The X-Factor
The X-TAG Plenary Session
2pm – 5.30pm Friday 15th December 2006
The plenary session for the X-TAG is called the X-Factor.
In contrast to previous TAG conferences, the X-Factor plenary will be student-led. The X-TAG committee has selected 8 presentations by current students of archaeology, each of 15 minutes duration, that will address from different perspectives the important question:
'What factors and ideas will direct the future archaeological theory?'
The session will culminate in a general discussion addressing the key issues identified in the papers
On Meaning, Significance, and the Limits of Archaeological Theory
Ben Edwards, ( University of Durham)
This paper aims to critically examine post-processual theory and its deployment in the search for past ‘meaning’, for answers to the questions of ‘why’ past peoples and societies undertook particular actions in particular ways. It will be argued that the quest for ‘why’, and the interpretations that follow from it, represents proof of the limitations of much of twentieth century social philosophy as applied to archaeology. The essential premise of this argument is that ‘why’ is the wrong question, as it is unanswerable, to the extent that even an informed, contextual interpretation cannot hope to encompass the vast variability contained within that one little word. However, this is not an entirely negative assessment because this paper also seeks to address the alternative to the search for meaning: how we can read relative levels of significance in past actions and still reach conclusions as to the nature of past social life without invoking unlikely hypotheses. It will also be stressed that much of archaeological interpretation already adheres to these principles, so that this paper does not seek to criticise the majority of archaeological thought, as much as define ontologically what we already do.
Ex Machina: Archaeology In A Post-Human Future
Stephen O’Brien ( University of Liverpool)
Recent research in disciplines as varied as medicine, robotics, and artificial intelligence has raised the prospect that, during the 21 st Century, humans will be increasingly able to alter themselves physically, through both biological and mechanical means. The consequences of such alterations to humans may have serious implications for the study of humanity. Indeed, they have led to some researchers speculating that we may see the emergence of “post-humanity”, a development which has caused Francis Fukuyama to revise his previous assertion that human history essentially ended in 1989 (Fukuyama, 2002). The purpose of this paper, therefore, is twofold: to introduce some of the means by which humanity may become post-human, and to speculate as to how archaeology as a discipline might respond to the challenge of interpreting a human past from a post-human viewpoint.
My Name is Bourdieu: the Karma of Practice
Greig Parker ( University of Sheffield)
You know the kind of archaeologist who is always jumping on the latest theoretical bandwagon and then wonders why his work sucks? Well that's me! That's when I discovered Karma. Suddenly all those theories made sense!" This paper outlines the relationship between Karma, Practice Theory and archaeology. It briefly explores issues ranging from the archaeology of the Practice of Karma to the Karma of the Practice of archaeology. It suggests that the adoption of a "Karmic Archaeology" may (perhaps) offer a resolution to some of the theoretical problems currently faced by archaeologists. In so doing, this paper hopes to illustrate some of the problematic issues that can arise from attempts to incorporate radical new theories into the discipline. In addition, it highlights the difficulties archaeologists may encounter when investigating alternative ideologies using contemporary western modes of thought.
Predictions of the Past: What will influence the future of archaeological theory?
Krish Seetah ( University of Cambridge)
At a recent informal ‘round table’ of some of the key minds of processual and post-processual theory, Robin Dennell highlighted the influence that external factors such as rising inflation in the 60’s and 70’s had on the development of archaeological theory and method.
This presentation will attempt to identify the agendas that will influence the next generation of archaeological theorists. On the one hand, I will raise a number of external issues that have the potential to greatly influence the way archaeological theory develops and the manner in which archaeology is viewed and used by society. For example, how will current political affairs and the ‘state of the environment’ – two areas to which archaeology can contribute a singularly unique perspective – influence the way we theorise? Complementary to this, how will internal development from the new archaeological ‘sub-disciplines’, armed with novel techniques and methods (often developed from non-archaeological backgrounds), embrace and advance archaeological theory?
