John M. Chenoweth (UC Berkeley)

From October 16 to 18, participants met at Keble College, Oxford, for the 2009 CHAT conference. Over 30 papers engaged with the theme “Modern Materials: the archaeology of things from the early modern, modern, and contemporary world.” Both participants and subjects of discussion were wide ranging. While many came from all over the UK and Ireland, others contributed points of view from the US, Continental Europe, Africa, and even Taiwan. These papers engaged with “modern materials” from treadmills and theatres to workshops and the bricks they may have been built from, and even extended analysis to the “modern materials” produced in archaeological recording, such as photographs.
Of particular interest were several papers which came from outside the disciple of archaeology or anthropology altogether, such as Pearson’s consideration of the role of the theatre building itself in a performance event, and Fisher’s of the “flow” of modern packaging through homes from a design standpoint. Coupled with Harrison’s inside-the-discipline discussion of amusement parks and the social shifts towards an “experience economy” these papers suggest how direct consideration of material culture produces insights even into the contemporary. This point is reinforced by Ouzman’s consideration of graffiti through an archaeological lens, considering its role in “politically-engaged place-ma(r)king.”

Ouzman’s paper also engaged with archaeology’s place as a discipline in the present, a topic elaborated on by keynote speaker Nick Shepherd (see below). This theme was in several papers, which addressed the relationship of materials and things to political and social forces in the present, including Maus’s discussion of a Soviet-era radar installation and the social importance it has gained for a local community, or Carr’s work on “occupation artefacts” from the Channel islands and the strong emotions they continue to inspire.
The Saturday afternoon sessions engendered the most energetic debate, focused on “Archaeological Practices and Archaeological Knowledge.” Several papers made efforts to recast archaeology and its field more broadly, such as Webmoor’s call to engage in “epistemography” by studying both the things of the past and the way they are given meaning in the present, and Witmore’s observation that even “ta archaia” or “old things”—the traditional province of archaeology—are implicated in “webs of concurrent relations” and this requires an expansion into “pragmotology” to do them justice. In the course of these discussions, a tension was also revealed in the conference abstract’s question, “what is the distinctive contribution of archaeology” to the study of these recent periods. This raised the issue of whether. and in what sense, archaeological analysis of recent and contemporary material culture needs to justify itself to the—or a particular—public, or make a case for its contribution.
The keynote by Nick Shepherd provided perspective on the more inside-the-field debates explored in the conference. Expanding on views of archaeology as a product and producer of modernity, he argued that it also shares the same relationship with colonialism. In reviewing some episodes from the history of archaeology in South Africa and the field’s relationship with its supposed subjects (intentional and unintended), he laid out a case for a deep connection between an archaeological view and colonialism, and interrogated the possibilities for decolonizing archaeological practice.
Obviously, calls for an archaeology of the contemporary raise questions over the contribution, motivation, materials, and responsibilities of such study that have yet to be settled. In concluding the conference, Hedley Swain, who echoed calls to be mindful of relevance to the field’s publics, also voiced concerns that the debate remains “westocentric” and has not yet fully engaged with the “truly exceptional” aspects of material culture. Several noted that by expanding our purview from the things of the past to those of the present (a necessary move, many agreed, since archaeology has never truly been only “about” the past but fully and politically in the present as well) we must confront new issues and new stakeholders.
However, the offerings, arguments, and “musings” about how this can be done and why it matters fostered both lively and important discussion among participants, moving the discussion of archaeology’s place in the modern forward in several directions. This conversation is sure to continue when participants meet for CHAT 2010 in Aberdeen.