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