10th – 13th April 2007, in Daniel Libeskind’s ORION building, London Metropolitan University, the annual conference for the Association of Social Anthropologists entitled ‘Thinking through Tourism’ was held.

At one level the Libeskind building operates through the three intersecting structural elements that form the building, emphasising sets of relations between the existing environment, the general public and academia. Certainly, within archaeology it is increasingly discussed whether these divides really exist or are indeed appropriate. From this perspective, Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell convened a panel that sought to tease out the potentialities and problems of modern archaeological tourism, image conflict and moves towards or with archaeological expressionism.

The session commenced with brief introductions by Andrew and Ian addressing why archaeologists were presenting at an anthropology conference. Through their research they have found abundant links and commonalities between the disciplines – particularly in relation to notions of and themes relating to:
agency,
contemporary arts,
dialectics,
dichotomies/dualities,
engagement,
habitus,
heritage/heredity/inheritance,
materiality,
materials,
performance,
personhood,
phenomenology,
politics of spectatorship/gaze,
remembrance/commemoration,
risk society,
semiotics,
speculation,
sustainability/disunity,
temporalities
and so on.
The scientific discoveries of archaeologists and anthropologists and the subsequent attempts within these disciplines to express interpretations of data in humanists forms have heavily impacted the content of tourism experiences and the infrastructure of the tourism industries. As a point of departure for the session, the notion of the ‘archaeo-experience’, to borrow a term from Cornelius Holtorf, was presented as a core component of archaeology which undercuts the increasingly reified divisions between the academic and public mediations of archaeological knowledge. This theme was presented as occurring at both local and global scales but also requiring critical examination from the perspective of new cosmopolitanism in order to undercut traditional core:periphery models of archaeological mediation.
In order to demonstrate how such themes have application ‘on-the-ground’, two case studies were presented as an introduction to the days discussions. The first was the excavation and subsequent industrialised image ‘reconstruction’ of the now iconic [ironic] heritage symbol of modern Ireland – Newgrange passage tomb. The second was the iconoclastic destruction of the colossal B_miy_n statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 and the soon to be completed iconophilic construction of a laser light art installation to fill the shadows and voids of the UNESCO World Heritage site representing the images of the Buddha by Japanese artist Hiro Yamagata in June 2009.
Such poetic abstraction as a means to understanding lifeworlds and environments led discussion on to the concept of expressionism – not as an academic, artistic or political movement – but as a desire to forge new ways of expressing understandings of the past. It was noted that the expressionism as an academic artistic and political movement was criticised by scholars (e.g. between Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht and Georg Lukács) as well by fascist extremists (e.g. Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels). The consequences of the later’s attachment to rationalist critiques of such modes of thought were expressed via power-point with an image of Berkenhau, Poland. This stark reminder of past events prompted discussion on Theodor Adorno and how he proposed that the cataclysm of rational expressionism has led to the end of poetic expression, stating that after Auschwitz all culture is ‘garbage’.
Pause for thought was followed by an image taken by Ian Russell of ‘tourists’ queuing to enter the crematorium at Auschwitz last September. (See Ian Russell’s photo-essay) This acts as evidence of the possibility for poetic performative expressions of commemoration and remembrance through pilgrimage, homage and ‘structured’ ‘dark tourism’. Such acts can be described as active materialisations of modern apologetics which resonate not only through embodied performance, but also through many other materials and fabrics. (See Ian Russell’s photo-essay on the Holocaust Memorial, Berlin)

The first paper was presented by Lorna Singleton (University of Manchester) and amalgamated the philosophies of Stephanie Koerner (University of Manchester) with her own research on material, ecological, biological, techno-economic and cultural historical aspects of the Lake District, England. Entitled ‘Pandora’s hope and challenges posed for anthropology by new cosmopolitan images of “living your life in a runaway world”’, this paper highlighted the challenges faced by efforts to democratise reflection on globalisation, tourism, and inequality in the dynamics of local, national and trans-national pedagogical institutions and affairs. Case studies considered both situations in antiquity and modern times. In Hesiod’s ‘Works and Days’ (c. 700 BC), Pandora is described as releasing the evils and misfortunes of the world, leaving only ‘hope’ in Epimetheus’ box or jar. Such remaining hope was sought by Lorna and Stephanie in questioning, through an erudite oral presentation and visually engaging imagery, what sorts of human beings can we aspire to be and in what sort of world.

