X-TAG 2006
Sessions
ALL SESSIONS ARE HALF-DAY SESSIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
Plenary Session – The X-Factor
X-Tag Organising Committee (tag@exeter.ac.uk)
Sponsored by the HE Academy
View the Plenary Session webpage
Against Remembrance: Space and the Politics of Forgetting
Benjamin Morris, Dacia Viejo-Rose and Uta Staiger (Cambridge) (bam32@cam.ac.uk, dv230@cam.ac.uk, us209@cam.ac.uk)
Without a doubt, much work in heritage and in the public presentation of archaeological sites, monuments, and artefacts operates on what may be termed the 'conservation fetish': the assumption that the remains of the material record should be preserved for future generations. But with storerooms in museums, universities, and county archaeological units alike already bulging at the seams with the overwhelming volume of material flowing in from excavations (usually state-sponsored rescue work), and with no end in site, how can we begin to make sense of our incapacity to record and preserve and display it all? Put another way, what must we wilfully 'forget' in order to publicly 'remember' the rest, and how do our contemporary notions of space inform such decisions? Is it possible any longer to discuss the fragments and shards of memory without retaining an awareness of their eventual, inevitable demise-or does that which we have 'forgotten' in this context become that which we have liberated?
For this panel we propose an array of papers grappling with the above issues of space, materiality, surplus, abundance, and the politics/ethics of remembering and forgetting. We envision a discussion which will raise justifications of and challenges to the prevailing discourse of preservation, reading the discourse as a discourse whose assumptions may be exposed and reworked. Papers may be either theoretically oriented or grounded in policy or case studies (either in archaeology or heritage, i.e. archaeo-politics), but ideally papers will exhibit a fluid, sinuous movement between these two poles.
Archaeologies of the immediate: forensic science and archaeology
Jennie Robinson (University of Central Lancashire) (jerobinson@uclan.ac.uk)
Forensic science is a relatively new discipline which borrows its method almost entirely from different aspects of archaeology. Its objective, of constructing what happened at a site from the artefacts left behind, seems at one with the most basic aims of archaeological excavation. However, this fast-growing and popular science is polarised from archaeology in its lack of engagement with any theory, and little attempt at discourse has been made. This is despite the fact that very strong claims of absolute truth, which have a vital impact on living people, are made on the basis of its methods.
Can theoretical frameworks be applied to forensic science, and should they? Is theory unnecessary when studying the archaeology of living people, or does the immediacy and vitality of its subject mean that it is all the more important to adequately discuss its approaches and interpretations?
This session seeks to demonstrate the diversity of archaeological applications in forensic science, and to provide a forum for discussing the issue of theoretical approaches in the discipline. Case studies on current research are invited from anthropologists, osteologists, entomologists, palynologists, zooarchaeologists and other interested parties involved in the forensic arena of archaeology, to demonstrate the breadth and variety of applications. Further, papers discussing theoretical models which may be applied to the study of living human behaviour are welcomed. In particular, the nature of 'proof' and 'truth' about past events, and the use of human remains as evidence in terms of concepts and treatment of the dead, are themes which the discussion following papers will seek to address.
Paper abstracts or general enquiries should be directed to Jennie Robinson (formerly Jennie Hawcroft!) at UCLan on jerobinson@uclan.ac.uk
Archaeology for the Community
Faye Simpson & Sean Hawken (faye_simpson99@hotmail.com)
Sponsored by the 'Exploring Archaeology' community archaeology project
Community archaeology is now more than a fashionable phrase. A multitude of theories lie behind the various methodological approaches to community archaeology. This session seeks to explore whether one particular approach is right, or whether the focus should be an anthropological one. It could serve the wider community if more than one strategy is adopted, more than one methodology.
The focus could be on context instead, seeking to explore individual communities with their own values.
This session will explore the plethora of issues raised by participants' submissions, which will outline their experiences of community archaeology and provide a starting point for the discussion. It will investigate theories and methods adopted on these groundbreaking projects, examining community values in more depth. The aim will be to draw together common themes, forming critiques and examining subsequent strategies for maximising the values of community archaeology as a resource.
Beyond the core: reflections on regionality in prehistory
Andy Jones, Graeme Kirkham & Imogen Wood (andjones@cornwall.gov.uk)
This session will explore the idea of establishing regionally based archaeologies across the British Isles that are not necessarily defined by modern political boundaries or upon comparison with a minority of areas that have been classed as 'typical'.
