Archaeolog

I recently attended the Nordic-TAG conference in Århus in Denmark. It was a gathering of some 200 Scandinavian archaeologists and archaeology students interested in theory. After one paper I made a comment that I did not find very original at the time, but I received so many reactions even after returning home that I am now thinking it may be worth considering this question again on this blog.

My point was simple. The speaker had framed his talk by the dualism of ‘processualism’ and ‘post-processualism’, suggesting a way of finally overcoming this long-standing division. I commented that this division was current some 25 years ago, that nobody except a surprising number of Scandinavian graduate students and post-docs nowadays seriously thought in terms of these polar categories, and that maybe it was time to realise that it is futile now to suggest (or wait for) the next big theory to replace ‘post-processualism’ as the key point of reference, whether positive or negative, for the entire discipline.

Many have commented on Livy's famous passage (Hist. XXI.36-7) where he describes Hannibal's engineers surmounting a large rock blockage on the Italian descent of the Alps, including the late great French archaeologist Serge Lancel (Lancel, 1998:78-9) and our History Channel team 2006 production (June-November, 2006). According to Livy, and repeated in Ammianus Marcellinus (de Sanctis, 1917:77 ff), the ancient engineers poured boiling vinegar on the rocks to facilitate their massive cracking along with burning the rocks by a fire underneath them, after which they were able to remove sufficient rock to pass by. One immediate problem with this story - as Lancel affirmed - is that it is not repeated in Polybius, the more credible source, who also describes Hannibal's engineers removing blocked rock after an avalanche (Polybius, Hist. III.54.5-55.1) but without this colorful detail of vinegar and burning rock. Polybius is so trustworthy on topographic detail it is surprising his text has such a lacuna if the story is true.

By: Lisa Anderson, Cassandra Mesick, Christine Reiser, Krysta Ryzewski & Bradley Sekedat

In April 2007, Brown University fielded a team composed of graduate students from the Department of Anthropology and the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World in the 4th annual Ethics Bowl at the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) general meeting held in Austin, Texas. This year’s competition also included student teams from Indiana University, Michigan State University, Northwestern State University, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and the University of New Mexico.

The SAA Ethics Bowl is a debate-style intercollegiate competition, the content of which is based on a series of ten case studies pertaining to relevant issues in archaeology today. These hypothetical scenarios are designed both to stimulate discussion during the Bowl and to provide teaching resources across the wider discipline. The scenarios incorporate a broad range of archaeological issues. The cases we addressed, for example, concerned themes of Open Access, ARPA, cultural representation and diversity, archaeology in times of war, museum stewardship, and multiple publics.

More detailed information about the Ethics Bowl in general can be found HERE. The case studies for 2007 can be viewed HERE.

We were of course delighted to be adjudged the winners of this year's Ethics Bowl, but for us it was the lessons and benefits from the collaborative experience of preparing for it and participating in it that provided the richest rewards. We share part of our experience in this short commentary.

On June 3 Cornelius Holtorf initiated an interesting discussion around the question “What comes after Post-processualism???” The discussion is extremely worthwhile and I wish add to a few comments in hopes of keeping it going.

Processualism and post-processualism: the powers of the paradigm, manifold as they are, add to the persistence of these terms. What are our beacons? How does one map the constantly fluctuating terrain of archaeology?

It is hard to ignore the deeply dug trenches which form the limes of the hypercritical period of 30 years ago, a period when these very terms were in the midst of acquiring definition. At that time the energies were fresh, the battles were raging, and the factions were given names. Historical though they may be, processualism and post-processualism have become terms of ease and convenience for our understanding of such a variegated terrain, a terrain largely oriented around a schism (with ‘historical’ insert ‘abandoned,’ as who exclusively ascribes to their core tenants (cf. Hegmon 2003)? Well let’s not be surprised if some, perhaps, still do!).

What are the states (past, present, future) of theory in archaeology today?
What are the agendas?
Is the political commitment still alive?
What has changed?
Have we fallen into a state of post-hypercritical apathy, malaise, fragmentation?
Where is archaeological theory going?

