Åsa Berggren

Social practice, method and some problems of field archaeology

This article argues that the development of excavation field methods in archaeology is closely tied to the social position of fieldworkers. We also note disaffection in field contract archaeology today resulting from a wide range of factors, including the separation of excavation from interpretation. We argue that this separation and the notion that archaeological excavation can be seen as unskilled undermine the scientific basis of archaeology. A reflexive archaeology is discussed that empowers field archaeology by (a) focusing interpretation at the trowels edge, (b) bringing multiple perspectives close to the moment of excavation, and (c) documenting the documentation process.

Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük : integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge

Abstract Excavations at Çatalhöyük have been ongoing for over 20 years and have involved multi-national teams, a diverse range of archaeological specialists and a vast archive of records. The task of marshalling this data so that it can be useful not only at the post-excavation stage, but also while making decisions in the field, is challenging. Here, members of the team reflect on the use of digital technology on-site to promote a reflexive engagement with the archaeology. They explore how digital data in a fieldwork context can break down communication barriers between specialists, foster an inclusive approach to the excavation process and facilitate reflexive engagement with recording and interpretation.

From spectator to critic and participant A new role for archaeology in ritual studies

In order to understand ritual in the past, archaeology has long relied on theories developed in other disciplines. While these theories, which often rely on written or oral information, have added many important dimensions to our interpretation of the archaeological record, they have often proven difficult to successfully articulate with the archaeological sources. Moreover, archaeology has tended to remain on the receiving end of the formulation of social theory, and has only rarely participated in the theoretical development and critique. In this article we argue that we see a central role for archaeology to contribute to the development of ritual theory. Through two case studies from Scandinavian prehistory we illustrate how the application of a practice-based ritual theory allows us to more firmly connect the theoretical framework to our archaeological sources. This connection not only leads us toward a synchronization of materials, methods and theories, but it also allows us to engage in the broader interdisciplinary theoretical discussion about ritual. The specific challenges posed by the archaeological sources and the archaeological process of interpretation point to new questions relating to the application of theoretical frameworks, and may even suggest some solutions.

The relevance of stratigraphy

Not all archaeological remains cause discussions concerning stratigraphy. In Sweden, for example, intense stratigraphy discussions have taken place among archaeologists working mainly with urban sites (see e.g. Larsson 2004), and many of the illustrative examples in the text by McAnany and Hodder are rather well-preserved remains with complex stratigraphic sequences. This is, of course, due to the fact that different remains are stratified to different extents and are thus valued differently regarding this issue. Poorly preserved, sketchy remains scattered in the ground may lack complex stratigraphic relations and are regarded as less relevant for this discussion. However, all archaeological remains have some stratigraphical relation and – as McAnany and Hodder mention – interpretation of stratigraphic sequences is a part of archaeological identity. A greater interest in how stratigraphic sequences are formed in social terms should be relevant for all archaeologists. I believe that archaeologists working with complex stratigraphic sequences, and those who work with less stratified remains, have something to gain from this discussion, but in different ways. McAnany and Hodder state that stratigraphy may be both overdescribed and undertheorized. The problem of overdescription concerns complex stratigraphies, while I think less stratified remains are suffering from a lack of discussion concerning stratigraphy all together.

Richard Bradley: A Geography of Offerings: Deposits of Valuables in the Landscapes of Ancient Europe. Oxbow, Oxford, 2017, 160 pp., ISBN: 978-17-85704-77-2

