The 2014 Bob Chapple Archaeological Essay Prize in association with Wordwell Books | The Results
In December 2013 I published
a piece on this blog about a little idea I’d had to commemorate my late
father, Robert F Chapple, in the form of an archaeological essay prize. My dad had worked on
an archaeological excavation as a schoolboy and had been instrumental in
providing the inspiration for much of my own career in the field. My goal in
this was simple - I had wanted to capture some of that inspiration my father
had given to me and pass it on to another generation of archaeologists. I had
hoped that by providing the platform of this blog, I might assist in
introducing the scholars of tomorrow to the wider world today. Beyond that, I
hoped that the essays submitted would themselves act as catalysts for
inspiration to those outside academia or the archaeological professions. I
sketched out some competition rules and Nick Maxwell of Wordwell Books (publishers of Archaeology Ireland
magazine) generously agreed to sponsor the prize of a €60 book voucher against
his publications.
By the time the competition closed in November
2014, I had received three submissions. Not a vast number, it is true, but what
they lacked in quantity, they more than made up for in quality.
In order of publication, they were:
Archaeogenetics:
future potential and challenges by Stephen Domican
The
Irish Royal Sites and World Heritage status: A Roman perspective by
Alexandra Guglielmi
Each essay has much to commend it and, if you
haven’t already, I would urge you to take the time and read them all.
I made it clear from the beginning that I would
not be judging these works myself. Instead, I wanted to establish a panel of
judges and only exercise a casting vote in the event of a tie … though I
sincerely hoped that it would not be necessary. I had no trouble in putting
together my list of possible judges … it was a matter of minutes to think of a
group of respected, trusted friends and acquaintances of varying profiles
within the profession that I would approach. It was only after a little further
thinking on the matter that I realised that I had neglected to include any
females among this number. Considering that I’d only recently
published a piece highlighting how female academic archaeologists have been
neglected in receiving the top honours of the profession, it was a chastening
realisation that I’d – however inadvertently – strayed into the same error of
creating a mental ‘boys club’. I decide to calmly interrogate my own motives on
this … Did I not know any female archaeologists? [I know plenty] Did I think
they’d be up to the job, fair, and impartial? [of course they would!] Did I think
they’d not be interested? [I would have no idea until I asked them … same with
the men!] … Well, why not? With that, I decided to restructure my mental search
– how about I went about creating a list of suitable judges – held to no less a
standard than I would expect from my first male-only group – and see where it
got me. Within only a few minutes I had produced a list of contacts that I would
be more than equal to the task. In the end, I was proud to have a judging panel
of five very capable women at various places in their careers and at various
degrees of visibility within the profession. While the identities of the judges
are confidential, even to each other, I can tell you that they include
prominent field, academic, and public sector archaeologists, along with retirees,
those recently embarked on their careers, and a number making their presences
felt within the profession. For the most part, though, they do not represent
the universities as I wanted to recruit those for whom reading essays was a
relative novelty and not just more of the same that they do as part of the day
job. I asked them to assess each entry across a number of weighted criteria:
1) How well
is the research communicated?
a) Is it well written? (No mistakes in spelling or
grammar; is the prose readable?)
b) Does the paper have a coherent structure and
argument/presentation? (Are there logical gaps or missteps? Is it presented in
a clear & coherent manner?)
2) The Inspiration
Factor
a) Do you think this is research is presented in
an interesting and engaging manner? Does it make you want to know more?
b) How do you feel that this paper acts as
inspiration for others? Do you feel that someone outside the profession would
read this & be inspired to learn more? – either about this specific topic,
or archaeology in general?
From the outset, I realised that the idea of ‘The
Inspiration Factor’ is a particularly intangible one and very much grounded in personal
choice – which is all the more reason that I wanted to recruit a relatively
wide variety of judges who would bring a broad spectrum of perspectives to the
task.
I can only say that they have been spectacular. They
have my huge thanks and admiration for the dedication and rigour they brought
to the judging process.
Like Highlander, there can be only one! And
without further ado, I am delighted to announce that the winner is …
Alexandra Guglielmi for her entry The
Irish Royal Sites and World Heritage status: A Roman perspective
I’m sure that all involved, from fellow
contestants, to judges, our generous sponsors Wordwell Books, and the readership of this blog will join with me
in offering our sincere and warmest congratulations.
Thank you to you all!
Robert M Chapple
Comments
Post a Comment