Visualizing archaeologies: a manifesto

Visualizing Archaeologies Visualizing Archaeologies: a Manifesto Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell Questions cal research and risks the loss of the social and visual relevance of archaeological expression. These concerns and contemplations are the stimuli for this manifesto. 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 relexive practice of visual archaeological expressionism, which seeks to contest traditional modes of thought and action. We declare the importance and the need to express theoretical concepts in a format which is not constrained by linguistic context. We will express theory which is oten writen and turn to the visual as a means of promoting a visual literacy of archaeological theories, methodologies and narratives. This simultaneously acts as an invitation for practitioners who feel constrained themselves by this discourse in archaeological theory to seek to transcend linguistic cultural barriers by embracing the visual. Such endeavours have far-reaching ramiications for the tension between non-academic (public) and academic (expert) discourses (if indeed it is possible or appropriate to make these separations). Actions will pose further questions; for instance, can we ask what the implications for value and meaning are in archaeological presentations? Will archaeological science be deemed less ‘hard’ by its inclusion in abstract and unquantiiable visual expressions? How will this afect the linguistic authorities of archaeological discourse? We feel that the consequences of not undertaking such critical ventures are greater than those of undertaking them. If archaeologists fail to intervene relexively in discourses of visual literacy, then this threatens meaning and value in archaeologi- Relexive acknowledgement We accept that this manifesto is by no means an assertion of a universal ‘state of afairs’. The views and ideas expressed in this text are the contextualized expressions of our own individual and shared experiences as Western academics and artistic practitioners. In particular we choose to acknowledge our childhood experiences in Richmond, Virginia and Cornwall, England. We studied and currently work in Dublin, Ireland and Cardif, Wales and understand our thought as a product of Western European and Anglo-American intellectual and social discourses. lnluences In the spirit of our project, this manifesto will be an exercise in free thought and expression. Therefore at times we choose to abandon traditional standards of citation and referencing, and instead acknowledge here a list of thinkers and artists who have greatly shaped our thought and practice.1 Artistically, we owe a great deal to the work of Banksy, Joseph Beuys, Marcel Duchamp, Andy Goldsworthy, Raoul Hausmann, Richard Long, René Magrite, Eduardo Paolozzi, Man Ray, and Andy Warhol. Philosophically, we are greatly inluenced by the thought and work of Theodor Adorno, Jean Baudrillard, Ulrich Beck, Walter Benjamin, Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel. Theoretically, we are also indebted to the scholarly advances of Douglass Bailey, Maurice Bloch, Elizabeth DeMarrais, Alfred Gell, Chris Gosden, Cornelius Holtorf, Stephanie Koerner, Colin Renfrew, Michael Shanks and Julian Thomas. We would particularly like to acknowledge the contributions of Elizabeth DeMarrais, Chris Gosden, Colin Renfrew, Michael Shanks and Aaron Watson, who have all assisted in © 2007 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Printed in the United Kingdom. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17:1, –19 doi:10.1017/S0959774307000029  Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell widening the ield of visual artistic practice within archaeological discourse.2 paradigms and epistemologies in a world which is rapidly changing but simultaneously constant. We can appreciate the positivistic assertions of Lewis Binford in his atempts to have archaeology recognized as a legitimate social science. Such assertions, we feel have, however, actively ignored the critical comments made in discourses such as visual arts throughout the twentieth century, which called into question the violent nature of image construction and representation in a world rampant with conlict. This has given way to a dynamic state of perpetual struggles for epistemic authority in this shared world we all inhabit. Structure Following Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) and William Burroughs (1914–1997), in this manifesto we also distinguish ourselves from more traditional scholarly writings by articulating ideas as a collection of excerpts and free-standing paragraph. The formating of argument as fragments in their own context not only allows readers the freedom to absorb discussion in whichever order they please, but also moves us, as authors, nearer to an experimentation with surrealist textual montage, that disrupts particular linear and systemic lows of explanation. Digestible rhetoric and readable text We intend to move away from the reliance on textual symbolism within Western academia as an analeptic means of intellectual debate. Taking our lead from Maurice Bloch and Alfred Gell (1945–1997) this article will abandon interpretations, linguistic fallacies or ‘thought-traps’, founded on unambiguous visual meanings, deinable symbolism and decipherable textual codiication. In rejecting these decompositions of imagery, we remove ourselves from succumbing to the ‘treachery’ or ‘conspiracy’ of language, and call for a move toward non-representational archaeologies.6 We are moving beyond printed text to seek out alternative metaphors and modes of atention and expression, to further elucidate the past. By exploring archaeological expressionism (such as poetry, sculpture and art), we begin to move more towards what Shanks terms a ‘poetic’ approach to archaeology, and beyond discourses of ‘counter-modern’, ‘non-modern’, ‘a-modern’ and ‘pre-modern’. By further appreciating our contemporary relationships with visual images, we may generate broader understandings of the complex negotiations that may have existed in the past, while celebrating the potential for archaeological expressions in contemporary society. To alleviate representational pressure Throughout the modern Western world, there has been a growth in the assertion of scientiic process as a method of constructing representational archaeologies. The modern scientiic expression of a true and accessible past evident in visible and tangible material occurred in tandem with the development of modern faith in rational science as a means for explicating contemporary existence. In response, Jean Baudrillard pronounced of modernity that: ‘we, the modern cultures, no longer believe in this illusion of the world, but in its reality (which of course is the last and the worst of illusions)’. In archaeology, the belief in a ‘real’ past as an observable phenomenon obscures the many layers of modern confusion and misrepresentation that are experienced in everyday life. That ‘modern cultures’ believe in the ‘real’ or a ‘real’ past is not so much a declaration of the ‘current state of afairs’ but more an airmative declaration of the desire of one of the projects of modernity, the archaeological endeavour. But as Bruno Latour has asked, ‘have we ever been modern?’