Archaeolog

in Critical Technologies the making of the modern world theme

We welcome abstracts for the above-named WAC-6 session. The session is jointly organised by James Dixon (UWE Faculty of Creative Arts) and Brent Fortenberry (Boston University) and subsequent discussion will be chaired by Victor Buchli (UCL)

The modern world is replete with technical processes. Whether watching the television, listening to music, driving a car, or any number of other things, people are employing technology to make their lives easier (or harder depending on whether or not your car starts).

Two distinct ways to approach technical processes through archaeology exist. The first, derived from science and technology studies, looks at the wide range of factors that go into making and using technology; people, things, ideas, time constraints, politics and so forth. Ideas derived from ANT and other techno-science paradigms are currently enjoying wide spread use by contemporary theorists.

Building on these ideas of production and use in which individual users are invariably and inevitably lost, the second perspective highlights the embedded nature of technical objects in the production of the contemporary self. It is perhaps a mistake to think that 'the archaeological approach' to technical objects is to look beyond their everyday ('shallow' or 'unknowing') use to their wider technological contexts. Rather, as objects and processes essentialise themselves in the 21st century we can return to ideas of fetish and embodiment and look towards the experience of technical processes and objects as central to their being.

Simply put, what influence, if any, do these objects have on the experience of the everyday and the conceptualization of identity? Can things composed of metal and plastic 'make a difference' to one's worldview? Does their absence or presence become a marker for complicity or assimilation in popular culture?

For this session, we invite papers that attempt to confront technical processes through archaeological research methodologies, particularly those that aim to look at the points of contact between ANT-based research and more affective approaches to technology.

Abstracts and other expressions of interest should be sent to James Dixon at jd2430@bris.ac.uk

The deadline for paper submissions is February 22nd 2008

Posted by Brent Fortenberry at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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

Posted by Ashish Chadha at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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

Posted by John Carman at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am organizing a WAC session on the “History of archaeology in the colony” in the Theme “Archaeological Theory? Legacies, burdens, futures”. Chiefly, the session seeks submissions on history of archaeology in Egypt; Mesopotamia (Iraq); Africa; South Asia, Mexico and South America – located in late nineteenth century and early twentieth century trajectory of archaeology in these disparate geographic areas. To an extent this session is envisaged to take the project forward by Peter Ucko’s edited “Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective.” However, my attempt with this session is with writing and producing a deep and particularistic history of archaeological exploits in the colony.

Here is the ABSTRACT

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 metroploe
that archaeology as a discipline gained its methodological and
discursive authority.

Contact:
Ashish Chadha
at AshishChadha@stanford.edu

Archaeologers' Note: this is a partial entry which will be expanded soon

Posted by Ashish Chadha at 4:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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

Posted by Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)