Since the nineteenth century, much of the thrust of British archaeology has been concerned with constructing theoretical edifices by making associations between readily identifiable strands of evidence such as ceramic forms or monument classes. This is epitomised in the prehistoric period by the creation of regions such as 'Wessex' and 'Orkney', which were intensively studied and came to be conceived of as 'core'. The 'meta narratives' produced for these areas have been held to be 'typical' while other zones with apparently different narratives have tended to be thought of as 'peripheral' and their diversity overlooked.
Assumptions about the applicability of these models have begun to be challenged, especially by archaeologists in Ireland and Scotland. However, even here the appropriateness of regions based on modern polities is questionable and may not reflect diversity within those areas. In some respects the situation in England is worse, for despite more than two decades of intensive and often large-scale developer-funded archaeological investigation, new regional narratives are still largely lacking.
Participants are invited to test the assumptions of the 'meta narratives' of British prehistory by discussing how similarities and differences between regions could be investigated through the study of areas such as human agency, context or landscape.
Themes for discussion might include consideration of how an archaeologically coherent region might be defined, how 'universal' artefact forms and monument types have been interpreted in different areas, or how different patterns of contact, for example with the Continent or other regions, have affected the construction of identity.
Beyond the Fringe: theorizing liminality in the historic city
Oliver Creighton (Exeter) (O.H.Creighton@ex.ac.uk)
The words 'liminal' and 'liminality' are used with increasing frequency in archaeological discourse: but is there meaning behind these buzzwords? This session explores the concept of liminilty with reference to historic-period towns and cities. The concept is well understood in studies of prehistoric landscapes, but remains to be fully applied to urban areas or 'townscapes'. In the context of towns and cities, liminal spaces were blurry areas between urban areas and the countryside beyond. The hypothesised liminal zone lay - or was perceived to lie - beyond areas that were in some way 'core'; they are often considered marginal and peripheral places, being defined by an essentially passive relationship with the centre. These liminal areas of townscapes might embrace features that physically defined the urban fringe - including walls and religious institutions; moreover, they might be characterised by specific social or ethnic groups.
Any sophisticated understanding of these matters requires engagement with a series of theoretical questions and issues. Liminality can be understood in many ways: physical, social and cultural, among others, while perceptions of liminality are likely to differ within and beyond communities. Must liminal communities be defined in relation to a perceived 'core'? Were liminal identities mutable rather than static, and to what extent might the concept be an expression of resistance? Did liminality in life translate into liminality in death? This session invites contributions to these questions and others, and speakers are particularly welcome from disciplinary backgrounds other than archaeology.
Déjà vu: from space to place in Prehistory
Laura Basell and Tony Brown (University of Exeter) (l.s.basell@ex.ac.uk)
Humans, and arguably, hominins do not inhabit optimal spaces but places. This aspect of human experience has long been the Achilles heel of ecological archaeology. Because it was conceptually and analytically difficult it was the great omission from locational theory and the processual approaches to archaeology so popular in the 70s and 80s. Attempts at archaeologies of natural places (cf. Bradley) and phenomenological interpretations of place (cf. Tilley) have to some extent tackled the problem. They have supplemented (but rarely incorporated) the functional and ecological with locales, rhythms and lived-through bodies. Places are undoubtedly more than locations in an inhabited landscape, and more than an expression of everyday life. They involve relationships: spiritual, habitual, corporeal, territorial and emotional (cf. Schama, Bender).
This session invites papers from any period in Prehistory, which analyse and discuss if and how we can understand what "place" might have been in the past. It is clearly not simple, involving memory, activity, social practice, belief systems and most difficult of all meaning. As such, "place" cannot exist independently of humans/hominins, and must be dynamic and negotiated. Theories of place have been borrowed from anthropology, geography, psychology and history, yet archaeology's position as a discipline concerned with histories, should enable us to consider creation of place in space, and actively engage in the cross-disciplinary debate. Does archaeology allow us an insight into the construction of place? Can we see whether and how it varies both culturally and chronologically? And what can this add to the wider debate?
Bender, B. (2002) Time and Landscape. Current Anthropology, Volume 43, Supplement 4 pp. 103-112
Bradley, R. (2000) An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge
Schama, S. (1996) Landscape and Memory. Vintage Books.
