TAG2024

This session will explore the evolution of palaeolandscapes by focusing on the human dimension. In fact, the archaeology of submerged landscapes has made significant progress in addressing many decisive issues in human evolution, yet what can be achieved is often limited by the data available and/or the approaches we use – especially for areas that have only received limited attention. This inevitably leads to the risk of conceiving palaeolandscapes as empty boxes in which humans are conveniently placed, without much consideration of the dynamic nature of submerged landscapes and how this intertwines with the complexity of many aspects of human societies. Therefore, in this session we aim to address different perspectives and approaches that can help us move towards a more ‘humanly-conscious’ study of palaeolandscapes, which envisions these as vivid places rather than empty spaces. Firstly, by assuming that submerged landscapes are intrinsically dynamic, we would like to discuss new ways to picture palaeolandscapes in their ever-changing nature. Secondly, we want to explore the theme of life on submerged landscapes, focusing in particular on how certain aspects of human life – including, but not limited to, ecologies, settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, mobility, connectivity, and cosmologies – are affected by the dynamic nature of palaeolandscapes. Finally, we would like to bring particular attention to an issue which we believe will allow us to summarise the themes mentioned above, namely responses to sea level change: how can a ‘man in nature’ approach – rather than ‘man vs nature’ – help us improve our understanding of the issue? How can we explore resilience to and perception of changes? Can we, for example, identify ‘ritual’ responses to sea level change?

2:00pm | Welcome | Samuele Ongaro & Celia Prescott

2:10pm | Place vs. Space? Re-living the emptyscapes of the early Holocene  | Vince Gaffney, James Walker, Michea´l Butler, Simon Fitch, Andy Fraser, Jess Cook Hale, Rachel Harding and Ben Urmston 

2:30pm | Submerged Landscapes of the Northern Adriatic: Rediscovering the Geography of the Last Foragers and First Farmers  | Samuele Ongaro 

3:10pm | An introduction to the paleolandscapes of northern Japan  | Robyn Pelling 

3:30pm | Changing seascapes: the impact of coastal change on Lebanese maritime archaeology  | Celia Prescott 

3:50pm | Lithics Out of Context: Using the Chaine Operatoire to better understand what Post-Depositional Surface Abrasion and Patination mean for Early Occupation of Britain  | Carley Divish 

Full paper abstracts available here:
https://tag2024.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tag-2024-session-abstracts-1.pdf

Framing the session title in an interrogative way, at one level is a nod towards remembering Alfred Russell Wallace, who conceived the theory of evolution through natural selection independently of Charles Darwin, who lived in Bournemouth and was buried in Broadstone cemetery in 1913. At another level the theme prompts the question of whether evolutionary models are still relevant for understanding culture-change through archaeology. And at yet another level the theme raises the matter of changing archaeological practice and where current trends in fieldwork might be taking us: is archaeology as a discipline ‘evolving’?. But the theme should not be seen as a constraint on contributions; it is a starting point! Posters on any aspect of theoretically grounded archaeology are welcome.

9:30am | Neanderthal Cultures in Britain and Doggerland: a computational investigation into selected Middle Palaeolithic assemblages.  | Alexandra Barroso
9:30am | Tigers in Film: Past, Present and Future Perspectives   |  Farah Benbouabdellah
9:30am | The evolution of object biography: cauldron’s obituary   | Wenqing Zhang

Archaeology is often described as informed storytelling: as practitioners, we are trained not only to produce data in the field or in the lab, but also how to write about and present on it – often in more formal settings such as conferences, or informally through public outreach and engagement. However, with increasingly specialised fields of study come greater barriers to dissemination; research narratives may end up ‘lost in translation’, whilst facts and data take second place to catchy news headlines or popular media.

Practised across time and space, storytelling provides an alternative method through which to communicate archaeological information, not only to public audiences, but also amongst those working in diverse archaeological fields. Stories develop and evolve, much like our data and interpretations, and can be told and retold by different narrators. Such techniques may therefore help us to convey complex research in an accessible – but by no means overly-simplified – format, in turn permitting cross-disciplinary discussions and understanding. From archaeological theory to stable isotope analysis, it offers the possibility of connecting with varied audiences, widening participation, and challenging status quo present in traditional modes of research dissemination.

