Archaeolog

Sara Perry (University of Southampton)

Enquiry into the epistemological implications of visual representation in the sciences has been ongoing for decades now, as historians, philosophers, and disciplinary specialists have increasingly come to challenge the often taken-for-granted nature of scientific practices of pictorialisation. Archaeologists, in particular, have become progressively more familiar with the tensions at the heart of the visual communication of knowledge (e.g., see Molyneaux 1997, Moser 1998, Smiles and Moser 2005), but the number of forums open to practitioners to pursue and develop such study have tended to be few and far between.

The newly-launched Visualisation in Archaeology (VIA) project endeavours to redress this predicament. Connecting researchers through its web platform, its annual workshops, an international conference scheduled for 2010, its online bibliography and research showcase, and various related outputs, VIA aims to inform professional standards around pictorial practice, investigate viable guidelines for imaging, and, in so doing, articulate an intellectual framework for the visualisation of archaeological data.

Contributors to VIA's 2008 Workshop pose for a photo at the University of Southampton, UK. Courtesy of Colleen Morgan.

The first of VIA’s three annual workshops was held over two days this past October (23-24 October 2008) at the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton. The Visualisation and Knowledge Formation-themed event brought together representatives from the scholarly, private and public sectors to discuss and debate the historical and philosophical dimensions -- and future possibilities -- of the visual representation of knowledge in archaeology (and beyond). With contributions from British, Australian, German, Swedish, Portuguese, French, Danish, and North American practitioners, the workshop strived to engender conceptual reflection and to create an open network of dialogue, critique and visuality-related information sharing across countries and disciplines. Details on participants and papers presented at the event can be accessed online at www.viarch.org.uk.

As VIA’s organisers endeavour to formulate strategies for the dissemination of the 2008 workshop results, planning is currently underway for next year’s workshop at the University of Southampton, tentatively set for October 2009. The call for papers will be posted on VIA’s webpages in the near future -- as will information on the outputs of the 2008 workshop. Please visit the website for updates and to read more about the project, its goals and its various components and contributors.

References

Molyneaux, B. L. (ed.) 1997. The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Moser, S. 1998. Ancestral Images: The Iconography of Human Origins. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Smiles, S. and Moser, S. (eds.) 2005. Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image. Malden: Blackwell.

UCD Scholarcast has released a podcast series featuring highlights from the Sixth World Archaeological Congress’ theme ‘Archaeologies of Art’. Edited by Ian Russell, the series features contributions from Douglass Bailey (San Francisco State University), Blaze O’Connor (University College Dublin), Andrew Cochrane (Cardiff University) and Kevin O’Dwyer (WAC6 Artist-in-Residence). The series responds broadly to the themes raised by the Abhar agus Meon exhibition series hosted at WAC 6.

The series can be downloaded here: http://www.ucd.ie/scholarcast/series2.html

by Barbara Bender, Sue Hamilton and Christopher Tilley, 2007 Left Coast Press, 437 pages + notes, bibliography

This is an innovative and creative book. These are its best qualities. The book is also ambitious, the authors setting themselves the task of both complying with the “archaeological morality” (269) of publishing the results of field investigations, and conveying the experience of working at Leskernick on Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. To do this, the authors have experimented with form and content. And while their citational circle does not extend to media studies (where, I would suggest, they would find inspiration and edification), the book exemplifies Marshall McLuhan’s famous adage: the medium is the message. Reviewing experimental work, criticism rather than accolade comes easier, partly because the novelty excludes easy comparative evaluation. So I think it important to underscore that being innovative and taking risks, even though you may be safely tenured scholars, should be commended. It creates discussion, fosters debate, stirs emotion, and motivates colleagues to work harder. It disrupts our insulated routines of scholarly production. It is, unfortunately, all too rare.

The collaborative effort of the Leskernick project, steered by Barbara Bender, Sue Hamilton and Christopher Tilley, bends the parameters of analogue publication to transcend traditional site reports. The reader will not find neat topical divisions, no ‘introduction’, ‘background’ (limited to environmental characteristics and a few weather stats), ‘results’, ‘discussion’ or ‘significance’, followed by add on (and on and on) appendices. And with few exceptions, it does not resemble any other field project’s publication in archaeology - a most welcome intervention in academic publication.

There is a structure, however, with the book divided into four parts. Part One somewhat approximates a conventional ‘introducing the site’. Goals for the project are laid out, the setting and unique “awe and mystery” of the rocky hill where Leskernick is situated are conveyed, and the authors quickly dispel any notion that this will be a conventional report focused upon an archaeological site. By the time they conclude Chapter 1 stating that “we stand with the Leskernick people at the centre of their world” (35), the reader can expect to share an intimacy that will bring her to the edge of being an ‘insider’ of the project (cf. 266). We then receive an orienting tour of the site, followed by Chapter 3’s methodology. Part Two encompasses the ‘real’ archaeological information. If one were after conventional details, Chapters 4-7 are where we glean the details about Bronze Age Leskernick gathered through the excavation of 400 square meters of area, and the survey of every house and field enclosure on Leskernick Hill. A rough chronology, pegged to the radiocarbon dates in Table 4.1 (88-89), develops. Initially there were the earliest stone rows and circles, with the most spectacular "Propped Stone” and its summer solstice alignment dating to as early as the Neolithic. Then, in the hill’s clitter of stones, a growing population of 100-200 people, or eight to sixteen families, built their houses and field enclosures during the Middle Bronze Age and supported a pastoral economy (138). There is disagreement about whether these people inhabited Leskernick year round or only seasonally, though the directors favor the former scenario. Then there is a decrease in the number of families, leaving the hill with perhaps only 60 inhabitants. Then a gradual abandonment of the dwellings and the hill until much later medieval visitation and re-use. It is the narrative of part of the life-cycle of a landscape.

The book could have ended here with the conclusion of Chapter 7. But this book is not really about archaeology . . .