.5 If modernity is a process which is in search of the scientiically explicable ‘real’, will the project ever come to completion? Is it possible to atain a utopia of the ‘real’, or is this merely a modern purgatory of struggle for authoritative meaning through representation? In answering these questions, we acknowledge that archaeology occupies a perplexing position in the discourse of human expression. On the one hand, archaeology is a natural science, the logical expression of a process-driven approach to explaining a linear temporal evolutionary understanding of the world. On the other, it is a humanity, a poetic expression of humans grappling with modern philosophies, Archaeology and art: diverging traditions? In the visual arts there has been a healthy discourse over technological developments enabling methods of increasingly realistic representation. The photographers Emmanuel Radnitzky (also known as Man Ray) (1890–1976) and Raoul Hausmann (1886–1971) used their technological crat in order to subvert ‘known’ or ‘seen’ reality, highlighting the illusion of the visually ‘real’ — an illusion masked by the belief in technological progress. The Futurists ater Fillipo Tomasso Emilio Marineti (1876–1944), Marcel Duch Visualizing Archaeologies amp (1887–1968), René Magrite (1898–1967), Joseph Beuys (1921–1986) and Andy Warhol (1928–1987), all atempted to subvert the authenticity of visual representation in the twentieth century. Archaeology during the twentieth century was, however, generally more concerned with documenting artefacts, compiling archaeological records and producing narratives of ‘fact’ about the past. We suggest an end to this inconsistency between disciplines and agencies which seek to explore human expression with objects, images and environments. Visualizing archaeological art In many archaeological publications, the term ‘art’ is oten thought of as being ill-deined and consequently conined to inverted commas.9 Deriving the term ‘art’ from the Old French ‘ars’, meaning ‘skill’, some contemporary scholars suggest that ‘art’ is still only the product of talented people who are oten inspired by genius, madness or taste. ‘Art’ from such a perspective is oten described in terms of its semantic or aesthetic properties, which are used for presentational or representational purposes. Previous megalithic and rock-art studies have, for instance, revolved around formal description. Reducing ‘art’ to descriptive, aesthetic, representational and formal properties, however, limits the roles of the producers and consumers. ‘Art’ has more recently been deined as ‘… any painting or sculpture or material object that is produced to be the focus of our visual contemplation or enjoyment …’ (Renfrew 2003, 66). Such a deinition does unfortunately focus more on ‘art’ as being solely ‘good to look at’ rather than ‘good to think with’.10 Therefore, we wish to free art from quotation and celebrate its practice, suggesting for the purposes of our project to explore art as imageries, societies, objects, events, articulations and ictions as a means of stimulating further debate on the nature of images and strategies of presentation. Or in Aristotelian traditions, as poetry and tekhne, that is the responsible exercise of practice, to render accessible expressions of understandings of being in the world.11 By considering moves towards archaeological expressionism, we are seeking alternative ways of understanding the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of visual images and physical objects. We take our lead from Alfred Gell (1945–1997) who argued that indexes display ‘… a certain cognitive indecipherability …’, that they enchant and confuse the viewer who is unable to recognize at once ‘… wholes and parts, continuity and discontinuity, synchrony and succession …’.12 Archaeological expressionism is concerned with any form of apparatus designed either to be looked at or to enhance vision, from oil paintings, line drawings or digital photomosaics. Some modern scholars currently advocate that we are increasingly a visual society, as we are no longer informed solely by text, and they suggest a ‘visual’ or ‘pictorial turn’, with sensationalists suggesting the extreme of an ‘iconic boom’ of visual literacy. Daily we are informed and saturated with images ranging from the advertisement, television and the internet. This is not to suggest that human experience is now more visual and visualized than ever before. Human visual experience and visual intelligence, both past and A stagnation of discourse Post-processual theory developed as a response to disillusionment with the ability of a processual archaeology to present a veristic, ascertainable, factual past. Interpretative scholars embraced the application of modern, post-modern and contemporary philosophy in the exploration of possibilities for creating archaeological knowledge. Despite post-processual critiques of scientiic processual archaeological practice, archaeological studies as modern science are still utilized today, and have considerable academic and non-academic currency in the formation of modern national and ethnic identities, being presented to society as evidence of an identity’s ‘existence’.7 Indeed, recently John Bintlif and Mark Pearce, in their session ‘The Death of Archaeological Theory?’ at the 2006 meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, begged the question of whether archaeological theory, and post-processualism in particular, has been unsuccessful in facilitating discourses of understanding and solving archaeological epistemic problems. This illustrates the urgency of the contemporary situation. Given the perceived failure of textual explication of the epistemological and ontological problems with archaeological methodologies, it is imperative that archaeologists not retreat to a process-driven scientiic methodology, but accept the humanistic challenges and expressionistic potential of archaeological research and narrative. We feel that archaeological research must be reincorporated into the discourse of visual cultural theory and artistic expression. It should no longer be approached as a singular, unique narrative of ‘truths’ but as luid expressions of modern beliefs in temporalities and human agencies. We do not wish to go as far as Marineti to rid ourselves of the ‘gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries’ (1909), but we wish to bring visual criticisms and strategies to bear on archaeological explorations of materiality.8 5 Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell Figure 1. Relexive Representations [1]: South Metope XXVII by Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell, 10–12 July 2006, Digital Photomosaic (100 × 100 cm) of a Pentelic Marble Metope (c. 137 × 137 × 15 cm). Detail below. 6 Visualizing Archaeologies Figure 2. Relexive Representations [2]: Professor Julian Thomas by Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell, 12–13 July 2006, Digital Photomosaic (90 × 110 cm). Detail below. 7 Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell plane of archaeological representations (e.g. plans, schematic drawings, section drawings) and embrace dynamic visual articulations of multiple essences; • empower archaeologists to confront visual appropriation of archaeological material as icons of modern temporalities, ethnicities, or ideologies; • alleviate representational pressure put on archaeological research and material; • support a move beyond representational archaeologies; • explore potentials for multi-vocal, multi-temporal and multi-presentational archaeologies; • investigate the tensions put on archaeology by its relationships with other disciplines in the humanities and the social and natural sciences; • counter the modern ‘crisis’ and ‘state of emergency’ through responsible acts of participatory archaeological expression; • highlight the human need for movement and spatial interaction by intervening in traditional representational and discursive environments, thus engaging modern dichotomies through relexive practice; • communicate theoretical concepts and expressions which are not limited to language-speciic contexts; • encourage the development of visual material which can be used for archaeological pedagogical strategies in universities, schools and public education initiatives. As evidence of our commitment to this manifesto, we have already begun artistic interventions within traditional academic and archaeological spaces. Beginning at the 13th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists at Cracow, Poland, we installed a series of visual art pieces within the exhibition area of the conference venue. The exhibition was titled ‘Relexive Representations: the Partibility of Archaeology’ and served as a visual expression of the implications of the archaeological and anthropological theory of partibility. We intend these pieces to resonate with some of the themes of this manifesto by addressing issues of: 1. partibility, personhood, permeability and pointilism (through fragmentation and mosaic); 2. iconic archaeologies and the representational pressure currently put on interpretation through the manifestation of hyper-icons, thus highlighting the need to move beyond representational archaeology; 3. ‘public’ and ‘private’ discourses over cultural heritage (thus exposing perceived dichotomies between ‘experts’ and ‘the public’); 4. relexive visual modernization. present, is founded on practices of spectatorship: the look, the gaze, the glance, observation and surveillance. But as we are presented, through technologies, with