Tilley, C. (1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape, Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford, BERG
Eat, drink and be merry: approaching consumption in the Neolithic Near East
Olivier Nieuwenhuyse (National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden), Karina Croucher (University of Liverpool) & Rachel Conroy (Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust) (onieuw@xs4all.nl, karina.croucher@liverpool.ac.uk, rachelconroy@gmail.com)
The Neolithic in the Near East (8000-5500 cal. BC) was an innovative period, characterised by significant changes in patterns of consumption and the preparation of food and drink. Archaeological investigations of consumption in this region have generally been limited to the identification of species of wild and domesticated plants and animals, perhaps extending to a discussion of evidence of butchery marks, or to functional-technological studies of particular pottery groups. However, preparing, cooking and eating food and drink are foremost social acts: they are complex, context-specific expressions of cultural values, systems of belief and personal relationships. They are mechanisms through which such concepts can be reinforced, negotiated and reproduced. In this session we would like to explore approaches to these issues in our interpretations of archaeological material. Whilst the main focus of this session in Near Eastern prehistory, we welcome comparative papers from other regions.
Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Theorizing Culture Change in the Face of Climatic Change
Felix Reide (Cambridge) (fr227@cam.ac.uk)
In an article titled "Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered" Jones et al. (1999) showed how culture change in North America was precipitated by the Medieval Cold Period. They, like many other scholars (e.g., Henrich 2004; Shennan 2000, 2001), suggest that the demographic fluctuations caused by environmental changes impact quite directly on the course of cultural evolution. It seems clear that environmental change - both cyclical as well as catastrophic - cannot be sidelined in our reconstruction of past culture change, but the interaction between people and the environment can be approached from different perspectives, for instance through formal modelling or through a landscape learning perspective (Rockman & Steele 2003).
This session aims to bring together archaeologists working in different periods and different areas of the world in order to exchange ideas about how to conceptualize the human:environment relationship. An increasing amount of high-resolution data on 'regular' climate change has become available, but unique natural catastrophes of the past have also enjoyed a higher profile in the recent literature (e.g., Grattan & Torrence 2002). Is it possible to theorize social responses to climate change and catastrophes such as volcanic eruptions or tsunamis? The baseline of the session is the strict need to avoid simplistic notions of environmental determinism, whilst the aim is to arrive at a more robust understanding of whether - and if so, how - environmental change influence past material culture change.
GRATTAN, J. & R. TORRENCE (eds.) 2002. Natural Disasters and Cultural Change. London: Routledge.
HENRICH, J. 2004. Demography and Cultural Evolution: How Adaptive Cultural Processes Can Produce Maladaptive Losses - the Tasmanian Case. American Antiquity 69: 197-214.
JONES, T.L. et al. 1999. Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered. Current Anthropology 40: 137 - 70.
ROCKMAN, M. & J. STEELE (eds.) 2003. Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: the archaeology of adaptation. London: Routledge.
SHENNAN, S.J. 2000. Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 41: 811-35.
--- 2001. Demography and Cultural Innovation: a Model and its Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 5-16.
Finding Faith In The Past – The Archaeology Of Religious Experience
Rod Millard (Cardiff) (camp_follower@hotmail.com)
The past decade has seen a radical change in the way we view the archaeological study of religion, to the point where "Archaeology Of Religion" is almost viewed as a discipline in its own right. However, archaeological approaches to religion remain very often rooted in the study of specific material remains or vague concepts such as "ritual", and have a tendency to regard specific religions as distinct cultures.
By contrast, related disciplines such as theology or the anthropology and sociology of religions have moved away from the act of ritual by the community to concentrate on the experience of worship for the individual, and to seek common features of worship and religious experience in otherwise different societies. The aim of this session is to suggest areas in which archaeology can follow suit and address these issues of religious experience, often in cases where there is no insider perspective available as there would be for scholars in related disciplines.
The papers within this session may address various religious traditions in a wide range of historical and prehistoric contexts. The purpose, however, is to discuss how interdisciplinary approaches may add to our understanding of the role that elements including (but by no means limited to) ritual, art and architecture would have affected religious experience in past cultures.
Future Archaeologies: Future Geographies
Catherine Brace & David Harvey (Exeter) (C.Brace@ex.ac.uk, D.C.Harvey@ex.ac.uk)
The purpose of the session is to bring together Archaeologists and Geographers interested in the challenges that face the respective disciplines in dealing with, making or representing the future. Archaeology and Geography are both disciplines that are reasonably comfortable with dealing with the past, but all around us are the geographies and archaeologies of tomorrow: the symbolic spaces, the material remains, the relicts and artefacts, the knowledges, rituals, practices, performances and customs of our present. The questions that surround the archaeologies and geographies of the future are many and range across the epistemological, methodologicial, conceptual and theoretical. They deal with what future archaeologists and geographers will make of our present; the future trajectories for each discipine; how and what to preserve for the future; how to communicate into the distant future; virtual spatialities and how to remember them; how to dig in a digital place; the meaning of memory; futures that did not come to pass; counterfactual futures. This session would be aimed at Geographers and Archaeologists interested in the connections between their disciplines as well as the knotty questions of imagining and preparing for the future however close it might be. There are geographers working in the field of futurology at present and just asking around I hear that archaeologists are also interested in these themes.
