assemblage: Can you tell us a bit about yourself?
Brian Fagan: I was born in England, brought up in the West Country (south-west England), and went up to Pembroke College, Cambridge after National Service in 1956. The legendary Miles Burkitt got me interested in archaeology with his stories of working on Upper Palaeolithic caves before World War I, illustrated with huge, old- fashioned lantern slides. By chance, in my second year, I met Desmond Clark, who offered me a job as Keeper of Prehistory in the Rhodes-Livingstone Museum in what was then Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Although trained as a Stone Age archaeologist, my mandate was to study the Iron Age cultures of Central Africa. This was a fascinating challenge, as it involved working in almost virgin archaeological territory and starting from scratch. By accident, I also became involved in the development of multidisciplinary African history, a hot field in the 1960s, and was closely associated with the founders of the Journal of African History, then as now a field work-based journal. During my six years in Livingstone (1960-65), I gained vital experience in communicating archaeology to a wider audience, and in the need for up-to-date archaeology in university and school curricula, experience that moulded my later career.
In 1966, I spent a year at the British Institute of Archaeology in East Africa, based in Nairobi, running the Bantu Studies Project. After a year as a visiting professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana, I came to Santa Barbara. I have been a Professor of Anthropology here since 1967 and since then have focused on the general problem of archaeology and the wider audience.
I'm married with two daughters, have four cats, one rabbit, two guinea pigs and a tame snail. I'm a small boat sailor and kayaker, and enjoy good dinner parties and bicycling.
a: How much leeway did you have in determining the structure of The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, and do you think that the alphabetical listing format is well suited to the subject matter?
BF: I had complete leeway, but that was in collaboration with both Oxford University Press's editors (who were marvellous and very intelligent) and the Editorial Board. Once we had an entry list, we ran it past the Advisory Board, an international team of archaeologists, then made corrections before adjusting for length and inviting authors.
The alphabetical order is a feature of all Companions and works quite well. If you look closely, there are at least three cross-reference systems in the book, which make it user-friendly for everyone. Actually, there are no other reasonable format options, except the theme one, which the Cambridge Encyclopaedia uses, but the coverage there is less comprehensive. This is the best way to cover method, theory, and geographical areas, I think.
a: How were the contributors selected? Did contributors influence the choice of themes included?
BF: Contributors were chosen by the Editorial Board, each member working with his or her area of expertise. We worked up a potential and alternate author for each entry, and if that did not work went for recommendations from invited authors. This worked well, and the editors took up only minimal slack.
The criteria for authors were flexible, but included a considerable preference for younger and up-and-coming scholars, a good mix of local and other scholars, and above all people with academic breadth and the ability to deliver. The latter was critical, and we frankly had monumental problems with procrastinators. In the end though, we only had to fire about six people out of over 300. So if you want to know who delivers on time and who does not, ask any member of the Companion's Editorial Board! Incidentally, quite a few graduate students contributed to the Companion, which is nice.
Generally, however, it was a pleasure working with people, and I got to deal with a lot of very nice archaeologists whom I had never met before.
a: How were the articles reviewed/researched for content, if indeed they were?
BF: Obviously, logistics prevented us from full peer review, but every article was written by an authority and then reviewed by the Editorial Board member responsible for a particular area, also by me. So there was a considerable academic filter, more than on most volumes of this type. A number of entries also received review by outsiders, when we felt it necessary.
a: We don't envy the task of editing such an enormous amount of information into one volume! What are the practicalities involved in co-ordinating such a large-scale project as this?
BF: The practicalities of editing are simple:
As it was, we were delayed a year by late delivering contributors.
a: Was there a particular reason for not including images in the volume, apart from maps and chronological tables? Do you feel that this detracts from the Companion's overall impact?
BF: Money is the sole reason there are no illustrations. Even a modicum of pictures and drawings would have added $10 or more to the retail price, and space was a major problem. We are well aware of this limitation. There was nothing we could do about it. I think the Companion is very useful and works, especially as a signpost into the field of archaeology, which is what it is intended to be.
a: How long did the volume take to come to fruition? Do you think that the time lapse between soliciting material and publication may have had a detrimental effect on its claim to be an 'up-to-date' source of information?
BF: The Companion took about six years to complete; actual production and editing over a year. Yes, there is always the danger of outdating, but we did ask contributors at the copy edit stage to look out for this. Several articles were sent back to contributors for updating at their request.
a: Where do you see the Companion fitting into the discipline? Were you intending it to be an academic text, coffee-table tome, or source book for the interested amateur?