the opportunity to utilize diferent visual regimes from those in the past, we seek to explore the archaeological, by embracing visual motions which cannot be fully explicable in models of textuality. We therefore strive for other forms of expression and analogy. We do not mean, however, to ignore the tradition of visual representation inherent to the discipline of archaeology. Rather we intend to confront this tradition to expose its failed atempt at ‘realistic’ representation of the past and re-engage it with the equally signiicant tradition of visual cultural criticism. There are recent criticisms of studies that incorporate traditional archaeological two-dimensional black and white images such as line-drawings. Some have questioned a perspective that seems to privilege the static form of the representation, over more luid social processes.1 For example, when studying the images engraved on Irish passage tombs or the ‘corpus’ of Irish early-Christian or ‘Celtic’ design, such conventions create a situation where the spectator, in studying motifs as a corpus is encouraged to participate in the illusion that the image is a ‘realistic’ representation of the original design. The viewer is also given an ‘observer-imposed’ selection of ‘acceptable’ visual images, presenting the motifs as spatially and temporally static. We argue that all traditional, schematic, representational line-drawing produce similar efects, whilst also creating a particular scientiic realism. Furthermore, we consider current appropriations of representational systems from the ields of physics and network theory. Although these are dynamic progressions from the two-dimensional representations of archaeological knowledge, they are still irmly imbedded in the modern archaeological meta-endeavour of constructing and presenting knowledge as a visual ‘reality’. This, we feel, pushes archaeological realism to the point of abstraction. Thus we call archaeologists to participate in active and dynamic methods of visual expression. We are not asserting the need for a Dadaist archaeology or a Futurist archaeology or indeed a surrealist archaeology. What we call for is a re-engagement of archaeology with the history and contemporary practice of the visual arts. This re-engagement, we feel will enable archaeology to: • move toward relexive visual expressions of archaeological practice; • move beyond traditional realistic abstraction in representation, which was created via scientiic methodologies; • transcend the limitations of the two-dimensional 8 Visualizing Archaeologies a relexive approach generates connections between unfamiliar essences, resulting in ruptured and fragmented yet dynamic archaeologies, histories and representations. The exploration of these themes can be engaged by both the reader of this manifesto and the viewer of these pieces in at least three possible ways: 1. Each piece is given explicit context both of its overarching representational structure and of its constituent contexts. This is in order to make overt representational systems which challenge the current abstraction of visual and social relationships such as partibility. 2. Each piece exempliies the application of particular theoretical approaches to visual and tangible materials, and can be seen as a contribution to both textual and visual interpretations and engagements with archaeological objects. 3. Each piece acts as an invitation to critically engage with both the original objects and our rendered art pieces, not only through narratives of discourse, but also through a continued narrative of visual understanding. This is to encourage and highlight the human need for movement with environmental and social interaction in a growing discipline of visual archaeology. Relexive Representations [1]: South Metope XXVII This photomosaic (Fig. 1) depicts South Metope XXVII (c. 0 bc) of the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens, Greece, which is now located in Room 18 of the British Museum in London. This is one example from the series of 32 metopes which were located on the south side of the Parthenon whose marble, highrelief sculptural decoration depicted images from the Centauromachy — the mythological batle between the Lapiths and the Centaurs which began in Thessaly during the wedding feast of Peirithöos and Hippodaemeia (Ovid Metamorphoses 12.210–535).1 The myth is a Classical juxtaposition of, and conlict over, concepts of civility and barbarism. South Metope XXVII is also part of the group of sculptural works known as the Elgin Marbles which were brought to London from Athens by Thomas Bruce (1766–1841), Seventh Earl of Elgin, between 1800–1810. The collection was vested in the Trustees of The British Museum in perpetuity in 1816.15 The ownership of these sculptures by the British Museum is currently contested by the modern Greek nation state.16 The image is composed of a collage of 600 ‘cell-images’ collected from uniltered searches for the words ‘Britain’, ‘Greece’, ‘ελλάδα’, ‘ελλάς’ and ‘βρετανία’ through the Google ‘Image Search Engine’. Each corner focuses on the images resulting from each search as follows: Relexive representations This series of art pieces seeks to contest traditional mechanisms for representation and spectatorship by questioning the status that visual images occupy in archaeological discourse. Photomosaics of iconic archaeologists and archaeological objects were constructed through the manufacture of archives and archaeological records of public images available over internet search engines. This digital ‘excavation’ of what is traditionally an unarchived public space marked the beginnings of our digital archaeological practice. Inspired by Joan Foncuberta’s series of Googlegrams (2005), we call into question the ways in which archaeologists position themselves and their work within broader society. By conlating archaeological igures with a collage of public images, the pieces reveal the manufacture of representations of archaeological identities and of the artefacts and monuments with which they work. In addition, through the use of the world wide web and freeware, they also challenge the role that digital media are playing in the fabrication of collective archaeological visual memory, interpretation, and mediated information. We began by considering whether experience is ever truly documented or represented. Each (in)dividual piece subverts and parodies notions of ‘truth’ in archaeology and the veracity of dominant images in the construction of the past and present, memory, identity, gender, emotion and agency. Such Upper Let - ‘Britain’ Botom Let - ‘Greece’ Upper Right - ‘ελλάδα’ and ‘ελλάς’ Botom Right - ‘βρετανία’ The corner-focus of the images from each search term is utilized to make overt the structures through which some people understand and communicate identities visually and the impact of digital culture on these expressions. Yet as the viewer moves away from each corner, the divisions between these concepts are blurred and the composite image becomes a conlation of both mythical batles between civilizations and modern conlicts over the ownership of antiquities, identities and the linguistic expression of those identities. Thus the partibility of the image seeks to blur boundaries between conceived nation states and social identities through permeable exchanges between the visual representations of self and other. 9 Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell Figure 3. Relexive Representations [3]: South Cross, Ahenny, Co. Tipperary by Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell, 9–16 August 2006, Digital Photomosaic (100 × 173 cm) of Freestanding Sandstone Cross (height: 267 cm; base: 122 × 117 × 45 cm; shat: 48 × 35 cm; cross width: 135 cm). Detail below. 10 Visualizing Archaeologies Figure 4. Relexive Representations [4]: Sir Mortimer Wheeler by Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell, 18 August– 4 September 2006, Digital Photomosaic (90 × 110 m). Detail below. 