In the absence of theory, or just less obsessed? African archaeology’s contributions to wider theoretical debates
Dr Paul Lane (British Institute in Eastern Africa, Nairobi) (pjlane@africaonline.co.ke)
On a global scale, African archaeology, with the notable exception of long-standing debates on hominid evolution and the emergence of modern humans, is rarely regarded as a source of fresh theoretical insights. While it would be wrong to characterise African archaeology as theoretically 'uninformed', it is probably the case that only a few projects are explicitly oriented toward addressing issues of theory and interpretation. This may be simply because so many parts of the continent are poorly known archaeologically, and as a result researchers have their work cut out just to establish the basic culture history and chrono-stratigraphic sequences of their study areas. But this session will argue that African archaeology is a valuable and important source of theoretical insights which have broad relevance to the discipline. Moreover, far from being devoid of theory, the archaeological knowledge currently being produced is instead more embedded and applied in its nature than much that passes as theory in Anglo-American contexts. Indeed, the sheer amount of archaeological data still to be uncovered from the continent offers the enviable opportunity of developing projects which are, from the very outset, theoretically informed.
To illustrate these arguments, this session offers a series of novel perspective on the theory of analogy, the nature of political power and authority, phenomenological approaches to the understanding of landscape, the constitution of indigenous archaeology, notions of modernity, and the development of applied archaeology.
Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices
Barbara J. Mills (University of Arizona), William H. Walker (New Mexico State University) & Joshua Pollard (University of Bristol) (Joshua.Pollard@bristol.ac.uk)
This session draws on anthropological theories relating to consumption and material culture, especially those that address how objects are used in the construction of social memory. It aims to explore how the practices of memory work (memorializing, forgetting, cosmology construction) organize and change social relationships expressed in archaeological evidence. The focus will be on depositional practices that remove objects from circulation through their placement in various forms of deposit. These deposits were produced through practices that involved the commemoration of places, events, and people. They are ways of understanding different regimes of value, social identities, and the social scales of ceremonial practices.
Practice thinking is a critical facet of all topics and terms associated with the materiality of human activity. Based upon this, the session will be structured around a series of definitions about space, identity, and memory. Memory is a dimension of practice that references actors/objects in time. Identity is a dimension of practice that orients actors to one another; and spatiality is a dimension of practice that relates, references, or orients actors (sources of power/animacy) in space. Such a perspective allows a confrontation of foundational assumptions about artefacts, deposits, and people. It highlights problems such as the essentialism naturalized by the dichotomous thinking that is so pervasive in social science and western intellectualism more generally. This practice approach builds on the resurgence of material culture studies particularly those emphasizing materiality. Papers will address how the dimensions of materiality are expressed in artefacts and archaeological strata. Depositional practices that are variously called 'structured deposition', 'ritual stratigraphy', or 'purposeful deposits' are critically examined in an effort to forge conceptual links between practice, memory, and archaeological evidence.
Mortality: Interdisciplinary Approaches in the Archaeology of Death, Burial & Commemoration
Estella Weiss-Krejci & Howard Williams (estellawk@hotmail.com)
Mortuary archaeology has developed sustained theoretical interactions with a range of disciplines, drawing upon research in forensic sciences, physical anthropology, philosophy, psychology, history, art-history, sociology, social anthropology and ethnography. Archaeologists have also conducted their own ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology to assist and expand interpretations of past mortuary practices. Yet few studies have explicitly addressed how archaeological theories and perspectives on death, burial and commemoration can inform ongoing debates in related disciplines as well as debates that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries. In particular, the session seeks to address to what extent archaeological approaches to funerary remains can contribute to, and can be integrated into, inter-disciplinary studies of dying, death and the dead in the past and the present? To this end, the session invites contributions to present new perspectives on interdisciplinary research in the archaeology of death, burial and commemoration.
