Applied Metaarchaeology

Session Organiser: Kathryn Denning 
(Sheffield University)

To Undermine or Underscore - Why must Meta-Archaeology be an Anti-Archaeology?

If nothing else, the discipline of archaeology is characterised by paradoxes. Our methodologies and theoretical inspirations are expansive, more often than not transcending disciplinary boundaries. Archaeologists thus become perhaps the most eclectic of academics, searching out every and any possible means of achieving their goal. One paradox, however, lies in the fact that a defined disciplinary goal is often elusive. Recently, given the opportunity to state the 'importance' of his work, one archaeologist replied "to learn [awkward pause] more." It took him completely by surprise that he might have to state the value of his work outside of the extraction and production of archaeological data. Without this sort of contextualisation, however, archaeologists become merely the providers of (pre)historical trivia. All relevance and application of archaeological knowledge thus becomes lost in the feverish quest for data and the concentration on method and the construction of theory. It is only in the study of the discipline and in the scrutinising of its associated foundations of knowledge that we may understand the placement and contribution of archaeology within the greater framework of humanity. Meta-archaeology, rather than comprising a destructive force which decimates the efforts of archaeologists, thus becomes an essential mitigator for a socially relevant discipline.

Where do we want to go today? Archaeological fieldtrips reconsidered.

The fieldtrip is a regular feature not only of archaeological conferences and degree courses, but also of informal gatherings and even private holidays of archaeologists. (TAG is actually one the few archaeological conferences which does not offer any associated fieldtrip.) Most fieldtrips however, consist of little more than visits of sites which may be well known from the academic literature, but where there is usually not much of their special significance to be seen. The fieldtrip experience is generally little more than an attempt to locate the current standpoint on a plan and to visualise what is not there. The archaeologist thus experiences sites in a way not different from other tourists. Given the importance in archaeology of locations, landscapes, and their meaningful experience, it is remarkable that a distinctive archaeological 'way of seeing' (beyond recognising sites as such) has not been developed. In this paper I analyse the characteristics of archaeological fieldtrips and critically review their aims and methods. I then present first thoughts towards a different way of visiting and experiencing sites in the landscape from an archaeological perspective. I conclude with speculating about the consequences for archaeological practice of conducting fieldtrips not as we know them.

'Good to think': The consumption of Celtic heritage in Wales.

To speak of archaeological interpretation and theorisation as such is to cling atavistically to a belief in an 'authentic' and 'pure' archaeological practice. Implicated always in the pursuit of knowledge are the narratives which tell the stories of who we may be and who we would wish to become. But how do the non-specialists - those who consume but are alienated from the production of specialist knowledge in the form of heritage - translate these stories into the narratives of their everyday lives? Through interview work at two very different heritage sites in Wales which seek to represent a Celtic past, I have been able to glimpse some of the intersections among heritage, material culture and the negotiation of identities. At the heart of this study is the centrality of the consumption of archaeological discourse in the formulation and reproduction of specific identities, identities we perform everyday within the context of numerous, often conflicting habit. As professional archaeologists we can critique each other's work, but without taking account of the wider cultural meanings made of archaeology and material culture our practice is, ultimately, empty.

From alienation to alien nations: Archaeology and alterity at the end of the millennium.

Research communities are intriguing to study when it comes to who and what they exclude, how, and why. Archaeology is no exception. Sometimes it transpires that people and ideas gain reputations as "lunatic fringe" or "alternative" because of factors besides the evidence, from contemporary politics to intellectual fashion. Similarly, scientistic formulations which contrast good, logical, 'orthodox' archaeology with bad, illogical 'fringe' archaeology are questionable; this may be a false dichotomy which impedes constructive thinking. Some current and historic ideas about the archaeological past show the extreme permeability - or even non-existence - of the 'orthodox vs. alternative' boundary. Examples range from dowsing to psychic archaeology, to catastrophism, to hyperdiffusionism (whether via transatlantic boats or intergalactic spaceships).

Stepping back further, one may see archaeology as a generator of stories and metaphors which influence people's beliefs, gaining power as the popular press continues to inform us all that we live in particularly historic and momentous times. Some consider this cause to regroup and begin new offensives against 'alternative' beliefs, but the prudence of this might be reconsidered in light of the questionable nature of the dichotomy above. So isn't it time for archaeology to deal more effectively with heterodox ideas about the past, to not alienate ourselves further from those who disagree with received academic wisdom, but to learn from alterity, whatever form it takes?

Wounded Attachments: Practicing Archaeology From 'The Outside'

I study archaeologists and I practice archaeology. Yet, in the us/them terms on which this discipline is constructed, I am in contradiction. I am placed outside the remit of archaeologist since I do not come close to any kind of ideal archaeological practice. The 'archaeologist' in this ideal is implicitly understood as the eurocentric, masculist, heterosexual subject of Cartesian rationality -- I appear to be lacking in something (!). But that appearance is dependent upon perspective and context.

Archaeology, as a discourse, defines objects; yes, objects of study but also bodies, nations, sexualities, genders both within and beyond its self-defined boundaries. It is founded upon violent objectifications. What that means in terms of its effects can vary from being humiliated as female staff on an excavation, to being denied the cultural means to express your identity, or to being murdered for your understanding of your past and present. In other words, the politics of what we do is not avoidable or comfortably dealt with. The work on discourse which I do is part of a theoretically informed practice which arises out of my own and other peoples' experiences of these situations from our positions in archaeology and our gendered, sexuate, national and other locations. It is about bringing discourse down to its fleshly roots, regenerating the 'matter' which has been set up as its 'outside' -- from different, embodied perspectives. As part of the paper, I will outline a field project which I have undertaken in the Boyne valley, Co. Meath in the Republic of Ireland that deals with some of these issues.

I will argue that ethically, we have to become aware of the conditions within which we work if we are to dwell in them, understand ourselves by them or change them. Having become aware, it is a more difficult matter to continue to practice these 'wounded attachments' through conditions structured to exclude.