11 Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell The viewer is invited to explore the ‘cell-images’ themselves and question their role within the composite whole — leading to questions of both the images’ and their own involvement in personal and national expressions of cultural identity and conlicts over images of civilization. This piece also highlights the conlict of issues of ownership of images and control of the methods of representation. In this conlict, we acknowledge the challenge to conceptions of copyright and intellectual property, and cite the tradition of artistic appropriation of publicly accessible images as responsible acts of subversion; such is the nature of collage. sequential or stratigraphic units are irst described as free-standing entities, which are later connected to each other through isolated events or acts of intentionality. Thomas has proposed that the modern concept of the ‘individual’ may not necessarily represent how non-Western people regard themselves.17 Instead, people may see themselves as a composite of substances and parts with the human body thought of as porous with elements, sensations and emotions continually lowing in and out in a cyclical fashion, both during life and ater death. Thus, this image relects (in)dividual, composite, permeable and partible aspects of personhood by presenting Professor Thomas via disparate parts and images, that produce a whole. The mixing of these digital cell images and parts in difering states relects the movements of such essences. This notion is support in anthropology; for instance in Melanesia some people regard themselves as dividual persons that are partible. These partible people oten give ‘parts’ of themselves away as a means of maintaining or creating networks and relations with others.18 An interesting instance of how some people conceptualize themselves as partible beings is demonstrated by the Polynesians of the Marquesas, who have separate names for speciic body parts in addition to their own name. Each named part would have its own life that related to other named members of the body and the community as a whole.19 In another example of how some people transmit essences between persons, Jones has commented on how some of the Classic Maya thought of themselves as permeable, consisting of blood and bone. By exchanging or giving these elements, relationships were manufactured, and strengthened.20 By blending, and circulating fragmented images, we magnify these perspectives. The de-totalizing of the portrait of Thomas into fragments via digital cell images brings a dynamic new integrity to the presentation of Thomas as a whole. In such a scheme, one might argue that the now iconic Thomas is cosmogony, with digital cells being assimilated in processes of regeneration or transformation. Relexive Representations [2]: Professor Julian Thomas This photomosaic (Fig. 2) depicts Professor Julian Thomas, Chair of Archaeology at Manchester University and the Vice Chair of the Standing Commitee for Archaeology. He was a Vice President of the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI) between 2001 and 200, and remains a member of the RAI Council. He was the Secretary of the World Archaeological Congress between 1994 and 1999. He is a life member of the Collingwood Society, and is Associate Director of the AHRC Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies. Professor Thomas has consistently incorporated theory and philosophy into his interpretations of the archaeological data. He has striven throughout his career to ind new ways of understanding prehistoric societies which confront the prejudices and assumptions of the contemporary west, while further illuminating the relationships between archaeological knowledge and the modern condition. Professor Thomas has recently published several works on human entanglements with interpretations of time, culture, identity, and the modern episteme. In this piece, we explore the titling of Professor Thomas’s two recent archaeological theory texts, Time, Culture and Identity (1996) and Archaeology and Modernity (2004). The image is composed of a collage of 3820 ‘cellimages’ resulting from uniltered searches for the words ‘Time’, ‘Culture’, ‘Identity’, ‘modernity’ and ‘archaeology’ through the Google ‘Image Search Engine’. This image highlights through its construct the prevailing modern ‘atomistic’ perspective, yet also by-passes it by stimulating new luid engagements that perform within lows of lexible spectatorship. It explores visually how Thomas challenged the ordering of discrete entities into chronological sequences as a means of understanding the past through temporal succession, depicting it purely as a characteristic of modern Western thought. Thomas also argued that Relexive Representations [3]: South Cross, Ahenny, Co. Tipperary This photomosaic (Fig. 3) depicts the west face of the South Cross at Ahenny, Co. Tipperary, Ireland (Discovery Map OSI. Sheet 75; Grid Ref: 413 291) (W 7°23'34.78"; N 52°24'43.1"). This is one of a pair of freestanding, decorated ‘high crosses’ in the churchyard known as the monastic site of Kilclispeen, located on a sloping ield, straddling the border between the 12 Visualizing Archaeologies provinces of Munster and Leinster. This example is thought by Peter Harbison to be amongst the earliest surviving examples in Ireland, dating to the eighth century ad.21 The earliest literary reference to ó chrois áird (high cross) relates, however, to Clonmacnois, Co. Ofaly, in ad 957.22 Although the extensive occurrence and survival of ‘high crosses’ is unique to Ireland, other striking examples are also known in England, Scotland and Wales, such as the Kildalton Cross, Isle of Islay, the Hebrides, Scotland (made from epidiorite in the ninth century ad) and the Carew Cross, Dyfed, Pembrokeshire, Wales (made from microtonalite in the eleventh century ad), which notably inspired the logo for Cadw (the Welsh Assembly Government’s historic environment division). This cross is composed of three sections — a base, shat and capstone — and is carved from locally available sandstone. This example is decorated with non-representational geometric and ‘interlacing’ designs, such as ‘Staford knots’ which adorn the top of the cross. The cross is also punctuated by ive bosses, and the base is decorated by hunting scenes which are now well worn. These interlinked coils and interlacing motifs are popularly referred to as ‘Celtic’, ‘knotwork’ or ‘Celtic knotwork’. Although the original purpose of the crosses or the cause for their erection are unknown, the ‘high cross’ today performs as an icon of Christianity, Celtic culture and traditional cratsmanship. In particular, the ‘high cross’ was a regularly used symbol in the nationalist cultural revival in Ireland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as grave markers and public political monuments. Throughout England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the crosses are legally titled ‘national monuments’ — the same legal status given to the modern political and cultural monuments which schematically mimic their form. Today, crosses such as this example, have been replicated as ‘Celtic Cross’ jewellery and are marketed to tourists as souvenirs or signiiers of ‘Celtic Christian’ identity. These schematic representations of the ‘high cross’ form, decorated with ‘Celtic knotwork’ and interlacing motifs have helped divorce the original objects’ form from their material context and created an abstract representation of modern aspirations for cultural authenticity. This image is composed of 7200 ‘cell-images’ collected from uniltered searches for the words ‘Celtic, ‘Christianity’, ‘Cross’ and ‘Monument’ through the Google ‘Image Search Engine’. In doing so, these now iconic terms are juxtaposed with the material icon. The viewer is invited to explore the visual association between the public ‘monument’ of the South Cross at Ahenny and the public images associated with the words most commonly used to describe the object. This juxtaposition makes overt the conlict of images and crisis of meanings that are inherent in these textual terms that seek to understand visual images and material agency. Relexive Representations [4]: Sir Mortimer Wheeler This photomosaic (Fig. 4) depicts Sir Robert Eric Mortimer Wheeler (1890–1976), one of the most iconic British archaeologists of the twentieth century. During his archaeological career Wheeler was Director of the National Museum of Wales, Keeper of the London Museum, Director-General of Archaeology in India and Chair of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. During the First World War he served with the Royal Artillery holding the rank of Major, being awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and initiative. During the Second World War Wheeler earned the rank of Brigadier and served at both El Alamein, northern Africa and the Salerno landings