Trends in Antiquity. (Special section).

Stoddart, Simon

Introduction: style

The editorial freedom given to ANTIQUITY by its founder and currently by its Trustees, and illustrated in practice by Caroline Malone, has accompanied a gentle evolution of the style of the journal. The relative stability of style, in an age where style is everything, has permitted the vibrancy of the changing message to remain the key element in the equation. The Stonehenge symbol has been gradually transformed (FIGURES 1-3), but its essence has never been rewritten by some media agency. Other emblems of a megalithic quality have been elaborated and reworked over the decades. The journal has not been renamed like a repackaged corporation or at least one archaeological journal. The typeface has been changed to combine economy and readability. Double columns were introduced in 1964. In spite of these detectable changes, there has been a subtle evolution rather than revolution.

[FIGURES 1-3 OMITTED]

The more marked changes have been those that have facilitated the distribution of information. Most notably, there have been increases in length, greatly enabled by the electronic revolution implemented by Chris and Anne Chippindale. The ready availability of space and the quarterly presence of the journal have enabled a rapid presentation of fresh news to the readership. The same principle has been behind the institution of the supplement, under the current editorship, so that advertised information can be rapidly promulgated. Colour has been introduced on an increasing scale, in its most recent form of the 750-word colour note, allowing immediacy and rapidity of reporting. Finally, classics are being reprinted in a series of themes that bridge 75 years. It is on the lessons from these that I wish to concentrate, drawing on the content that they illustrate.

Trends of content: a comparison of two themes

The two themes of landscapes and Celts (or rather less poetically `1st-millennium SC Europe' or perhaps for a North American audience `pre-imperial middle range societies') provide a deliberate contrast. The first is a cross-cultural theme, much in vogue today in both practical and theoretical archaeology. It is a theme that has strong links to other subjects, including anthropology, geography and history. The second is a strongly particularist theme of the European archaeologist, and yet carrying connotations linked to a deep-seated past that go much beyond the continent of Europe. The term Celtic is associated with the timeless roots of many European peoples, both in their homelands and in their various dispersals around the world.

Landscape

In the time of the first editor (1927-1957), Crawford, there was a rich variety of approaches to landscape which included, but was not dominated by, aerial photography. Many of the classics of aerial photography (e.g. Woodbury, Durrington Walls and Woodhenge) were illustrated, but there was a wider range of landscapes from regions and themes as separated as the classical world and Maori hillforts. One area of investigation is perhaps unexpected. There was significant study of modern `ethnographic' landscapes in the celtic fringe, drawing on ethnohistory to deepen understanding of long-lasting landscape practices.

The period of the second editor (1958-1986), Glyn Daniel, although also, by origin, a geographer, had much less variety. The only systematic presence of landscape was provided between 1964 and 1980 by the regular inclusion of aerial photographic reconnaissance by the Cambridge plane of St Joseph and comparable continental European coverage. One explanation may be that an interregnum existed between the excitement and novelty of the Ordnance Survey/Royal Commission surveys at the time of Crawford and a new and varied investigation of landscape, employing changed methodologies. For instance, it was only in 1977 that the first results of the second generation of a new wave of surveys from the Mediterranean world were reported in ANTIQUITY (Barker 1977). Two distinct strands of the British tradition of survey were finally integrated in the pages of ANTIQUITY.

The third editor of ANTIQUITY, Christopher Chippindale (1987-1997), brought a major expansion and proliferation of landscape approaches, which reflected the changed conception of the subject, and the editor's appreciation of these changes. The many and varied strands of landscape study were once again presented alongside one another in the pages of ANTIQUITY. Physical, industrial, contested, experienced, political, colonial, agrarian and military landscapes demonstrate the range of approaches that have been taken up by the archaeological discipline. These are the new generation of interpretative themes which emerged from the classificatory structures of field monuments that had formed such a central part of the early British tradition of landscape, strongly assisted by both an aerial perspective and a strong topographical understanding. The landscape theme was also internationalized, moving beyond the British tradition. Furthermore, the increasing sophistication of survey method was registered in a series of articles. A comparable rate and range of landscape articles has continued under the present editors (1998-2002), who are active landscape archaeologists themselves, and included the translantic dialogue that Elizabeth DeMarrrais has covered in this issue. In the theme of landscapes we see the emergence of the strong bonding of theory and practice that continues to emerge from the pages of ANTIQUITY. Good theory is bedded in good data.