Myth, Magic & Metallurgy
Lee Bray (Exeter) (l.s.bray@ex.ac.uk)
Extractive metallurgy, the processes of mining and smelting metals, has traditionally been studied from technical, economic and functional perspectives. These are etic approaches predicated on modern, Western conceptions of these activities. As such they serve valuable heuristic purposes, enabling archaeological interpretations to be to be undertaken in terms of familiar categorisations of the world and human interaction with it. However, modern rational perceptions of the mineral world as a passive, exploitable source of commodities is probably different from, or more restricted than those of miners and smelters in the past. Instead, wider or alternative paradigms are likely to have developed that drew upon existing beliefs and ideologies, imbuing mineralogical phenomena and metallurgical processes with cosmological, mythic and magical significance. Such meaning is likely to have been the result of a dialectic interplay between other cultural perceptions of the wider world on the one hand and the materiality of the raw materials and products involved in metallurgical processes, combined with the sociality and phenomenological experience of working with them on the other.
The aim of this session is to move beyond conventional analytical approaches to extractive metallurgy by exploring such emic perspectives and the ways in which they articulated with other aspects of the worldviews of past societies. Papers may address any facet of this broad theme but should focus on exploring the cultural significance of the processes of mining, smelting and related activities and of metals as raw materials and ores as opposed to artefact manufacture and its products.
Overcoming the Modern Invention of Material Culture
Prof. Julian Thomas (Manchester) (julian.thomas@manchester.ac.uk) and Prof. Vitor Oliveira Jorge (Porto) (vojorge@clix.pt)
Discussant: Prof. Tim Ingold (Aberdeen)
The idea of culture, as something distinct to, and opposed from nature, is an intellectual construct that prevents us to understand human experience: not only ours, but other¹s. Yet, our thought is impregnated with that dichotomy and its ramifications. For instance, the distinction between spiritual and material aspects of life, which lead to the common expression ³material culture². Another concept whose discussion is needed is technology, because it operates as a sort of abstract bridge between two other invented margins - influencing themselves mutually through action - the mental and the practical. We need to dissolve these boundaries in order to acquire a more effective knowledge. A knowledge which gives account of common experience, instead of being separated from it. This is a pre-condition of an interesting archaeology. An archaeology released from traditionally invented divisions between past and present, or artifacts and bodies. An archaeology turned into the study of ³the formation of the environment of our living-in.² (T. Ingold).
This session - open to archaeologists, anthropologists, architects, artists and other colleagues interested - intend to departure from the idea that in reality nothing is motionless. People and things constantly make each other in an environment where multiple beings and qualities exist together, and interact. This comprehension is fundamental for the understanding of sociality, and the ways by which power and status are continuously negotiated in everyday life.
- All the selected papers, even if not presented orally in the session (which is only a half a day one) for schedule reasons will be published in the next issue (vol. 9/10, 2006/2007) of the Journal of Iberian Archaeology, published by ADECAP, Porto. This peer reviewed journal is spread internationally through Portico Librerías, Zaragoza, Spain. The former issue, Vol. 8, has published the proceedings of the session on prehistoric and proto-historic architectures of the TAG meeting - Sheffield 2005 and was recently available at the XV UISPP Congress, Lisbon
- Dead-line for the authors to send the papers for publication: 16th February 2007. We accept papers with around 10-15 pages of text (5.000-7.500 words) and a maximum of 4 pages of black and white figures. Figures shall have no copyright problems. Every paper shall include a short abstract and 3 keywords.
- The final publication needs to be ready to be launched in Porto (Faculty of Arts) on the 23th March 2007.
Pub-Theory Discussion
The Pub-Theory Discussion Group, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Tobias Richter, Andrew Shapland & Andrew Gardner (t.richter@ucl.ac.uk, a.shapland@ucl.ac.uk, andrew.gardner@ucl.ac.uk)
Archaeology does not just take place in the field, laboratory, library or museum, but also in more informal settings characterised by face-to-face discussions between archaeologists. One such place, at least in the context of British archaeology, is the pub. The image of excavators meeting in a pub to talk about the finds and events of the day has been particularly popularized by TV series such as Time Team, but most students of archaeology will have been in a situation where they have gained some insight or background knowledge during a discussion in the pub. At the same time, archaeologists have begun to recognize the importance of archaeological discourses which takes place in such informal settings.