in Italy. Wheeler excelled at warfare and archaeology with equal measure. Wheeler’s major archaeological skills were demonstrated through excavation, administrative organization, the creation of successful National Museums and the increased presentation of archaeology to the media and general public. Wheeler advanced archaeological method by following Lieutenant General Pit-Rivers and working with Dame Kathleen Kenyon, and advocated the importance of stratigraphy. Whilst in India, Wheeler conducted now classic excavations at Harrappa and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley, exploring the remains of the civilizations that lived there. Wheeler was one of the irst who believed that archaeology needed public support, and utilized all available media to present the discipline to a mass audience. His most popular and famous book was entitled Still Digging (1956), in which he depicted his adventures in archaeology. In this piece, the image is composed of a collage of 3262 ‘cell-images’ resulting from uniltered searches for the words ‘Warfare’, ‘Still Digging’, ‘Civilizations’, ‘National Museum’ and ‘Stratigraphy’ through the Google ‘Image Search Engine’. Exploring the concept of stratigraphic method, this piece excavates the Google Image Search Engine Site, to further reveal the digital contexts of speciic images. Just as each excavated deposit is characterized by a particular position in the composition and sequence of a site, digital and visual information is used to create a patern or montage against which other 1 Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell b) Bricolage and the Performance of Archaeology Practitioners in both the disciplines of archaeology and theatre have writen extensively about the act of excavation as performance. We will be participating at the excavation of a Late Bronze Age midden and occupation complex in Warwickshire (The Whitchurch Project). This site is currently under the directorship of Kate Waddington and Niall Sharples from Cardif University. We intend to explore the dynamic ways one can document site-speciic archaeological acts. Through creative visual expression, we will participate with the archaeological site teams, engaging the use of site diaries, and provoking the visual expression of digger observations through photographs, layered together in mixtures and montage that not only perpetuate scientiic and historical realism, but also contest it. This work will provide more dynamic and fragmented snap-shots of excavational time, structure, memories and narrative. elements of interpretation can be studied. In doing so, the Wheeler Photomosaic further illuminates how seemingly disparate elements from the world, when viewed from an appropriate perspective and distance, can generate new understandings and thoughts. Future interventions and exhibitions The Relexive Representations intervention also occured at the 2006 meeting of the Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory conference at Bristol University 10–12 November, the 2006 meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group at the University of Exeter 15–17 December and will also occur at the 2007 conference ‘Resisting Archaeology’ at Uppsala University in Sweden 17–20 May. We welcome any and all reactions to these exhibitions. Please send us your comments to: relexiverepresentations@gmail.com. c) Representation and Realism: the Hyper-reality of Archaeology Inspired by the thought of Jean Baudrillard, we will explore methods of stratigraphic expression such as those advanced by Mortimer Wheeler and Gerhard Bersu (1889–1964) through physical installations within a series of academic environments and public spaces. Hyper-real expressions of stratigraphic conceptualizations will provoke a rupture in traditional views of archaeological deposition and reconstruction of occupational layers. Other projects which are currently under development include: a) The Politics of Digital Architecture: Archaeologies of the Information Age René Magrite (1898–1967) problematized the use of text relating to works of art. Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) problematized all textual communication; however, both critiques relate to overt textual expression. In the Information Age, embedded and discrete communication has been taken for granted as ‘information’. Leters on keyboards correspond to logical code. Words and terms are utilized ‘behindthe-scenes’ as a discrete architecture, structuring our digital gazes. Many layers of text and coding are, however, utilized in constructing and accessing the digital spaces we interact in. Words and terms are utilized for search protocol, structuring the manifestation of digital visualizations in webpages and afect our organization of data through ‘tags’ and ‘metadata’. Thus, classical meanings are overtly utilized and postmodern problems are forsaken for pragmatic use in creating navigable spaces and digital architectures. We plan to make overt the appropriation of textual titles as logical systems for data recognition. This process creates digital spaces for information experience, structuring some views whilst restricting other possible perspectives. Amongst other issues, we question whether national and descriptive titles can ever be discarded, whilst they are intimately incorporated into data and metadata structures and digital architectures, which ultimately form the foundations of the Information Age. d) Superimposition, Palimpsests and Temporal Illusion We will explore notions of time and textual signiicances in archaeological thought through processes of overlay and underlay, and similarity and diference. These distillations of interpretation and expression will resonate physically via a series of installations curated to interact not only with the assemblage of pieces but also with the assemblage of persons. Intervening in public and expert spaces, these pieces will act as constellated reference points which will simultaneously express structural experience and a physical illusion. New beginnings and open endings We have set out to challenge more traditional archaeological perspectives via alternative media. We feel that our current work, combined with future projects, will serve as an active engagement with the questions posed in this manifesto. We encourage dynamic interactions with our work whether positive or negative in the spirit 1 Visualizing Archaeologies of open and free discourse. This manifesto marks the beginnings of our expressions and interpretations of archaeologies, which will explore as many richly textured, and sometimes textless, formats as possible. Acknowledgements We would formally like to thank the Trinity College Provost’s Fund for Visual Arts for providing a grant to sponsor the ‘Relexive Representations’ exhibition, the Digital Image Project of Trinity College Dublin for technical support and the Douglas Hyde Gallery Dublin for intellectual support. At Cardif University we would like to extend our gratitude to Ian Dennis of the Archaeological Illustration and Design Centre for specialist advice, his time and help with the printing processes. Also at Cardif, Kate Waddington, Niall Sharples and Doug Bailey have all given much support and contributed many an inspiring idea. We would like to thank Arkadiusz Marciniak of the European Archaeological Association for assisting in the organization of the initial exhibition of our work. We would like to thank John Robb for an invitation to publish this work, and his assistance in the inalization of it. We alone, however, accept responsibility for any mistakes or misunderstandings. 