Celts

Celts provide a powerful contrast and can be considered an example of the particularism emphasized by Chris Chippindale. In the time of the first editor (1927-1957), Crawford gave a small but significant place to 1st-millennium BC research, providing slightly more room for British than continental or Mediterranean work. Crawford was generally interested in broader themes than the presentation of individual periods. An illustration of this is how difficult it is to find reference to Iron Age topics in his editorials, which were often focused on sites, discoveries and the methods of aerial photography and radiocarbon, as well as critiques of museums, ethical issues and the treatment of archaeology. One exception is his specific mention of Woodbury, but this emerges from its discovery by aerial photography, a method linked to the theme of landscapes.

In the first issue, the Etruscans were given special space, prioritizing the under-estimated `indigenous' peoples of Europe against the classical civilizations which already had places of publication in the classical tradition. Some alternative loci of publication, such as the Papers of the British School at Rome, were suffering from the saturation of dry classical scholarship in the 1920s-1940s (Potter & Stoddart 2001: 10), and the foundation of ANTIQUITY gave a welcome opportunity for archaeological exposure. Randall-McIver, who had little to do with the British School at Rome, preferred to publish his articles in the newly available location of ANTIQUITY. The Mediterranean coverage was less in other years of the editorship but nevertheless recruited articles from figures such as Collingwood, Harden and Puglisi to write on the Greeks in Sicily, the Phoenicians in Africa and the huts on the Palatine hill in Rome.

Continental European coverage of the Iron Age was less a focus of the editorship. Nevertheless de Navarro wrote on the key theme of north-south relations in the Iron Age in the second year and Kraft on the origin of the Celts in the third. Some of the major continental discoveries were reported by continental scholars in the following years: domestic buildings in Jutland and the results from major sites such as Biskupin and Wittnauer Horn. However, perhaps the most significant portion of the articles report on the forays by Wheeler and Hogg into continental archaeology. The language barrier between Britain and the continent was difficult to break, even in ANTIQUITY.

The coverage of the British, particularly southern British, Iron Age was much more comprehensive. The pages of ANTIQUITY, in the time of Crawford's editorship, were filled with articles by many of the significant figures (in order of first appearance) such as Piggott, Hawkes, Wheeler (FIGURES 4 & 5), Peate, Fox (FIGURE 4), Clark, Hogg (FIGURE 6), Grimes and Alcock. This was the key network of knowledge in which Crawford circulated and which formed a circle of scholars who founded modern archaeology in Britain. The coverage of the more northerly regions of Great Britain received less attention, but provide a good example of a thread of articles on one particular theme: Brochs. ANTIQUITY became the established place to publish certain types of focused regional research. Curie (1927) was the start of this trend followed by Mackie, Hedges, Foster and Parker Pearson.

[FIGURES 4-6 OMITTED]

By the 1930s, ANTIQUITY was joined by another British journal with international interests. The emergence of the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society from its original location in East Anglia in 1935 gave rise to another important opportunity to publish longer articles with a widespread distribution that became readily visible for the Iron Age from the mid 1940s. Furthermore, Crawford was President of the Prehistoric Society in 1938-9 and shared membership of the Fenland Committee (for interdisciplinary research) with Clark, Hawkes and Fox, demonstrating again the small key community of scholarship of the period. The editor of the Proceedings, Grahame Clark, transformed the journal from one of local to national and international significance, and under the acknowledged influence of Childe emphasized that Britain could only be understood in a European perspective. However, even with these developments, ANTIQUITY still had the edge on coverage of the continental Iron Age.

The period of the second editor of Antiquity (1958-1986), Glyn Daniel, a scholar more interested in the European rather than global scale, recruited the greatest density of coverage of the 1st millennium BC in Europe. Nevertheless, coverage was principally but not exclusively focused on Great Britain. It is no accident that this editor of ANTIQUITY was also editor of the Thames & Hudson `People and Places' series, which brought a set of regional syntheses of European archaeology into the English language. Key debates on the structure of British Iron Age archaeology, as well as important discoveries and insights into material culture, appeared regularly until almost the end of this editorship. ANTIQUITY, distinctive for the rapidity and regularity of publication, offered the opportunity for early publication and wide dissemination of results. In a number of instances, publications in ANTIQUITY were developed in parallel with later more detailed publications and more extensive bibliographic references in such journals as the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Additionally, many of the principal discoveries of continental Iron Age archaeology were recorded by important synthetic articles which broke down the barriers of language. In turn, Manching, square enclosures from the Rhineland, the Hirschlanden stele, the Vix and Hochdorf burials were accorded articles which summarized these important advances in knowledge. Of the best-known fieldwork, the Heuneburg was perhaps the most important to escape more than cursory treatment. Coverage was also extended to the eastern steppes as Russian discoveries became known in the West. Glyn Daniel's interests coincided with a community of continental scholars, who supplied him with a ready flow of scripts.

