Andrew Cochrane and Ian Russell
The 2006 Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory (CHAT) conference provided an instalment of discussions, dialogues and debates, which did not disappoint those searching for a healthy argument over the relevance of possibilities of performing archaeology in a contemporary world.

On the Saturday night (11 November 2006), a host of collaborators and creators convened on the darkly lit and off-the-beaten track venue known to Bristolians, artists and Bohos as the Cube Microplex. The anarchic venue became the stage for a panel of ‘archaeologists’ and ‘archaeo-artists’ combined together to form what the CHAT termed ‘Hybrid Archaeologies’. In true CHAT fashion, the chairing of Dan Hicks weaved a thread of intellectual significance with archaeological weight.

The evening began with the personal and provocative work of Christine Finn (University of Bristol). Reflecting on her encounters, explorations and excavations during her return to her family and childhood home after her parents’ deaths, Finn led us on a wonderfully non-linear, audio and visual vignette. Finn’s images and words demonstrated with bravery and conviction how archaeological expression of the contemporary is intrinsic to how we often cope with and negotiate our relation to significant and traumatic events in our lives.

The next contribution came from Lee Fearnside (College of the Holy Cross) and Krysta Ryzewski (Brown University). A video documentary titled ‘“Telling Stories”: When Archaeology meets Art’. Providing an effective exposition of the growing understanding of archaeology as narrative and as art, the video entwined comments and interviews by archaeologists, students and academics working together both on site and in the laboratory. The most resonant point in the sequence was the guiding impact that the individual imaginations and expectations of the participants of the practice of archaeology have on the later construction, representation and communication of archaeological knowledge.

Following this was the delightful work of Greg Bailey and Cassie Newland (Bristol University), John Schofield (English Heritage) and Anna Nilsson (WS Atkins), presented in a short film entitled ‘The Van: In Transit…’. Similar to the previous production, the piece preformed as an un-narrated montage of comments and images of archaeologists engaged in the excavation of a contemporary and decommissioned Ford transit van (see the THE VAN – Archaeology in transition from September 16, 2006). Superbly produced, the film linearly represented the excavation of the van while simultaneously confronting the viewer with a barrage of a-linear representations of media texts and public reactions to the project. Although accused by some as teetering on the edge of futility, the project is in fact an engaging and dynamic example of how archaeological practice and archaeologists can indeed produce relevant criticism of Western society through the study of contemporary material culture.

We used our time as an opportunity to present some of the key themes from our current Manifesto (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1), 3-19), whilst also introducing some pieces from our ‘Reflexive Representations: The Partibility of Archaeology’ exhibition. Having installed the pieces on the walls of the theatre, we framed not only the audience and session but also current debates over the relationship between archaeology and the visual arts. More information on these pieces was posted by us last month as Reflexive Representations: The Partibility of Archaeology. A sample of one of the pieces can be found on archaeography.com.
Following the brief sojourn from the world of moving images, in Paul Rooney’s (University of Wolverhampton) ‘A Pox in Your Guts’, we returned to the cinematic as an exploration of archaeology’s contemporary relevance. With its Orwellian over and under tones, the visual exploration of the interior of Bethesda Chapel in Stoke-on-Trent played on themes of involuntary memory at sites charged with social commemoration, ‘ritual’ belief and trauma. The haunting voice-over plays the part of the muse of reflection, moving the viewer from one object of inspiration to the next, via the construction of archaeological narratives from his personal memory. This is less a coming of age narration and more a realisation that one has come of age. Aesthetically compelling and engaging, the piece added extra visual artistic professionalism to the course of the evening.
Next was conference co-organiser Angela Piccini (University of Bristol) who offered not only a visual reflection on archaeological discourse but also an argument for the utilisation of visual media in contemporary archaeological practice. The contribution was filled with intellectual argumentation, in which Piccini turned to the more personal narratives of her use of video to document traces and residue amongst pedestrian traffic in the transitory spaces of Helsinki railway station. Piccini’s contribution demonstrated the possibility for moving images to greatly enhance our appreciation for the life-worlds of the traces and forgotten-objects which constitute much of our transitory environments.
The evening drew to a close with the theatrical exposition of Douglass Bailey (Cardiff University) and Mike Pearson (University of Wales, Aberystwyth). Titled ‘The Dense Overlays of Many Lives: Ephemeron, Trace, Residue’, the event presented a multi-faceted thesis relating to the differing perspectives on the locative significance of human action when approached as archaeological science, theatre, narrative and panoptic surveillance society. Presented as a dialogue between Bailey as archaeological recorder and Pearson as theatrical narrator, the exchange was illustrated by powerpoint visuals demonstrating banal archaeological deposits and measurements, later identified as street, pavement and so on… juxtaposed with Cardiff police surveillance videos that recorded actors who had been asked to stand or sit motionless for three minutes in specific locations. This resulted in an exposure of the disjuncture between narrative human understanding and the constructed societies of archaeological scientific recording and surveillance.
The entire evening succinctly demonstrated archaeologists’ increasing interest with moving images as a means of expressing and measuring human experience, be it past or present (if such distinctions are possible or useful). Such usage may be in part due to the increased affordability of moving images (e.g. video, DVD and MP4), or a desired fetishism to produce human experience in such formats. The primary concern is, however, that this media perpetuates a belief in the veracity of the recorded and measured image. Instead, it might be interesting to see ‘video’ being used to disrupt such perspectives – the works of Bruce Nauman and Nam June Paik spring to mind.
The positioning of the session in the evening, at the end of a full day of papers, did unfortunately inhibit discussion and dialogue between the audience and presenters – the tiredness of some seemed to have also lessened the impact of the later presentations also. Comments afterwards at the bar indicated that some people would have preferred these ‘more radical’ presentations and discussions to have percolated though the more ‘traditional’ sessions, rather than being ‘ring-fenced’ and staged in a setting that is already associated with entertainment and avant-garde or anarchic sentiments.
The volume of spectators in this session suggested that there is an increasing interest within contemporary archaeological discourse for multi-faceted and richly textured approaches. The session was in total a success, stimulating both presenters and audience alike, and we thank Dan Hicks and Angela Piccini for their hard work and efforts.
Photographs with kind permission by Kate Waddington (Cardiff University).