BF: Oxford University Press invited me to edit the Companion in 1990. Like all Companions, they wanted a definitive overview of the field, one which would give all kinds of readers a general but authoritative portrait of the discipline. Their guidelines call for a book that is alphabetical in listing, with some underlying themes (identified in the Introduction), aimed at all levels of reader. Thus some articles appeal more to students, others to general readers, and some to only specialists or professionals. Of course, no one book can do everything, but I think we have a reasonable conspectus here.
a: As academics, we may look mainly for contributors, others may search according to content; how have you tried to reconcile your different audiences?
BF: To some degree, the style and subject matter determine how people access the volume. We found this to be a fairly natural process. Remember that any volume like this is a pointer into more detailed material. We tried to ensure that there is varied, accurate content, so that people know where to go from here.
a: North American and European theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of archaeology often differ. Was this taken into account when attempting to produce a balanced view of the discipline? Should these contrasts be made explicit for the benefit of your non-academic readers ? Similarly, as each theoretical section is written by a leading proponent of the ideas presented, are you worried that there might be a danger of oversimplifying the issues and presenting a very one-sided view?
BF: Theory is a tricky issue with volumes like this and we discussed this. Generally, British theoretical thinking seems to be ahead of North American developments (at this stage in time, although that can change). Again what we tried to do was give a balanced, generic view, on the grounds that there is some international communality to basic theory, i.e. cultural systems and so on. From our experience relatively few lay readers will go into the theory in any detail. Again signposts will take them there if they wish.
Yes, it's perfectly true that some of the theoretical coverage is somewhat one-sided. Again, this is a function of the authors chosen and the nature of the volume. Recommended sources can lead the reader into the basic literature. Yes, of course the Companion oversimplifies. All reference books do. Serious inquirers into theory will, of course, go elsewhere, into the basic texts and the actual literature. Also this is a fast-moving aspect of archaeology and the basics will not change as much as new ideas.
There is no easy solution to this problem, which we debated at length.
a: The Companion purports to present archaeology from a global perspective, yet a large proportion of the contributors appear to hail from a Western academic tradition. Was any attempt made to address this imbalance in order to obtain, for example, an African perspective of African archaeology?
BF: Yes, we did our best with this. There are several African contributors, if you look closely. The problems are:
Many non-Western authors declined or did not answer invitations. We did our best!
a: The Companion presents a very mainstream view of archaeology as a discipline, without considering what exists on the fringes (often very interesting places). Such esoteric issues are often of great interest to the public, why wasn't more of a conscious effort made to bring them to the fore?
BF: Space was the main consideration here. We felt that a relatively conservative viewpoint was probably appropriate, given the very long life of the Companion and the necessity of covering a lot of ground. As you say, much on the periphery appeals to a broader audience, but this is a reference book and has to be concerned with mainstream basics, and there was enough of that to force drastic cuts. Again, a limitation of budget and space. There are over 700 entries already.
a: What are your own particular views on the presentation of archaeology to the public and do you feel that the Companion is a suitable vehicle with which to do this?
BF: This volume is a very good way to present basic factual information about archaeology to a wide audience of browsers. I stress 'browsers', for the Oxford Companion is not a book you read (unless you are the General Editor). It's a reference book, an essential part of communicating with the wider audience. This book will become a reference source in many libraries. In that sense it's appropriate. But of course, it's not the way to get a detailed briefing on a particular aspect of archaeology, like, say, theory, or Neolithic Europe. Britain and Europe are way ahead of North America in terms of bringing archaeology to a wider audience, although a few people in North America have spent a lot of time trying to do just that. Some of the ways that are effective include:
There are many ways to communicate with the public, of which the Companion is only one. It has all the limitations of a reference book, but perhaps I delude myself in saying that it's useful. Interestingly, it has generated more correspondence from people saying how useful it is than anything else I have ever written.
a: Finally, how well do you think the Companion lives up to its claim to be a 'definitive overview' of archaeology?
BF: Definitive? Yes, I think so, given the selectivity involved in entry choice and the superficial coverage that is inevitable given a maximum entry length of 8000 words. Obviously we had to make decisions on what topics to cover and at what length, whence the themes. The Companion does cover all areas of the world and most aspects of archaeological method and theory, which makes it definitive as a reference source. But, of course, it is not the last world. No book of this type can be. But it's an authoritative statement. What sends an editor berserk is of course the comment, 'But why did you not include X, which is of vital importance?' It is a function of a reference book that tries to cover a lot of ground and do so on a global basis. For example, the Companion is weak on sites. We are remedying that with a forthcoming Gazetteer as a companion to the Companion, which will appear in a couple of years or so.
In the final analysis, cost factors played a major role in determining the layout and content of the Companion. That, unfortunately, is the name of the game. One day, no doubt, it will go on CD-ROM, but not for the moment.
Copyright © assemblage 1998
Copyright © assemblage 1998