Visualising Archaeology: A Manifesto
Andrew Cochrane ( Cardiff University) and Ian Russell ( Trinity College Dublin)
Since the 1980s some scholars have proclaimed that archaeology is in a state of crisis. Despite the growing investment in theoretical research, archaeology has not moved beyond modern epistemological and representational crises, nor has the discipline addressed the tradition of criticism of material essentialism in modern visual arts, such as in the Futurist Manifesto (1909) or in the work of Marcel Duchamp or Joseph Beuys. Visually, archaeological research has traditionally relied on two dimensional, black and white plans and schematic drawings of objects and sites, while utilising scientific flowcharts to demonstrate social and temporal relationships. These representational mechanisms visually perpetuate scientific realism, thus creating a peculiarly modern archaeological interpretation. This paper seeks to contest traditional mechanisms for representation and spectatorship by questioning the status that visual images occupy in archaeological discourse and proposes a move towards archaeological expressionism. We call for archaeologists to seek out new methods of visualising and presenting complex philosophical and methodological theories in media which transcend the line drawing. The paper will situate archaeological visual traditions within traditions of art historical thought and visual culture studies, while suggesting ways in which we can begin to move towards a visual archaeological practice. In doing so, we cite examples from our own and other contemporary artists’ work .
Stew or à la carte ? Choosing a new theory dish.
Imogen Wood ( University of Exeter)
The call for a truly multi-faceted archaeological theory in current discourse, to realize the ‘new era’ of theoretical archaeology, has led to a critical focus on how it is taught to a new generation of archaeologists. The unwitting archaeology student has received a great burden in recent years in being encouraged to meet this challenge. Is enough being done to enable and foster their ideas in this environment? I suggest that the structural historic approach to introducing theoretical archaeology should be reconsidered, and that heuristic approach enabling its individual components, to float free in a theory stew could inspire the subjective selection and use of theoretical ingredients irrespective of the culture-historical, processual and post-processual constraints.
However this may require a decision establishing what the end product should be before we introduce it, or whether we need one. Are we introducing the use of theoretical archaeology, to resolve questions or to enable a state of enquiry? Therefore the future of archaeological theory is in the hands of a new generation who may not need to adhere to the ‘theory cookbook’ currently used, in creating new theory dishes robust enough to meet these challenges.
Get published! Creating a forum for creative thinking and writing
Herdis Hølleland ( University of Oslo)
If we as students are to develop a sense of critical thinking and become a driving force in archaeological theory our work needs to be seen not only by those marking our essays. Starting a student journal has proved to be a good arena for students’ work to be seen as well as create debate in the archaeological community. Nicolay Arkeologisk Tidsskrift was established in 1967 by the students at the University of Oslo. A large number of the archaeologists now working at the Universities and museums once published their first articles in Nicolay. Getting your theories out in the world matters, so get published!
The Archaeological Review from Cambridge: Leading theory through student publication
2006 ARC Committee (University of Cambridge)
The first issue of the Archaeological Review from Cambridge (ARC) was released in July 1981, by a group of young, enthusiastic PhD students who sought to "battle against the tides of tradition and the storms of oppression in archaeological thought". This may seem a somewhat melodramatic statement, issued naively in the early days of research, prior to the stagnation in motivation so-often felt in last few leg of dissertation writing. Yet, in the long-run of theoretical development such an exclamation, in hindsight, could be seen as the sounding bell for the post-processual critique. Indeed, these now successful academics, enthused by Ian Hodder's ideas, responded to and influenced archaeology in the formative years of interpretative approaches, through the initial platform of the ARC.
Twenty-five years on from the ARC’s gestation, the professional territory of archaeology is very different and the challenges faced by graduate students greater. When the ARC emerged, there were few other platforms for student publication or for the presentation of research in progress. Nowadays, the library shelves are crammed full of journals with similar goals, and student publication is seen as an integral part of academic training. Are the motivations behind publication early in the career therefore less about idealist aspirations for the wider development of archaeology and more about the taken-for-granted necessity of academic career progression? Has this affected the quality and value of such publications? What relevance do articles within publications such as the ARC now have on wider debates within the discipline as a whole? Within this paper, we seek to look back over the ARC's lineage, from its conception to the present day to address such issues in student publication, and comment upon the direction that might be taken in the future. |