In this session we would like to use this link between archaeological theory, archaeology talk, pubs and the relaxing atmosphere of liquid consumption, to create an informal, fluid and non-hierarchical setting to discuss archaeological theory. Conventional contexts in which archaeological theory is debated at conferences, such as the lecture theatre, are characterized by formality and pre-established structures, which create boundaries and structures through the separation between audience and speaker. This is a theatrical set-up in which an actor uses the media of speech and visual presentation. By situating this session in a different location - the pub - we aim to break down this division between author and recipient by emphasizing the multivocality, reciprocity and fluidity of conversations and discussions. Through this process we want to give all attendees the chance to speak what they have always thought, wanted to say, but never did, in order to gain further insights into the theoretical basis of the discipline.
The Institute of Archaeology's pub-theory discussion group has been meeting since April 2006 on a regular basis in pubs around the campus of University College London. Specific texts dealing with archaeological theory are selected at each meeting and read by all members of the group for the next meeting to serve as the basis for discussion. For X-Tag we would like to utilize the same format of discussions based on specific texts, in order to provide a springboard for further debate. Using a message board hosted on the UCL website four recent texts dealing with archaeological theory can be nominated and will be selected by vote of conference attendees. Nominated texts should deal with a current aspect of archaeological theory, applicable across geographical and chronological contexts, and should inspire further discussion. There will therefore be no call for papers and no prior set theme for this session. The meeting will take place in a pre-selected pub. To create a definitive output the discussions will be recorded on video.
Nominations for papers to discuss are invited, via our discussion list at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/discussions/viewforum.php?f=37, by October 16th; voting on which papers to use will be open from then until November 17th.
Pub-Theory Message Board:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/discussions/viewforum.php?f=37&sid=b48920d8e84c24f6496eb445d9a81b2d
Reconsidering Social Archaeology
Bleda S. Düring (Institute of Archaeology, UCL) (bsduring@yahoo.com)
Archaeological perspectives on ancient societies are infused with the 'Gesellschaft - Gemeinschaft' opposition developed in the late 19th century. Studies typically deal with either total communities, and how these might have been (re)constructed, or with how the individual relates to the larger societal whole, and here one can think of the debates on the emergence of social inequality, social evolutionist studies, and Marxist archaeologies on the one hand, and the more recent focus on identities, agency, and embodied practices, on the other. While these studies may reflect the dominant models in sociology, others ways of conceptualizing societies are available. What is lost in the perspectives mentioned is an understanding of the manner in which ancient societies were constituted through social interaction within various nested social collectivities. A perspective focusing on these aspects of social life can be linked to recent studies in sociology and can help us to reach a richer understanding of past societies. This session calls for papers in which ancient societies are approached from a more holistic perspective, and in which the interrelations between their component social institutions, such as households, neighbourhoods, and local communities, are taken into account.
Scaling and Networks
Carl Knappett and Jill Hilditch (Exeter) (c.j.knappett@ex.ac.uk and jh257@ex.ac.uk)
This session seeks to explore new ways for examining the interactions between different scales in the prehistoric record. Processes occurring at distinct spatial scales, for example the household (micro), the community (meso) and the region (macro), evidently affect one another; yet, each spatial scale is usually expected to have a quite separate organisational logic. One upshot of this is that different methodologies are employed for each level, methodologies that do not necessarily intersect as readily as they might. This hinders the full study of scalar interactions. What is needed, we suggest, is a set of concepts and methods that facilitate the study of these articulations across the micro, meso and macro scales. While for this session we are particularly interested in the potential of network ideas, we also invite papers that pursue other conceptual avenues. We are also keen to include a range of archaeological evidence through which scalar processes can be tracked, and from a cross-section of prehistoric periods and regions
Steps to a neuroarchaeology of mind: Bridging the gap between neural and cultural plasticity
Lambros Malafouris & Colin Renfrew (McDonald Institute, Cambridge University) (lm243@cam.ac.uk)
Despite the many significant research breakthroughs in the cognitive neurosciences, especially over the last decade, within archaeology, there has been little awareness of the important questions constantly arising from current findings in this field. Although archaeologists do not excavate neural tissue, we should bear in mind, that the development of functional neuroimaging has allowed the investigation of a whole new set of questions about, for example, the self and the body, social intelligence and interaction, aesthetics, religion and economics. These are questions which raise a host of archaeological and anthropological issues and thus demand our attention and critical evaluation.
The time seems ripe for archaeology to start responding to, and engaging with, this emerging and rapidly expanding field of neuroscientific research. Thus the aim of this session is to stimulate a first reflection on neuroscience's claims and their possible archaeological implications: How can the new findings of neuroimaging be utilized in the context of cognitive archaeology and material culture studies? How archaeological experience might inform the questions to be asked in the environment of the brain (MRI) scanner? What might be the analytic potential of neuroimaging as a method in archaeology? Can there be a neuroscience of material culture?
