Visualizing Archaeologies: a Manifesto

TLDR: In this paper, the authors propose a development of a critically reflexive practice of visual archaeological expressionism, which seeks to contest traditional modes of thought and action, in order to illuminate and expose the interpretive and artistic qualities of presentation and narration.

Abstract: Is archaeology a science? Is archaeology a humanity? What are the politics of spectatorship and archaeological representation? These initial thoughts form the basis for our archaeological explorations. Within current archaeological discourse, there are a growing number of requests for expressions, which illuminate and expose the interpretive and artistic qualities of presentation and narration. Yet few scholars actively utilize expressive practice to explore these philosophical issues. As such, we feel that it is an opportune time to intervene in visual and textual discourse by issuing a manifesto for our project. We call for a development of a critically reflexive practice of visual archaeological expressionism, which seeks to contest traditional modes of thought and action.

Full text

1
In this Issue......
In this Issue……
John Robb
With this issue, CAJ


-





    
First Farmers.
        -



Prehistoric histories
-

Histories of the Dead: Building
Chronologies for Five Southern British Long Barrows,
-



    
-



-


       




     -








        

CAJ-

-



-


-

-


Research art?
While CAJabout 
         
-
    


-



        




Cambridge Archaeological Journal  

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774307000017 Published online by Cambridge University Press


In this Issue...

     
       
      


       
-
       






     

-



     

-







CAJ


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774307000017 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

The authors are also proud to present Terrell & Schechter ’ s hefty reinterpretation of Lapita pottery which will be sure to provoke debate ; and a critical discussion — and spirited defence — of Peter Bellwood ’ s bold and award-winning book on agricultural dispersals, First Farmers. 

Q2. What is the result of this work?

But as Whittle and his collaborators demonstrate, when radiocarbon dating is combined with detailed contextual information and Bayesian calibration methods, the result can be a quantum leap in their ability to see fine-grained sequence. 

Q3. What is the meta-point of the article?

The meta-point, too, is that art can and should supply a critical tool for exploring their ideas and their capacities to think them, and for exploring the relationship between the archaeological viewer and the archaeological object. 

Q4. What is the title of the article?

In this Issue... take issue with its claim that archaeological research involves not establishing some approximation of truth but rather the ‘fluid expressions of modern beliefs in temporalities and human agencies’, and with their call for an alternative visual discourse of ‘archaeological expressionism’. 

Q5. What is the title of the issue?

Thanks to this redating, the authors can now see the histories of monuments not as century-long blurs but with at least generational precision — a step towards telling ‘prehistoric histories’, in Whittle’s evocative phrase. 

Q6. What is the result of the work?

the authors can now see that many ‘timeless’ monuments, for the last century the archaeological symbol of all that was Neolithic, were constructed very rapidly early in the Neolithic, used for surprisingly short durations of a generation or two, and then abandoned. 

Q7. What is the purpose of the article?

In recent years, researchers across the theoretical spectrum, from Colin Renfrew to Michael Shanks, have spotlighted the potential of art to explore archaeological themes. 

Q8. What is the main point of the article?

Cochrane and Russell use art reflexively, to show how (in their view) archaeological representations can never be ‘original’ or ‘true’, but rather are assembled by the act of seeing from a collage of culturally dominant representations.