Mathurin died in 1991, boxes ofGarrod’s diaries, letters, field notes,photographs and manuscripts werebequeathed to the man along withSaint-Mathurin’s papers. This material,not yet accessioned, is kept only underSaint-Mathurin’s name.

The depth and literary wealth of thisarchive is astonishing. Only a fewphotographs of Garrod had been wellknown; now hundreds are available.Her field notes and diaries fromexcavations and expeditions toKurdistan, Anatolia, Bulgaria, Franceand Lebanon detail exciting personalexperiences. Crucial archaeologicaldiscoveries can now be betterreconstructed, including the 1932discovery at Mount Carmel, Palestine,of the neanderthal female skeleton,Tabun i.

Garrod’s archive containednumerous photographs of threePalestinian villages, taken during the1930s when the villagers worked withher at nearby Mount Carmel, now inIsrael. The villages were completely

destroyed in 1948 and the families werewidely dispersed. I was often told thatit would be impossible to trace them.However, after I loaded images on theweb, descendants have recentlycontacted me. Hopefully theirmemories may now be added to thehistory of archaeology in Palestine andIsrael.

Unstructured oral historicalinterviewing, by contrast, deals withindividual memories and narratives,capturing the unique tone, volume,silence, emotion and personal meaningof events. Attitudes can berediscovered more accurately anddescriptions made colourful. Historybecomes enriched and more complete.

Oral-historians seldom discuss whathappens to them during an interview. Itwould be helpful if the process wasdocumented. A moving intimacydevelops, but I have not yet delineatedhow that works or what happens tomake me feel that I am getting to knowsomeone so well so quickly. I can onlysay that I do very much enjoy meetingthe fine people I interview.

The recall of the people I talk to isalways detailed and vivid; memories areaccurate when cross-checked againstother evidence. Recent memory failswith age, but ability to recall distantmemories improves. Interviewingelderly people can present the leastproblems.

“Memories,” said one of myinterviewees, “are like gathering rosesin winter”. Human relations areimportant in creating archaeologicalknowledge. The CambridgeArchaeology Faculty was known as themost successful archaeological centrein Britain for much of the 20th century.Perhaps one of its strengths was itsintimate smallness. Long-committedrelationships worked together for theadvancement of the subject, as well as acommitment to the tea-room as asanctuary. The importance of tea-drinking to the development of Britisharchaeology is another subject, but Iwould suggest that emotionalcommitment does move archaeologicalhistory.

On Oct 22 Meg Conkey, Alison Wylie, RuthTringham and Henrietta Moore willrecollect the beginnings of post-processualarchaeology in Britain and North America1975–85, at the Department of Archaeology,University of Cambridge. For informationcontact the author at pjs1011@cam.ac.uk

Before her electionas the first femaleOxbridge professor,Dorothy Garrod(1892–1968) had anillustrious excava-tion and expeditioncareer as a superblyaccomplished “dirt”archaeologist – oneof the finest Britisharchaeologists ofthe 20th century.Garrod’s excavationof the Devil’s Towersite in Gibraltar over

a total of sevenmonths (1925–27),was her first internationallyrecognised dig. Withthe skill she displayed through-out her career, shefound the scatteredfragments of onetiny skull over twoexcavation seasons.This photograph ofGarrod holding thepieces, from herown album now in

France, testifies tothe personal importance of thesefinds – red starssurround the print.At the end of herlife, an acquaintance suggested to Garrodthat she had beenlucky. “Pas lachance”, shereplied, “c’estcourage et per-sévérance” – notluck, but courageand persistence

14|British Archaeology|November December 2007

PAU

LST

AM

PER

FON

DS

SUZA

NN

EC

ASS

OU

DE

SAIN

T-M

ATH

UR

IN/M

USE

ED

ESA

NTI

QU

ITES

NAT

ION

ALE

S

As a Cambridgeundergraduate in1950, John Hurst(1927–2003)investigated themedieval moatedmanor at Northolt.In 1952, he startedworking with theeconomic historianMaurice Beresford(1920–2005), whohad begun prelimi-nary investigationsat Wharram Percy,North Yorks. Soonafter, the desertedmedieval villageresearch group was

founded to coordi-nate work on ruralmediaeval settle-ment, then a newsubject. It appliedthe revolutionaryScandinavian con-cept of area excava-tion, while chartinglayers of clay, char-coal, fireplaces,pavements andpostholes. The gridand baulks method,championed byMortimer Wheelerat Maiden Castle,proved inappropri-ate for subtle medi-

aeval remains.“There was certain-ly no way that themedieval peasanthouse with its flimsy foundations,could be under-stood by digginggrids”, Hurst toldthe author. “Reallythe whole processof archaeology hasbeen changed bythis method ofopen-area excava-tion”. Photo showsBeresford (left) andHurst at WharramPercy in 1979