Archaeolog

We are organizing a session for WAC-6 under the theme Archaeological Theory? Legacies, Burdens, Futures, which was announced on Archaeolog in June.

This session was inspired by a question posted to an archaeological discussion list a few months ago: where are the new ideas in archaeological theory deriving from? The two organisers of this session, John Carman and Carol McDavid, responded by suggesting that it can be found in the fields of archaeological heritage and public archaeology, where archaeologists are having to confront the central issues of what archaeology does, what archaeology makes, and what archaeology is for. Having spoken out, and received little in the way of further response, we thought it necessary to put our money where our mouth is and to justify our claims, while also giving space to those who would question our certitude on this issue. We therefore propose a session that will outline those aspects of public archaeology that are contributing to the development of new theory in archaeology and the consequences for the development of the discipline these entail.

We invite proposals for papers from those engaged in studying or working in public archaeology and related fields, which make the connection between archaeological theory and their work. Papers may seek to outline new developments in theory arising from such work, new applications of established archaeological theory, or how theory from other fields (political science, economics, law, sociology, literary or critical studies, etc.) becomes relevant to archaeological practice. We welcome also more sceptical papers which challenge our own view.

Please send proposals to the session organizers by October 30th.

Session organisers:
Dr John Carman
Birmingham University Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Heritage Valuation
Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, Arts Building
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7493 Fax: +44 (0)121 414 3595
Email: J.Carman@bham.ac.uk

Dr Carol McDavid
Co-Director for Public Archaeology, Yates Community Archaeology Project and
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Houston, Texas, USA
1638 Branard, Houston, TX 77006, USA
Email: mcdavid@publicarchaeology.org

By Ian Russell

Photographs by Conor McCarthy

Caption: Banksy’s portable toilet monument with the Glastonbury ‘sacred circle’ behind

I would like to commend Prof. John F. Cherry for his recent contribution to Archaeolog titled ‘Has anyone seen Banksy?’. I am a firm supporter of the growing synergies between archaeology and contemporary art. As many archaeologists are collaborating on developing new paradigms for perception of archaeological research and conceptions of what archaeology is, I, however, am moved to make an urgent critique of Cherry’s article.

Although the article provides a well articulated timeline of some of Banksy’s work, notably after an expositional review of some archaeological theory and the intriguing work of Cassidy Curtis’ Graffiti Archaeology Project, I am concerned that in Cherry’s attempt to address the significance of Banksy’s art work for archaeology, he has not succeeded in critically engaging Bansky’s work, leaving us with some misconceptions.

‘Most Haunted Live: Pirates’ Curse’ was filmed in Bristol and broadcast live at 9pm-12am on the 5th, 6th and 7th of May 2007 on UK Living. The Most Haunted series is a popular one on digital television and makes use of a fairly simple format. For the regular shows, a group comprising presenters, film crew and a psychic, visit locations (usually buildings), turn the lights out and wait for things to happen in the eerie green glow of the night-vision cameras. I don’t propose to discuss the ‘supernatural’ element of the show here, certainly not whether it is real or otherwise. It doesn’t matter. Rather, it is possible to look at the live version, Pirates’ Curse, in the light of contemporary archaeological approaches to buildings and archaeology media.

Pirates’ Curse took as its foci three of the more important maritime heritage sites in Bristol. On Friday night we were taken to ‘Blackbeard’s House’, a large late-seventeenth century house at the top end of Guinea Street, Redcliffe. Saturday’s exploration was a short walk away on the harbourside in Redcliffe Caves. The final show took place in the Llandoger Trow, a very well known public house on King Street, again immediately off the waterfront. Backing up the on-site team was a studio based element with a presenter and, importantly, a ‘studio-historian’ checking up on the facts. Taking the full force of modern technology to the search for historic presences, it was also possible to log on to the Most Haunted website and access night-vision webcams set up in the various locations. With the television and webcams on and, bravely, with the lights off, I settled down to a very different method of archaeological investigation…

A session for WAC-6 under the theme Archaeological Theory? Legacies, Burdens, Futures, which was announced on Archaeolog in June.

The meta-theoretical approach of processual archaeology gave rise to a history of archaeology, concentrating on the discipline as a cultural and political practice. It narrated a historical trajectory of a scientific discourse closely linked to the ascendancy of the nation state in Europe. These histories were extensive chronological accounts delineating the trajectory of archaeology in relation to larger meta-narratives of nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism with Europe as the centre of its historical genealogy. This session is arguing for an epistemic shift. It specifically concentrates on the ideology of archaeological micro-practice as methodological intervention in the colony and underscores the distinction between metropolitan archaeological practice and its colonial instantiation. Archaeological practice in the colony was an efficacious location for the consolidation of the disciplinary discourse and legitimized its scientific validity. The colony was arguably a more effective location than the metropole, for the emergence of the discursive framework of the discipline. The archaeologically potent landscape of the colony - Egypt, Mesopotamia, South Asia, South America, North Africa were productive location for metropole archaeologists like Flinders Petrie, Leonard Woolley, Mortimer Wheeler and many others to formulate the discursive universe of the discipline. This session investigates the modalities of these archaeological micro-practices in the colony not as an instance of a European meta-practice but a key site to examine archaeology?s deep colonial genealogy. It will focus on a deep and particularistic history of archaeological intervention in the colony and seeks to disturb the Eurocentric fixation of history of archaeology. The session will attempt to reinstate the primacy of the colonial location in the meta-narrative of archaeology's historical genealogy and argue that it was perhaps outside the European metropole that archaeology as a discipline gained its methodological and discursive authority.

Please send proposals to the session organizer by November 30th.

Dr. Ashish Chadha
Lecturer, Dept. of South Asian Studies
Yale University
Email: ashish chadha