The general objective is (a) to promote the understanding of some key recent developments in neuroscience, (b) to articulate some of the possible questions and approaches that can be seen as emerging at the interface between cognitive/social archaeology and cognitive/social neuroscience, and (c) to investigate the possible role and contribution of archaeological and anthropological research to key debates within the neurosciences.
Teaching Theory
Anthony Sinclair (Liverpool) (A.G.M.Sinclair@liverpool.ac.uk)
Sponsored by the HE Academy
More information to follow
The Archaeology of Disability
Tim Phillips (Reading) (T.J.Phillips@reading.ac.uk)
The 1995 TAG at Reading saw a session entitled 'Disability and Archaeology'. This included papers on disability in the archaeological record and comments about working as a disabled archaeologist. In the subsequent publication of this session (Archaeological Review From Cambridge, 15.2, ed. Nyree Finlay), Tom Shakespeare summed up the contributions by commenting that it would be interesting to review progress in another ten years time. It is now 11 years since the Reading TAG and much has happened since then. Not only is there a greater knowledge of disability in the past, current legislation relating to disability, employment and Higher Education has made this a topical subject. The theoretical background to this legislation involves the Social Model of Disability which shifts the emphasis from something being 'wrong' with the individual to the problems posed by the physical and attitudinal 'barriers' in society - a radical change in how disability is perceived. This session will have a double theme. First there will be papers updating the approaches to disability in the archaeological record, its occurrence and the possible attitudes towards it in the past. Secondly, two papers will discuss the attitude towards, and responses to, disability in contemporary archaeological practice in both Britain and North America and how we are responding to this shift in attitude in both employment, Higher Education and archaeological fieldwork training.
The Historic Landscape: the richest historical record we possess?
Steve Rippon (Exeter) (S.J.Rippon@ex.ac.uk)
In recent years there has been increased interest in what the 'historic landscape' - our present patterns of fields, roads and settlements - can tell us about the past. In particular, organizations such as Cadw, English Heritage and Historic Scotland have embarked upon programmes of 'Historic Landscape Characterisation', although the value of such work has sparked considerable debate. Recent discussion of Roberts and Wrathmell's identification of England's 'Central Province' (the region characterized by villages and open fields in the medieval period), based on the analysis of 19th century maps, has also raised a series of issues over how far we can reconstruct past landscapes through the back-projection of evidence from recent sources.
This session will bring together landscape archaeologists and historians from a wide range of backgrounds (including students, academics, and practitioners from local authorities and governmental bodies) to discuss the theoretical and practical issues concerning trying to reconstruct and understand landscape before contemporary cartographic sources. The session invites contributions from speakers from a range of disciplines wishing to theorise and assess the current approaches to studying the historic landscape, through case-studies or broader commentaries.
Potential contributors should contact Professor Stephen Rippon, Archaeology Department, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, EXETER, EX4 4QE, tel. 01392 264353, e-mail: S.J.Rippon@ex.ac.uk
The Spade Cannot Lie - Fresh Perspectives on Medieval Material Culture
Tehmina Goskar (Southampton) (tehm@soton.ac.uk)
On what basis can people who work in historical archaeologies, particularly the medieval past, converse with each other effectively and meaningfully? How can the standing of material culture in the broader sphere of medieval studies be improved? This session aims to start a wide-ranging debate about the ways in which we can improve how we interrogate medieval material culture from across Europe and the Mediterranean, and how we can apply useful theoretical frameworks to our interdisciplinary work. Papers are sought from anyone who feels they have something to contribute to challenging established paradigms about the Middle Ages that so often perceive material culture as either 'objective' or 'mute'.
The session will end with a discussion of whether it would be worthwhile to create a Medieval Material Culture Communications Network of academics, professionals and postgraduates who work in archaeology, museums, history, conservation, art history, materials technology and other fields, so we can continue to share our expertise and knowledge.
Towards Social Maritime Archaeologies
Robert van de Noort & Jason Rogers (Exeter) (R.van-de-Noort@ex.ac.uk)
In the last decades, maritime archaeology has developed from the study of boat construction and use, to a discipline that is focused on the human interaction with the sea, lakes and rivers through the study of boats and ships, waterfronts, cargoes and long-distance exchanged goods. This transformation was discussed at TAG in 2002, and several following conferences. However, despite this new contextualisation of nautical activities, the social processes that enabled seafaring and inland navigation to take place in the prehistoric and early historic period remain poorly understood.