7. Andrew Cochrane School of History and Archaeology Cardif University PO Box 909 Cardif CF10 3XU Wales Email: cochranea@cardif.ac.uk 8. Ian Russell School of Histories and Humanities Trinity College Dublin 2 Ireland Email: russelli@tcd.ie Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Although please see References at end where we present a fuller and more detailed list of authors we have been inspired by. See Shanks (1992); Renfrew (2003); Renfrew et al. (2004); Watson (2004a,b). Also see Tilley et al. (2000). See Benjamin (1992a) and Burroughs (1959). See Baudrillard (1997, 18). See Latour (1993) and Russell (2006b,c). We consider how archaeology, as an enterprise in understanding past human endeavour, operates via the modern production of texts in propositional form. Although we acknowledge that the creation of texts and terminologies within the discipline facilitates discourse 15 and communication amongst practitioners, we are inspired by the art of René Magrite (1898–1967), most notably The Treason of Images (1928–1929) (an image of a pipe with text - Ceci n’est pas une pipe). We feel the visual cultural critique inherent in Magrite’s work is integral to an acceptance within archaeology that text can not prove the true identiication of an artefact, and an artefact can not prove a text to be true. The contemporary adoption of terminologies within public spaces such as museums encourages the belief that the textual concepts linked to the artefact are in fact materialized truth and not interpretation. This creates a paradox in which we as archaeologists utilize text to understand worlds in which text oten may not have existed (e.g. in prehistoric studies). It is therefore suggested that a beter comprehension of the cognition of thought processes, or how past people perceived their world, will derive from focusing not only on what we write about these people, but irst on what they may have been able to see, and second from what they made of what they had seen (Bloch 1998). Building upon this notion, we suggest that broader understandings of an interpretation of a past in the present will also derive from focus on visual rather than just textual stimuli. For some discussions of the role of archaeology in modern national and ethnic discourse see Kohl & Fawcet (1995), Díaz-Andreu & Champion (1996), Graves-Brown et al. (1996), and Meskell (1998; 2001). The Futurist Manifesto, writen by F.T.E. Marineti, appeared in Le Figaro (Paris) under the heading ‘Le Futurisme’ 20 February 1909. This was a violent declaration of fear of the stagnating afect of a overly past-oriented society. This sentiment is also articulated in the thought of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and echoed by Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) and Theodor Adorno (1903–1969). Marineti saw it as the charge of the Futurists to deliver Italy from this past-oriented society by using poetry as a means of moving society forward. For Marineti, ‘poetry must be a violent assault on the unknown’. Other Futurists manifestos were articulated relating to speciic ields of human endeavour. For example the Manifesto of the Futurist Painters was issued 11 February 1910 followed by a Technical Manifesto of Futurist Painting 11 April 1910 by Umberto Boccioni (1882–1916), Carlo Carrà (1881–1966), Luigi Russolo (1885–1947), Giacomo Balla (1871–1958) and Gino Severini (1883–1966), both published in Poesia in Milan. The Technical Manifesto of Futurist Music was issued by Francesco Balilla Pratella (1880–1955) in 1911. A Technical Manifesto of Futurist Sculpture was issued by Umberto Boccioni 11 April 1912. Valentine de SaintPoint (1875–1953) issued A Manifesto of the Futurist Woman in 1912 and The Futurist Manifesto of Lust 11 January 1913. The Manifesto of Futurist Architecture was issued by Antonio Sant’Elia (1888–1916) 1 August 191 published in Lacerba in Florence. These reached an ultimatum in The Futurist Reconstruction of the Universe issued by Giacomo Balla and Fortunato Depero (1892–1960) 11 March 1915. Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The term ‘art’ is diicult to deine from an archaeological and anthropological perspective, due in part to the imprecise boundary between ‘art’ and ‘non-art’, whose location shits with fashion and ideology (Layton 1991, 4). Ventures within the twentieth century at expounding the term ‘art’ have been fashioned to encompass not just recognizable paintings and abstract paintings, but also anything that an artist deines as ‘art’ (Dickie 1997, 80–81). The doctrine is that ‘art’ is very much the free creation of the individual artist. Art is therefore characterized to be an ‘ultra-abstract’ concept of an ‘institutional’ kind (Gell 1998, 188; Tillinghast 2003, 133). Studies in anthropology have, however, elucidated that this is a highly unusual perspective unique to the modern West (Layton 1991; Gell 1998). It is proposed that one should instead consider issues of social expression, knowledge and understanding. Moreover, it is noted that the term ‘art’ does not always exist in non-Western societies. As an illustration, the languages of Aboriginal northern Australia, such as the Kunwinjku language of a region with ‘rock art’, have no word for the notion of ‘art’ (Taçon & Garde 1995). It might therefore be as Sparshot suggests that art is ‘… so speciically framed within “our” civilisation that it is perhaps something native only to “us” …’ (1997, 239). Outside the discipline of archaeology, there is a large body of knowledge encompassing art history. Most of this discourse, however, addresses art in a speciic cultural context of literate societies, and is therefore of limited use within some archaeological milieu (e.g. prehistoric studies). The areas of archaeology that have demonstrated a speciic interest in visual expression, such as studies of the Greek Classical world, present a tendency to project back contemporary artistic aesthetics, values and judgements onto past societies (Gill & Chippindale 1993). The trend is to create a framework for artistic study that demonstrates relationships between the image and its social meanings (Layton 1991). This orthodox art-historical application informs litle of indigenous and pre-Renaissance European contexts, and more of Western notions of universal human ‘culture speciic’ and ‘period-speciic’ aesthetics (Gell 1998, 3). See Koerner (2006) and Russell (2006b). Gell (1998, x). See O’Sullivan (1986); Jones (2001b; 2004). For a discussion of the metopes of the Parthenon see Schwab (2005). For a discussion of the acquisition of the Elgin marbles see St Clair (1998). For a discussion of the current legal ownership of the Elgin marbles see Merryman (2000). Thomas 2004. See also Strathern (1988); Gell (1998; 1999); Busby (1997); Ingold (2000); Fowler (2004); Jones (2005). Gell (1999, 33); Fowler (2004, 55). Gell (1998, 44). Jones (2005, 197). See Harbison (1992). 22. The reference reads, ‘the termon of Ciaran was burned this year from the High Cross to the Shannon’ (Annal of the Four Masters M957.10). A later reference in the same text refers to a group taking refuge at the foot of the cros na screaptra (Cross of the Scriptures) (Annal of the Four Masters M1060.5). References and further reading Adcock, C., 1984. Conventionalism in Henri Poincaré and Marcel Duchamp. Art Journal 44, 249–58. Adorno, T.W., 1967. Prisms (1955), trans. S. Weber & S. Weber. London: Neville Spearman. Adorno, T.W., 197a. The Jargon of Authenticity (1964), trans. K. Tarnowski & F. Will. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Adorno, T.W., 197b. Negative Dialectics (1966), trans. E.B. Ashton. New York (NY): Seabury Press. Adorno, T.W., 1997. Aesthetic Theory (1970), trans. R. HullotKentor. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press. Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities: Relections on the Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Aristotle, 1996. Poetics. London: Penguin Group Ltd. Bailey, D.W., 2005a. Beyond the meaning of Neolithic houses: speciic objects and serial repetition, in (Un)setling the Neolithic, eds. D. Bailey, A. Whitle & V. Cummings. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 90–97. Bailey, D.W., 2005b. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. Oxford: Routledge. Bakhtin, M.M., 1968. Rabelais and his World, trans. H. Iswolsky. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Barnard, M., 1998. Art, Design and Visual Culture. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Barret, J.C., 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. Oxford: Blackwell. Baudrillard, J., 1994. Simulacra and Simulation, trans. S.F. Glaser. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press. Baudrillard, J., 1997. Objects, images, and the possibilities of aesthetic illusion, in Jean Baudrillard: Art and Artefact, ed. N. Zurbugg. London: Sage Publications, 7–18. Baudrillard, J., 2003. Passwords, trans. C. Turner. London: Verso. Baxandall, M., 1997. Shadows and Enlightenment. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Beck, U., 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U., 2006. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press. Benjamin, W., 1992a. Theses on the philosophy of history, in Illuminations (1955), W. Benjamin, ed. H. Arendt. London: Fontana Press, 25–55. Benjamin, W., 1992b. Illuminations, ed. H. Arendt. London: Fontana Press. Benjamin, W., 1999. The Arcades Project. London: Harvard Belknap. Berger, J., 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: The British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books Limited. 16 Visualizing Archaeologies Binford, L., 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity 1, 20–10. Binford, L.R. (ed.), 1977. For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis and Systemic Modelling. New York (NY): Academic Press. Bintlif, J., 1991. Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG: the current state of British archaeological theory. Antiquity 65(247), 274–8. Birdsell, D.S. & L. Groarke, 1996. Towards a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy , 1–10. Bloch, M.E.F., 1977. The past and the present in the past. Man 12, 278–92. Bloch, M.E.F., 1995. Questions not to ask of Malagasy carvings, in Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, eds. I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last & G. Lucas. London: Routledge, 212–15. Bloch, M.E.F., 1998. How We Think They Think: Anthropological Approaches to Cognition, Memory and Literacy. Oxford: Westview Press. Bret, D., 1996. The Construction of Heritage. Cork: Cork University Press. Buchli, V., 1995. Interpreting material culture: the trouble with text, in Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, eds. I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last & G. Lucas. London: Routledge, 181–93. Burroughs, W.S., 1959. The Naked Lunch. London: John Calder in association with London Press. Busby, C., 1997. Permeable and partible persons: a comparative analysis of gender and body in south India and Melanesia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3, 261–78. Carrier, J.G., 2003. Mind, gaze and engagement: understanding the environment. Journal of Material Culture 8(1), 5–23. Clark, A., 1997. Being There: Puting Brain, Body and the World Together Again. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Cochrane, A., 2005. A taste of the unexpected: subverting mentalités through the motifs and setings of Irish passage tombs, in Elements of Being: Mentalities, Identities and Movements, eds. D. Hofmann, J. Mills & A. Cochrane. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1437.) Oxford: BAR, 5–19. Cochrane, A., 2006. The simulacra and simulations of Irish Neolithic passage tombs, in Images, Representations and Heritage: Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology, ed. I. Russell. New York (NY): Springer, 247–78. Conkey, M.W., 2001. Hunting for images, gathering up meanings: art for life in hunter-gathering societies, in Hunter-gatherers: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, eds. C. Panter-Brick, R.H. Layton & P. Rowley-Conwy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 267–91. Cooper, A., D. Garrow, M. Knight & L. McFayden, 2004. The pot, the lint and the bone and house beautiful, in Substance, Memory, Display: Archaeology and Art, eds. C. Renfrew, C. Gosden & E. DeMarrais. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 97–102. Crimp, D., 199. On the Museum’s Ruins. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Curtis, P., J. Wood & S. Feeke, 2004. With Hidden Noise: Sculpture, Video and Ventriloquism. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute. Danto, A., 1964. The artworld. The Journal of Philosophy 61, 571–84. Debord, G., 2005. Society of the Spectacle, trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press. Derrida, J., 1967a. De la grammatologie. Paris: Collection Critique, Minuit. Derrida, J., 1967b. L’écriture et la diference. Paris: Collection Tel Quel, Seuil. Derrida, J., 1967c. La Voix et le phénomène: introduction au problème du signe dans la phénoménologie de Husserl. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Díaz-Andreu, M. & T. Champion (eds.), 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Boulder (CO): Westview Press Inc. Dickie, G., 1997. The Art Circle: a Theory of Art. Evanston (MI): Chicago Spectrum Press. Duchamp, M., 1973. Salt Seller: the Writings of Marcel Duchamp (Marchand du Sel), eds. M. Sanouillet & E. Peterson. New York (NY): Oxford University Press. Dundes, A., 1980. Interpreting Folklore. Indiana (IN): Indiana University Press. Edge, K.F. & F.H. Weiner, 2006. Collective memory and the museum: towards a reconciliation of philosophy, history and memory in Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, in Images, Representations and Heritage: Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology, ed. I. Russell. New York (NY): Springer, 222–45. Eogan, G., 1997. Overlays and underlays: aspects of megalithic art succession at Brugh na Bóinne, Ireland. Brigantium 10, 217–. Evans, J. & S. Hall (eds.), 1999. Visual Culture: the Reader. London: SAGE Publications. Fernandez, J., 1986. Persuasions and Performances: the Play of Tropes in Culture. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Flemming, D., 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy , 11–22. Foucault, M., 1970. The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M., 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge. Foucault, M., 1973. The Birth of the Clinic: an Archaeology of Medical Perception. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punishment. New York (NY): Pantheon Books. Foucault, M., 2002. Of Other Spaces, trans. J. Miskowiec, in The Visual Culture Reader, ed. N. Mirzoef. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 229–6. Fowler, C., 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: an Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge. Freedberg, D., 1989. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press. 17 Andrew Cochrane & Ian Russell Gell, A., 1998. Art and Agency: an Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gell, A., 1999. The Art of Anthropology: Essays and Diagrams, ed. E. Hirsch. London: Routledge. Gill, D. & C. Chippindale, 1993. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic igures. American Journal of Archaeology 97, 601–59. Gormley, A., 2004. Art as process, in Substance, Memory, Display: Archaeology and Art, eds. C. Renfrew, C. Gosden & E. DeMarrais. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 11–51. Gosden, C., 2001. Making sense: archaeology and aesthetics, World Archaeology 33(2), 163–7. Gotdiener, M., 1995. Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Modern Life. Oxford: Blackwell. Graves-Brown, P., S. Jones & G. Gamble (eds.), 1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology: the Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge. Hallowell, A.I., 1975. Ojibwa ontology, behaviour and world view, in Teachings from the American Earth: Indian Religion and Philosophy, eds. D. Tedlock & B. Tedlock. New York (NY): Liveright, 141–78. Halverson, J., 1987. Art for art’s sake in the Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology 28(1), 63–89. Harbison, P., 1992. The High Crosses of Ireland: an Iconographical and Photographic Survey (2 vols). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Hawkes, J.H., 1982. Mortimer Wheeler: Adventurer in Archaeology. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Hirsch, E., 2004. Techniques of vision: photography, disco and renderings of present perceptions in Highland Papua. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10(1), 19–39. Holtorf, C., 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. Holtorf, C. & H. Karlsson (eds.), 2000. Philosophy and Archaeological Practice. Gothenburg: Bricoleur Press. Hopkins, D., 1998. Marcel Duchamp and Max Ernst: the Bride Shared. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ingold, T., 1997. The picture is not the terrain: maps, paintings and the dwelt-in world. Archaeological Dialogues , 29–1. Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge. Jones, A., 2001a. Drawn from memory: the archaeology of aesthetics and the aesthetics of archaeology in earlier Bronze Age Britain and the present. World Archaeology 33(2), 334–56. Jones, A., 2001b. Enduring images? Image production and memory in earlier Bronze Age Scotland, in Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation, ed. J. Brück. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 217–28. Jones, A., 2004. By way of illustration: art, memory and materiality in the Irish Sea and beyond, in The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice, eds. V. Cummings & C. Fowler. Oxford: Oxbow, 202–13. Jones, A., 2005. Lives in fragments? Personhood and the European Neolithic. Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2), 19–22. Koerner, S., 2006. Towards archaeologies of memories of the past and planning futures: engaging the Faustian barging of ‘crisis of interpretation’, in Images, Representations and Heritage: Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology, ed. I. Russell. New York (NY): Springer, 187–220. Kohl, P.L. & C.P. Fawcet (eds.), 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Latour, B., 1993. We have Never been Modern. New York (NY): Harvester Wheatsheaf. Latour, B. & P. Weibel (eds.), 2002. Iconoclash. Karlsruhe: ZKM Centre for Art and Media. Latour, B. & P. Weibel (eds.), 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Layton, R., 1991. The Anthropology of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mack, J., 2003. The Museum of the Mind: Art and Memory in World Cultures. London: The British Museum. Maleuvre, D., 1999. Museum Memories History, Technology, Art. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. Merryman, J.H., 2000. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art and Law. The Hague & Boston (MA): Kluwer Law International. Meskell, L. (ed.), 1998. Archaeology under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge. Meskell, L., 2001. Archaeologies of identity, in Archaeological Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder. Cambridge: Polity Press, 187–213. Mirzoef, N., 2001. The Visual Culture Reader. 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Mitchell, W.J.T., 1994. Picture Theory. Chicago (MI): University of Chicago Press. Molyneaux, B.L. (ed.), 1997. The Cultural Life of Images. London: Routledge. Moser, S. & S. Smiles (eds.), 2004. Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. O’Sullivan, M., 1986. Approaches to passage tomb art. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 116, 68–83. Pearson, M. & M. Shanks, 2001. Theatre/Archaeology. London: Routledge. Price, S., 1989. Primitive Art in Civilized Places. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press. Renfrew, C., 2003. Figuring it Out. What are We? Where do We Come From? The Parallel Visions of Artists and Archaeologists. London: Thames and Hudson. Renfrew, C., C. Gosden & E. DeMarrais (eds.), 2004. Substance, Memory, Display: Archaeology and Art. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Rockwell, T., 2002. Visual technologies, cosmographies, and our sense of place in the universe. Zygon 7, 605–21. Rodaway, P., 1994. Sensuous Geographies: Body, Sense and Place. London: Routledge. Rodowick, D.N., 1996. Paradoxes of the visual. October 77, 59–62. Russell, I., 2006a. Freud and Volkan: psychoanalysis, group 18 Visualizing Archaeologies of boundaries, in A Permeability of Boundaries? New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore, eds. R.J. Wallis & K. Lymer. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 936.) Oxford: BAR, xiii–xviii. Washburn, D.K., 1983. Towards a theory of structural style in art, Structure and Cognition in Art, ed. D.K. Washburn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–7. Watson, A., 200a. Fluid horizons, in The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice, eds. V. Cummings & C. Fowler. Oxford: Oxbow, 55–63. Watson, A., 2004b. Making space for monuments: notes on the representation of experience, in Substance, Memory, Display: Archaeology and Art, eds. C. Renfrew, C. Gosden & E. DeMarrais. (McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 79–96. Weiner, J.F., 1991. The Empty Place: Poetry, Space, and Being Among the Foi of Papua New Guinea. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1956. Still Digging: Interleaves from an Antiquary’s Notebook. London: Readers Union. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1966. Civilizations of the Indus Valley and Beyond. London: Thames and Hudson. Whitle, A., 2000a. ‘Very like a whale’: menhirs, motifs and myths in the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition of northwest Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(2), 243–59. Whitle, A., 2004. Stones that loat to the sky: portal dolmens and their landscapes of memory and myth, in The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice, eds. V. Cummings & C. Fowler. Oxford: Oxbow, 81–90. Wolf, J., 1981. The Social Production of Art. London: Macmillan. Wood, P., 199. Realisms and realities, in Realism, Rationalism, Surrealism: Art Between the Wars, eds. B. Fer, D. Batchelor & P. Wood. New Haven (NJ): Yale University Press, 250–. Young, K. & J.L. Saver, 2001. The neurology of narrative. Substance (94–6), 72–84. Zeki, S., 1999. Inner Vision: an Exploration of Art and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. identities and archaeology. Antiquity 80(307), 185–95. Russell, I., 2006b. Archaeologies, modernities, crises and poetics, in Images, Representations and Heritage: Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology, ed. I. Russell. New York (NY): Springer, 1–38. Russell, I. (ed.), 2006c. Images, Representations and Heritage: Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology. New York (NY): Springer. Schulz, J., 1975. Michelangelo’s uninished works. Art Bulletin 58, 366–73. Schwab, K.A., 2005. Celebrations of victory: the metopes of the Parthenon, in The Parthenon: from Antiquity to the Present, ed. J. Neils. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–98. Shanks, M., 1992. Experiencing the Past: on the Character of Archaeology. London: Routledge. Shanks, M., 2004. Three rooms: archaeology and performance. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2), 147–80. Shee Twohig, E., 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shohat, E. & R. Stam, 2001. Narrativizing visual culture: towards a polycentric aesthetics, in The Visual Culture Reader, ed. N. Mirzoef. London: Routledge, 27–49. Skeates, R., 202. Visual culture in prehistoric south-east Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 165–83. Sparshot, F., 1997. Art and anthropology. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55, 29–. St Clair, W., 1998. Lord Elgin and the Marbles: the Controversial History of the Parthenon Frieze. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks. Stone, P.G. & B.L. Molyneaux (eds.), 1994. The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education. London: Routledge. Strathern, M., 1988. The Gender of the Git: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. Taçon, P.S.C. & M. Garde, 1995. Kun-wardde bim, rock art from western and central Arnhem Land, in Rainbow Sugarbag and Moon: Two Artists of the Stone Country, ed. M. West. Darwin: Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, 30–36. Thomas, J., 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: an Interpretive Archaeology. London: Routledge. Thomas, J., 1998. The socio-semiotics of material culture. Journal of Material Culture 3, 97–108. Thomas, J., 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge. Tilley, C., 1991. Material Culture and Text: the Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge. Tilley, C., S. Hamilton & B. Bender, 2000. Art and the re-presentation of the past. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6, 5–62. Tillinghast, L., 2003. The classiicatory sense of ‘art’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 61(2), 133–48. Turner, V., 1982. From Ritual to Theatre: the Human Seriousness of Play. New York (NY): PAJ Publications. Urry, J., 1990. The Tourist Gaze, Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Wallis, R.J. & K. Lymer, 2001. Introduction: a permeability Author biographies Andrew Cochrane completed his PhD in archaeology at Cardif University. He teaches British Prehistory at the Cardif Centre for Life Long Learning, and is a Seminar Leader for the Human Origins and Art and Visual Culture undergraduate modules. His research interests include Irish passage tombs, the Neolithic period, visual cultural studies and archaeological theory. Ian Russell is a Research Associate in the School of Histories and Humanities at Trinity College Dublin. His research interests include the intellectual history of archaeological enquiry and visual and material cultural theory. He recently published Images, Representations and Heritage (2006: Springer, New York), an edited volume exploring these interests. 19