The second paper of the day was delivered by Marcus Brittain (University of Manchester) and was entitled ‘Straining at the borders of belief: cultural tourism as crisis-management, and the mediation of archaeology’. Here, Marcus intimately addressed some of the expectations that the public have for the creation of narratives of a unified past. Consideration was given to how some archaeological agendas and presentations can actual limit public debate and media fluidity. Tourist attractions of the past, such as Flagfen in the Cambrideshire fenlands, increasingly operate with and respond to crisis management in presentation of pasts to publics. In these situations, crisis is defined as being an event with low probability but with high impact. Examples were presented of the newly proposed powerstation near Flagfen and its potential risk and impact on matters that include climate change, archaeology, land-use, biodiversity and heritage conservation. These factors were demonstrated to increasingly question who and what retains epistemic sovereignty and scientific truth, with debate often being fought within the commercial expressions of the media.

Next, Caroline Lamprey (University of Manchester) presented ‘Tourism and citizenship in anthropology of personhood perspectives’. Drawing upon her current research Caroline utilised varied themes, such as personhood (e.g. partibility and (in)dividualism), scientific policy, globalisation and citizenship to overcome modern academic usage of dualities. Case studies discussed included debates on the scientific nature of truth in genetics, HIV/AIDS, biotechnology, GM foods, the ‘tourist-bubble’ and land management in the Australian Outback. The crisis of interpretation here was demonstrated to traditionally ricochet between the roles of indigenous (public) knowledge and the roles of expert (academic) knowledge. Caroline eloquently commented that ‘on-the-ground’ there are no empty heads that are waiting to be filled with knowledge – but rather that local understandings of lifeworlds are being constructed on a daily basis via interactions with environment. Thus she challenged the appropriateness of academic creations of the/a past on a global scale.

The penulitmate speaker of the panel was Tim Neal (University of Sheffield) with his paper entitled ‘Once upon a time: truth as an expression’. Here, Tim admirably deviated from more traditional modes of academic performance and delivered instead a photo-essay of his recent excursion to Grotte de Niaux in the foothills of the Pyrenees. Drawing upon themes of personal expression, narration, speculation, consumption and coincidence, Tim discussed both the politics of spectatorship (e.g. the tourist and the guide’s gaze) and the politics of movement (e.g. verticality and restriction). Official guides were argued to reify their own subjective interpretations of the sites, combined with a narration of the linear development of the Self in Western history. At archaeological sites that perform as tourism attractions Heritage acts to (re)create the recreational aspects of a leisure society. Thus it was proposed that at some level, professional archaeologists project themselves as ‘Priests of Modernity’, who strive to mediate between the masses (general public) and untouchable essences (the past) – ultimately rendering any distinctions between past and present and material and mentality as untenable.

The final presentation of the day was given by the contemporary artist Steve Pool (in residence at Lancaster Museum). Steve was commissioned by the museum to ‘resurrect’ a nineteenth century wooden paddle from the Congo, Africa, that lay forgotten in their archived storage vaults. Inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, Steve attempted to take this paddle on a symbolic journey ‘up river’ to further discover, engage with and understand it materially, socially and phenomenologically. Unfortunately, the museum did not allow the artifact to leave the building; thus Pool created a near-exact replica/simulation. As there are no major rivers near Steve’s home, he undertook a journey with his paddle on the local train to the beach – to walk the promenade – to roll up his trousers and enter the sea – to paddle with his paddle! From these new experiences with the artifact, Steve created a video installation at the museum that consisting of four simultaneous looped films expressing four new paddle stories to the viewers. As a result of this artistic intervention, it was decided by the museum that the ‘original’ paddle should no longer be consigned to the dark heart of the museum’s vault but instead be put on public display as a prize exhibit for the public’s consumption. Steve’s artistic brilliance is matched only by his wit – this resulted in the audience laughing at his anecdotes. By injecting comic humour, he managed, however, to create a power, emotive resonance the thrust and themes of the day’s discussions.
The discussant for the session was Stephanie Koerner (University of Manchester) who succinctly presented the potentiality of the plurality of global grounds of truth. Through the performance of being a tourist, Stephanie considered why it is important to think via palimpsests of time; the necessity of communication and the need to write theory in new accessible ways; themes of personhood and multi-cultural environments; the relevance and risks of cultural heritage; the problems produced with the academic authoritative voice – for experts rarely speak as a ‘we’ but rather they speak in the name of society; image iconoclasm and cosmopolitanism. In summarising the key themes of the day, Stephanie insightfully demonstrated how many of our intellectual concerns mirror the concerns of Immanuel Kant in his writing Perpetual Peace (1795).
Many archaeologists have for a long time regarded anthropologists as elder intellectual siblings, who should be consulted for forward thinking theories and ways of understanding the world. As a result, the archaeologist is doomed to constantly present ideas that are generally ten years or more behind anthropology. This may well have been the state of affairs in the past. What this conference and session demonstrated, however, is that this is by no means the position that is occupied today. The speakers in this panel admirably worked through and with ideas that social anthropologists are themselves only beginning to come to grips with – thus shrinking and blurring the edges of and the divisions between the two disciplines.