Marcus Brittain (Cambridge Archaeological Unit; marcus.brittain@gmail.com) and Karina Croucher (University of Manchester; karina.croucher@manchester.ac.uk)

Chair: Yannis Hamilakis, University of Southampton

In the last twenty years both commercial and academic archaeological institutes have come under increasing pressure to show a commitment to auditing procedures that monitor quality, productivity and accountability. This requirement corresponds with a broader social desire for transparency of, and responsibility for, ideas and actions, theory and practice. This has been referred to as the ‘audit society’ (Power 1998) or the ‘audit culture’ (Strathern 2000). Whilst auditing systems have clearly inculcated some positive benefits for research, particularly in areas of management, they have generally been criticised for their impact upon the pattern of intellectual activity and the flow of knowledge systems (Rainbird & Hamilakis 2001; Hamilakis 2004). In effect, financial audit has been exported to the public sector, via new public management and accountability towards ‘stakeholders’. Many of the consequences for archaeological practice have been financial, but many others are social, cultural and ontological.

This session will offer a critical perspective on the impact of the audit society on rituals of archaeological research and practice, taking as a frame for analysis the culture of professional archaeology and its response to changing conditions of possibility and constraint.

Papers will be 10-15 minutes with an emphasis on discussion. Whilst we welcome a broad range of contributions on this theme, participants may also wish to consider some of the following issues:

• Is the audit society a new phenomenon in archaeology?
• How, if at all, has today’s audit society impacted upon the course of archaeological research?
• How have the new accountabilities in the audit society transformed archaeological rituals of verification, justification and recognition?
• Is there a broadening distinction between the destination of the research process and the designation of the subject of research?
• Are formal systems of ‘best practice’, monitoring, and management targets, commensurable with the local everyday practices of intellectual engagement in archaeology? If so, then how? If not, then what sustains these systems of audit within the culture of archaeological practice?
• Is it all negative? What could an ‘audit culture’ contribute to the discipline of archaeology?
• Why have systems of audit attracted so little critique or resistance by archaeologists? Is the audit society becoming unquestioned normative practice in archaeology? Is critique of the audit society taboo in archaeology?
• In what sort of culture do such systems become acceptable? And how might this be confronted or resisted by archaeologists? Does it need to be?

Hamilakis, Y (2004) Archaeology and the politics of pedagogy. World Archaeology, 36(2), 287-309
Power, M (1998) The Audit Society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Rainbird, P and Hamilakis, Y (eds.) (2001) Interrogating Pedagogies: Archaeology in higher education. Oxford: British Archaeologogical Reports (Int. Ser.) 948
Strathern, M (ed.) (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London & NY: Routledge