In the context of the more global coverage of the last three editorships over the last 15 years, attention to the 1st milennium BC has proportionally declined. Journals which specialize in European archaeology have been founded. The most notable of these are perhaps the Oxford-Journal of Archaeology (from 1982) and the Journal of European Archaeology (from 1993). ANTIQUITY is rare in resisting the trend towards specialization in a particular theme or region.

The increased length of the journal has, however, permitted a continued attention to many of the key developments, not only through articles but through review articles of the latest books. The most prominent of these developments has been the very debate over the definition of the Celts. Another has been a renewed attention to the classical world, which publicized revised views of the Mediterranean and its relationship to central Europe. Syntheses of more Iron Age trends have also been prominent, ranging from wagon burials to landscape, historical sources and pottery. ANTIQUITY has drawn attention to many of the key discoveries in both continental and British Iron Age archaeology, and extended knowledge into the Eastern steppes and the outer islands of the British Isles.

As the editorial team changes in 2003, it will be interesting to see how coverage of specific historical themes, such as those of the `Celts' (Carr & Stoddart 2002) develop in comparison with global themes such as landscape (Stoddart 2000). We make no predictions because it is the individuality of the editor, subject to no commercial printing house or archaeological society, that counts. Landscape was very much a theme of the founder, reflecting both his global and methodological interests. The Celts were a theme close to the interests of the second editor, reflecting the profoundly European basis of his archaeological motivation. These two sub-trends illustrate the complexity of following the threads of content in ANTIQUITY. A global theme, landscape, has expanded under the last two editorial teams, responding to the changing movements in the wider discipline of archaeology, regardless of editor. Under all editors, a cultural theme, such as that of the Celts, has tended to follow particular threads of debate: Brochs, the Gundestrup cauldron and the theme of Celticity itself. The importance for the future is that ANTIQUITY continues to serve these two spheres of interest. The challenge--to combine the general and the particular--will be taken up by the new editor.

However, we leave the last word to Crawford: `What is it that, in the last resort, determines the contents of a number of ANTIQUITY? It is not merely the Editor's personal interests, though naturally these must influence his decisions. The ultimate determining factor is rather the state of archaeology in any particular region' (Crawford 1952: 57).

TABLE 1. The proportion of space devoted to aerial
photography and landscape in the pages of
ANTIQUITY.

 landscape
 (including
 aerial aerial
 photo- photo- total
editor graphy graphy) pages

Crawford 1.5% 7.8% 11,616
Daniel 2.6% 4.2% 8736
Chippindale 0.4% 9.5% 10,387
Malone 0.3% 11% 3002

all editors 1.3% 7.7% 33,741

TABLE 2. The proportion of space devoted to 1st-millennium
BC Europe and the Celts in the pages
of ANTIQUITY.

 Central/ Great
 Western Britain
 Europe & Ireland all 1st
 1st millen- 1st millen- millen- total
editor nium BC nium BC nium BC pages

Crawford 0.8% 1.9% 3.7% 11,616
Daniel 1.4% 3.1% 5.2% 8736
Chippindale 1.1% 1.0% 4.4% 10,387
Malone/Stoddart 0.5% 1.3% 3.0% 3926

all editors 1.0% 1.9% 4.2% 34,655

References

BARKER, G. 1977. The archaeology of Samnite settlement in Molise. Antiquity 51: 20-24.

CARR, G. & S. STODDART (ed.). 2002. Celts from Antiquity. Cambridge: Antiquity Publications.

CRAWFORD, O.G.S. 1952. Editorial Notes, Antiquity 26: 52.

CURLE, A.O. 1927. The development and antiquity of the Scottish Brochs, Antiquity 1: 290-98.

POTTER, T. & S. STODDART. 2001. A century of prehistory and landscape studies at the British School at Rome, Papers of the British School at Borne 69: 3-34.

STODDART, S. (ed.) 2000. Landscapes from Antiquity. Cambridge: Antiquity Publications.

SIMON STODDART, Magdalene College, Cambridge CB3 0AG, England.