In this session, we invite anyone interested in the human past to try your hand at alternative communication techniques, broadly through storytelling methods. We also welcome those who have had success with such approaches to come and share your experiences! The session aims to be inclusive and experimental, so whether you bring props, present in verse, try out the method of kamishibai (Japanese ‘paper drama’ or picture storytelling – we recommend this method if you are unsure where to start), or simply present your work differently, we would like you to step away from traditional slideshow presentations and to embrace the creative and evolving narratives that archaeological research generates.

So, what’s your story?

2:00pm | Introduction | Kirsty Lilley & Lusia Zaleskaya

2:10pm | Experiences of teaching undergraduate and postgraduate modules in digital storytelling for cultural heritage at UEA.  | Lorna Richardson 

2:40pm | Stories are too good to save for the public! Can storifying also make us better researchers?  | Fiona Coward 

2:55pm | The power of ArchaeoStories: UCL Whitechapel Storytelling workshop | Sarah Wolferstan 

3:25pm | Humour, mystery and tragedy: Heritage storytelling for non-archaeologists   | Vera Noon

3:40pm | Posthuman feminism, ambiguity, and the others: Telling tales of post-medieval marginalised and excluded communities.  | Hanna Steyne & Mili Rajic 

3:55pm | Hearing Research Narratives for Bronze Age Egyptian-Nubian daggers: Storytelling with the ‘Sensory Gain’ approach.  | Emma Bentley

Full paper abstracts available here:
https://tag2024.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tag-2024-session-abstracts-1.pdf

What is the future of death in the digital age and what is the role of archaeology in online deathly domains? Mortuary memes evolve fast, and so must our approaches and strategies to digital public archaeology, specifically for the high-profile, often controversial and ethically sensitive subdisciplines of bioarchaeology and mortuary archaeology.

The impact of, and vast potential for, mortuary archaeology and bioarchaeology in contemporary debates and perceptions of mortality is undisputed (see Croucher et al. 2020). Yet, to date this field’s digital dimensions have received only limited sustained evaluation. Drawing on this work and specifically building on a successful 2021 ‘DigiDeath’ digital conference involving guest speakers and student contributions critiquing current approaches to digital public mortuary archaeology (Williams 2021), this session will showcase and promote key debates and new directions in the public archaeology of death via digital media.

The session invites contributions that critique and identify strategies to tackle pertinent topics in digital public mortuary archaeology in the media and social media, from newspaper headlines to TikTok videos, including:

Evaluating ethical debates and challenges of digital media and social media;
Tackling controversies and combating misinformaton and disinformation online, including prominent pseudoarchaeological narratives which cross-cut the interfaces between digital, visual and media literacies;
Introducing new approaches to digital public communication and education on mortuary topics including evaluations of both failures and successes;
Case studies in digital public mortuary archaeology including those by projects and individuals at universities, museums, commercial units and other sectors;
Considering pandemic and post-pandemic engagements with mortality and archaeology online;
Challenging online abuse, harassment and bullying exploiting mortuary archaeology and bioarchaeology, from racial ideologies to transphobic rhetorics.

2:05pm | Using archaeology to support grief and bereavement: a digital toolkit for counsellors, therapists and patients  | Karina Croucher, Eleanor Bryant, and Aoife Sutton-Butler

2:25pm | TikTok Archaeodeath  | Howard Williams

3:20pm | Soyjaks, Tradwifes, and a 1000-Year-old Finnish Burial: Exploring the Meme Reaction to Moilanen et al. (2022) | Owen Hurcum

3:35pm | From Tombs to Television: The Problematic Use of Human Remains in 'Ancient Aliens'  | Frederick Trusohamn

3:50pm | The dead as clickbait: images of human remains in British online news outlets  | Ellie Chambers

4:00pm | Discussion |

Full paper abstracts available here:
https://tag2024.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tag-2024-session-abstracts-1.pdf

This session examines the theory and practice of running archaeological projects to aid those suffering from trauma in their recovery. Focusing on, but not exclusively, the role that archaeology has and is playing with the recovery of those who have served in the armed forces, the session will highlight how this area has progressed over the last 12 years or so, using examples from the UK (for instance, Operation Nightingale) as well as from abroad, such as Waterloo Uncovered.

Speakers with a wide knowledge of running projects that assist those who have suffered from trauma, especially on the battlefield, will be sharing their experiences with those who wish to run similar projects. Integral to this will be the need to evaluate what we do and how we do it, so that we can reach a consensus on what constitutes best practice in this important area and better understand what works well for all those involved.

