Zorzin’s paper offers compelling discussion surrounding the various issues that face the practice of archaeology today. I would like to take some aspects of his paper and dive deeper into the implications for myself and my colleagues working within development-led archaeology in the UK and elsewhere. My own career has not been framed within a theoretical or academic sphere so my opinions about this topic will be accordingly pragmatic – although like many, I alternate between desiring a complete destruction of the existing structures within which I have been forced to operate and taking a more measured consideration of how to approach the revolutionizing of those current structures, which (currently anyway) seem intractable. My knowledge of degrowth as a concept has been expanded by Zorzin’s paper, which provides a coherent and relevant introduction to the subject. Ironically, as a post-doctoral researcher without a university account, I am not able to refer to the list of references in Flexner or Zorzin’s papers, so foundmyself on the back foot slightly, although entering fully into the competitive and expensive world of academic publishing is not an attractive proposition inmany ways, and like others I would prefer open access of everything, for everybody. First, I have to confess to some personal disquiet about the concept of degrowth when my own livelihood and capacity to care for my family (rent, food, school uniforms) have depended entirely on a salary from development-led archaeology and I am therefore an established participant in the neo-liberalism Zorzin describes. I was also a senior member of the field team described in Zorzin (2016b), although I did not work on the specific project he discusses in that paper. I have some issues with Zorzin’s (2016b) approach to participant observation, which was undertaken without informing some of the participants, and also with the publication of clearly identifiable photographs of the site team and project. The concluding remarks about sabotaging the project are unnecessarily provocative, in my opinion; this would merely increase pressure on the supervisory staff, which is hardly in the spirit of solidarity. I agree with most of the rest of the content, (particularly the idea that we have been instrumentalized by developers), bar the idea that early professional archaeology was somehow a ‘better environment’, given that it developed within a conservative class-based patriarchy. I should also confront the reality that, despite my efforts at activism (union activity, lobbying our professional body and other organizations), there have been few significant improvements in the living and working conditions of archaeologists over recent years and the profession of archaeology remains exclusionary and predominantly open only to those who have come from a white, abled, economically secure background. Here my own position as one of those woolly liberals who is wholly embedded in capitalist structures is clear; I reluctantly nailed my colours to that mast when I committed to work on road schemes rather than protest against them back in the mid-1990s.1 I have operated as an archaeologist within the rules and time frames of the construction industry ever since and fully accept Zorzin’s critique that my adherence to the structures means I have bought into the idea that working within them is my sole option. With these various caveats out of the way, certainly have no argument with Flexner’s statement that there is something wrong with capitalism (Flexner 2020, 159), but I would take issue with the

中文翻译：

---

以发展为主导的考古学的衰退和变革的机会。对佐津的评论

Zorzin 的论文围绕当今考古实践面临的各种问题进行了引人注目的讨论。我想从他论文的某些方面深入探讨对我自己和我在英国和其他地方以发展为主导的考古工作的同事的影响。我自己的职业生涯并没有局限于理论或学术领域，因此我对这个主题的看法将是务实的——尽管像许多人一样，我在希望完全摧毁我被迫在其中运作的现有结构和采取行动之间交替更慎重地考虑如何对现有结构进行彻底改造，这些结构（目前无论如何）似乎难以处理。Zorzin 的论文扩展了我对 degrowth 作为一个概念的了解，它提供了对该主题的连贯且相关的介绍。具有讽刺意味的是，作为一名没有大学账户的博士后研究员，我无法参考 Flexner 或 Zorzin 论文中的参考文献列表，因此尽管完全进入了竞争激烈且成本高昂的学术出版世界，但我发现自己有点落后在很多方面都不是一个有吸引力的提议，并且像其他人一样，我更喜欢对所有人开放访问所有内容。首先，当我自己的生计和照顾家人的能力（房租、食物、校服）完全依赖于以发展为主导的考古学的薪水时，我必须承认我个人对退化概念的一些不安，因此我是一个Zorzin 所描述的新自由主义的既定参与者。我也是 Zorzin (2016b) 中描述的现场团队的高级成员，尽管我没有参与他在那篇论文中讨论的具体项目。我对 Zorzin (2016b) 的参与观察方法存在一些问题，这种方法是在没有通知一些参与者的情况下进行的，并且还发布了网站团队和项目的清晰可辨的照片。在我看来，关于破坏项目的结论性言论是不必要的挑衅。这只会增加监督人员的压力，这几乎不符合团结精神。我同意其余大部分内容（特别是我们已经被开发人员工具化的想法），禁止早期专业考古学在某种程度上是一个“更好的环境”的想法，鉴于它是在保守的基于阶级的父权制中发展起来的。我还应该面对这样一个现实，尽管我在激进主义方面做出了努力（工会活动，游说我们的专业团体和其他组织），但近年来考古学家的生活和工作条件几乎没有显着改善，考古专业仍然是排他性的并且主要只对那些来自白人、有能力、经济安全背景的人开放。在这里，我自己作为那些完全融入资本主义结构的毛茸茸的自由主义者之一的立场是明确的。在 1990 年代中期，当我致力于道路计划而不是抗议它们时，我不情愿地将我的颜色钉在了那根桅杆上。1 从那时起，我一直在建筑行业的规则和时间框架内担任考古学家，并完全接受 Zorzin 的批评，即我坚持这些结构意味着我已经接受了这样一种想法，即在其中工作是我唯一的选择。排除了这些不同的警告后，Flexner 关于资本主义存在问题的说法当然没有争议（Flexner 2020, 159），但我会反对