We wish to explore these questions, which connect with recent discussion (see Holtorf and Witmore) here on Archaeolog in a theme for WAC-6 Archaeological Theory? Legacies, burdens, futures (see abstract below). We (Andrew Cochrane (UK), Ian Russell (Ireland), Timothy Webmoor (US), Christopher Witmore (US)) would love to hear from anyone who has any ideas for a Session Proposal.

Archaeological Theory? Legacies, burdens, futures

What is archaeological theory? Where is archaeological theory?

Upon opening many contemporary books on archaeological theory it soon becomes apparent that there is now little internal debate between differing theoretical positions. Instead, one is presented with the shoring up of alternate 'camps' operating without any considerable depth of interaction. While branding ‘labels’ proliferate, and are often taken for developed theories, many archaeologists are not interrogating the inter-relationships between various agendas; e.g. agency theory, cognitive archaeology, embodiment, evolutionary archaeology, feminism, materiality, middle range theory, phenomenology, thing theory, etc. The fragmented terrain of this 'hyperpluralism' which characterises the field world-wide has been embraced generally as a positive development. Within this climate there are, however, arguments that archaeological theory is no longer at the heart of archaeology as a coherent enterprise, and in some instances theory has even been proclaimed as dead. Reasons for these concerns are multiple, even relating to transforming definitions of theory itself.

With few exceptions, this situation derives from a lack of intellectual debate and disciplinary negotiation. Additionally, a host of other factors also come into play—from the explosion of the heritage industry and CRM to the fluctuations of the academy; from behind-the-doors networking to the media economy of popular archaeology. Recognition of these concerns does not form the end point for this Congress Theme, but rather it constitutes a point of departure.

We encourage sessions to engage questions of archaeological theory relating to:

Legacies; what has become of these ‘theoretical camps’? Burdens; can we avoid the theory/practice bifurcation while exploring the edge of thoughtful practice? Futures; what are the new agendas? What are the obligations, energies, and concerns which form common grounds beneath the fragmented terrain of archaeological theory?

In a period of radical transformations within the discipline, we hope sessions will take stock and further explore a range of interests and applications in relation to issues of theory. What are the very long term implications of theoretical, pedagogical and institutional changes for the practices of archaeology? Will careful and critical thought in archaeology be sidelined as irrelevant in a climate of politically correct, open inclusion and popular opinion-driven, production of heritage for all? Does this very activity of theory involving discerning evaluation and debate make theory elitist? Who are included and excluded from archaeological theorizing? And more importantly, how are the standards of evaluation and reasoning changing as a consequence of the new climate? Or is theory no longer needed?

Furthermore, panelists should consider the investigation of stimuli that prompt bold questions of theory. What does an archaeological sensibility contribute to the understanding of humanity? What are the unique contributions of archaeology in its collaboration with other disciplines? Can archaeology contribute to cutting-edge agendas and debates in a trans-disciplinary arena?

We aim to foster a rich series of exchanges regarding archaeological theory, addressing where we are and what is at stake, while simultaneously seeking to reframe or even undercut the current state of affairs—a hyperplural stagnation—by identifying collective concerns for understanding humanity's location within the intra-relationships of this shared world.

IMPORTANT PROPOSAL DEADLINES:
Sessions: 1st November 2007.
Papers & posters: 22nd February 2008.

OTHER USEFUL DATES:
Final Announcement of accepted themes & sessions: early December 2007.

Confirmation of accepted papers & posters:
14th March 2008.
Early registration deadline: before 30th March 2008.

Website for WAC-6: http://www.ucd.ie/wac-6/

Contact:

Andrew Cochrane (UK) cochraneaj@gmail.com
Ian Russell (Ireland) ian@iarchitectures.com
Timothy Webmoor (US) timothy.webmoor@stanford.edu
Christopher Witmore (US) cwitmore@brown.edu