In his new book, Richard Bradley revisits an archaeological material he has had a long relationship with: objects deposited in water and in the ground. He has published thoroughly on the subject before, in his influential books from 1990 and 2000, and now the time has come to address these materials and the questions they raise anew. Why now? Well, more materials have become available through excavations in all of Europe, especially in the developer-funded sector of archaeology, as well as through the increasing activity of metal detector groups.Moreover, late developments in theoretical archaeologymay add new perspectives to the more traditional views of this material – something that, following Bradley, deservesmore attention. The focus on objects, chronology and typology has persisted, and deposited materials thus, still offer significant research potentials. First and foremost, Bradley points to the inhibiting effect of chronologically specific and specialized perspectives. That is, many researchers study the same kind of phenomena, but seldom look beyond their own time period. This has unknowingly led to repetition of the same debate, but also to different conclusions. Similarly, Bradley points to the division between specialists studying objects, e.g. in museums or laboratories, and archaeologists studying past landscapes. Bradley would like to see these debates brought together. This book aims to encourage such joint discussions, and is a welcome initiative. We all need to look beyond traditional period borders to engage more actively with our colleagues. Much can be gained through broadening our perspectives. Yet, in some ways I am left with the feeling that Bradleymay be trying to kick in – at least some – open doors. For example, he would like to move away from a functional/practical model of explanation and open the discussion for the possibility that the materials had other meanings as well. This discussion is decades old. Do we still have to be reminded that things may have significance other than practical or economic? The scope of this book is broad, both chronologically and geographically. In addition to the very long period between the Neolithic and the Iron Age, Bradley includes the Late Mesolithic and the first millennium AD, making the studied period roughly 6000 years between 5000 BC and 1000 AD. The area of focus is northern and western Europe, with additional examples from other parts of Europe. Due to the character of the phenomenon at hand, the materials discussed range from fragmented animal bones to spectacular, intact, metal objects. With scope this broad, there is a risk the discussion will stay at a very general and superficial level. Bradley counteracts this by presenting detailed examples of sites with deposited materials from all around Europe. By default this makes for a predominance of excavated and published, and therefore well known and perhaps more remarkable, sites. He uses, for example, the Broadward hoard, Snettisham, Hoxne and the Staffofdshire Hoard from Britain, and Röekillorna and Skedemosse among other sites from Sweden, which are all published and very well-known sites. But as Bradley points out, this book is not to be regarded as a synthesis. It is meant as an essay on the strengths and weaknesses of current thinking. And that is why it works, even though the author may have picked the examples best suited for his argument, as they are indeed relevant and illustrative. The predominance in the examples of metal objects, as well as intact objects of other materials, must be noted. More anonymous materials (fragments of animal bone, stones, pottery sherds, etc.) could have been given more attention, as they have seldom been at the centre of the discussion. Perhaps this predominance of metal is unavoidable when the studied time period is this long and includes themetal ages. However, this may be a little beside the point, as Bradley’s second aim – apart from broadening the chronological scope of the discussion – is to broaden

Comments on Matt Edgeworth: ‘Follow the Cut, Follow the Rhythm, Follow the Material’

to give too much credence to powerful philosophies framed by non-archaeologists, and not enough to the power of archaeology to challenge and transform those ideas. I have argued strongly here for a greater value being accorded to interpretations made on the basis of engagements with archaeological evidence, relative to theories originating from outside of the discipline. This is a counterbalancingmove, intended to put right existing imbalances. Instead of relying on external theory to kick-start interpretation and frame ideas about the past from the outset, our own encounters with archaeological materials are so rich that we already have plenty to go on.We already have flows and trajectories to follow; we are already moving in particular directions and have some force behind developing ideas irrespective of the application of broader philosophical systems. At many moments in the intellectual enterprise of writing and thinking archaeology, we have the option of re-engaging with materials, ‘grounding’ theory and revitalizing our thoughts with material resistances, flows and rhythms. Of course our archaeological interpretations still need to meet, be merged with and challenged by wider theoretical models, perhaps developed in the context of other disciplinary studies, but the imperative to take up starting positions within external theory is unnecessary. Archaeology, as a way of opening the world, has its own abundance of points from which to set materials and ideas in motion, and to be set inmotion itself, spinning its own theoretical web as well as weaving in strands borrowed from elsewhere. It follows that convergences of flows of ideas from inside and outside the discipline can perhaps be thought of inmore equal terms – as confluences of intellectual currents, each with energy and power to shape the other.