This session is intended to explore the people that built, maintained, loaded, manned and commanded the ships and boats in the past. These explorations can be based on ethnographic work, psychological work on ships' crews, historical myths and legends, rockart depicting boats and their crews, or, indeed, excavated shipwrecks. We welcome in particular papers on aspects of social maritime archaeology which will consider:
- the skills and craftsmanship of boat builders;
- the social composition of the crew, and role of leaders and specialists;
- the social identities of the 'closed communities' on seafaring and inland craft;
- the ritual significance of travel and ritual use of boats
- experience, knowledge and navigation skills of inland waterways
Transforming materials: rendering the invisible tangible
Mary Ann Owoc (Mercyhurst) (mowoc@mercyhurst.edu)
This session draws attention to the ways in which we can theorize perishables - the least tangible elements of archaeological material culture. These impermanent materials, which would have made up the vast majority of all cultural items in the past, have the least chance of surviving to the present day and have thus been largely absent from the mainstream theoretical discourse on material culture. Preliminary investigations suggest past social attitudes to perishable material culture may have deliberately played with notions of permanence and transience, occasionally rendering the impermanent in different, more robust, materials. Other work has stressed perishable metaphors and explored the engendered qualities and uses of these items. Organic materials also come from living things, some of which can be husbanded, others of which must be killed in order to collect raw materials so that the individual, gender and communal relationships with particular plants and animals may be deeply embedded within cultural choices of materials and craft products. Impression analysis, studies of skeuomorphism, notions of materiality and transformation, and other methodologies and approaches will be presented as conceptual tools for further exploration. We are especially interested in papers which promote new ways of seeing and using the relationships between organic and inorganic materials, or which theorize issues relating to organic cordage, containers, wood, textiles and clothing.
What is the future of public archaeology?
Julien Parsons (Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter) (julien.parsons@exeter.gov.uk)
We propose a question and answer session to a panel of experts to take place at the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, before an audience of conference delegates, invited individuals and members of the public.
Almost all archaeologists now accept that some form of engagement with the public is an essential element in any archaeological project. Many espouse the idea of reaching out to a community to help foster a sense of ownership of heritage. Traditionally public archaeology had taken a limited number of forms; the 'glass barrier' of a museum display case, the 'book on the wall' approach often adopted by heritage centres, and popular 'coffee table' books and magazines illustrating the great discoveries of archaeology. Increasingly excavation units have taken it on themselves to deal directly with the public through site tours and open days and the Portable Antiquities Scheme has attempted to communicate to people (particularly metal detectorists) the importance of stewardship of the archaeological resource. And of course in recent decades television programmes like Time Team and Meet the Ancestors have drawn in millions of viewers.
These forms of public engagement have concentrated on the excitement of discovery; arguably archaeology for many has become a vicarious experience requiring little active participation. And despite all of these attempts to woo the public, membership of many archaeological bodies remains static or even declining, and it is difficult to argue archaeology has moved significantly up the political agenda. Is it time to readdress how archaeologists communicate with the general public? Is it to time to refocus on how and why we interpret the past rather than perpetuating the myth that archaeology is solely about the act of discovery?
What has function to do with theory?
Linda Hurcombe (Exeter), Annelou van Gijn (Leiden), Patty Anderson (CNRS) (l.m.hurcombe@ex.ac.uk)
Function is not often associated with theoretical archaeology - this session seeks to change that. Archaeology has in recent years been a self-critical and reflective discipline: TAG is one of the biggest regular conferences. The concepts of 'refuse' and 'deposition' have been transformed into socially meaningful acts and Bourdieu's ideas of a theory of practice are an influential way of looking at archaeological evidence. Furthermore, there is the novel concept of affordance. Yet 'function' has never received a critical review: it is equated with 'utility' in a manner which relegates functional evidence to the pragmatic and renders it virtually a-social, and in the eyes of some, a-theoretical. In this context it is time to re-assess the concept of 'function' and stop it being seen as synonymous with utility. Most certainly past acts were part of a material culture repertoire and cultural choices. What people do is therefore crucial archaeological evidence for their world view: social relations are not just stated but enacted. This session will propose a re-exploration of function, role and affordance to stress the social contexts of actions.
Papers which theorise the cultural significance of function and the contribution of functional evidence to broadscale questions and theories are all welcome.
|