Is it time for a recognised ‘heritage therapy’ to emerge? And if so, what evidence do we need to collect and scrutinise to make this happen? It strikes us that this is only the beginning of an exciting new role for archaeology in the service of the wider community and the health of its members, but one that also requires a properly considered body of evidence if it is to obtain recognition by mental health practitioners.

In keeping with the theme of this year’s TAG (Evolution?), this session will discuss how the profession of archaeology itself is changing and in the process developing new ways in which to enrich society that even only 20 years ago were not considered.

2:00pm | Broken Pots, Mending lives: Archaeology and recovery for service personnel | Richard Osgood

2:40pm | Excavating the past and (re)finding myself: Exploring the therapeutic potential of archaeology with Veterans and Providers | Karen Burnell, Paul Everill 

3:25pm | Methodology used to create a Questionnaire for Ukrainian military personnel within the ‘Spiritual Revival by Culture’ Rehabilitation Program in the National Preserve ‘Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra’ (2023-2024) | Maksym Ostapenko, Sergiy Taranenko, Ihor Tereshchenko & Oleh Topylko 

3:45pm | Archaeology as part of the ‘Spiritual Revival by Culture’ Rehabilitation Program in the National Preserve ‘Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra’: Reality and Prospects” | Sergiy Taranenko 

4:05pm | Plenary session |

Full paper abstracts available here:
https://tag2024.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tag-2024-session-abstracts-1.pdf

In recent years archaeologists have—in increasingly greater numbers—turned to the study of museum collections which have not traditionally been perceived as ‘archaeological’ in nature. A small flurry of studies have explored the potential of developing an archaeology of archives (Baird and McFadyen 2014; Hitchcock 2021; Hodgett 2022) or delved into the role of photographic collections in archaeology (Baird 2011; Riggs 2018). Others have turned to ethnographic collections in the search for technological analogies to understand the creation and use of artefacts, or to demonstrate “continuity of practice between ancient and modern communities” (Flexner 2022:375). At the same time, the metaphor of excavating the collection is becoming increasingly common as a framing device for positioning museum and archival collections as field sites. With this metaphor comes the suggestion that the methodological and theoretical insights of archaeology—ideas of context, assemblage and formation—can offer new approaches to the study of museum collections.

This shift towards taking museum and archival collections as subjects of research in their own right marks a significant departure from prevailing perspectives on the relationship between museums and archaeology. As Stevenson (2022) notes, museum archaeology is often misconstrued as being limited to the pragmatic storage and display of excavated and fully processed assemblages, or dismissed as relevant only to antiquarian ‘collecting’ practices in the nascent years of archaeology. And yet, the growing realisation that museums are not neutral spaces has led to a new focus in museum studies on interrogating ‘hidden histories’—unearthing the stories and people whose presence has been erased through museum documentation practices. It is here that archaeologists are uniquely positioned to assist these efforts; using their expertise in giving voice to the past through the interpretation of material culture in situations where written records are absent or cannot be relied upon.

This session invites papers that consider the question what does an archaeology of museum collections look like? This may involve—but is not limited to—new methodological or theoretical approaches to studying collections, exploring collections that have not previously been considered ‘archaeological’ in nature, recovering ‘hidden histories’ through archaeological methods, or using museum collections as potent sources for writing histories of the discipline.

2:00pm | Creation of an 'excavation stratigraphy': reusing archived data to excavate new details of cultural sequences | Heidi J. Miller

2:15pm | Excavating archival traces in the archaeological record: the case of the North-East house at Knossos | Renee Trepagnier

2:30pm | Concealing and revealing the secret museum: the British Museum's Secretum, 1865-1898 | Helen Wickstead

2:45pm | Bronze in the time of cholera: poverty, disease, antiquarianism and Victorian prehistory | Martyn Barber

2:45pm | Discussion | Alice Stevenson

3:25pm | Archaeological epehemera in historic collections: excavating drawers in the Petrie Museum | Lisa Randisi

3:40pm | Egyptological dealers? Reconsidering the business of Egyptian Archaeology and the supply of museum objects | Dan Potter

3:55pm | Making the Museum' and the archaeology of the Pitt Rivers Museum collections | Beth Hodgett

4:10pm | Excavating intimacy: the Mortimer Archive and collection, Hull and East Riding Museum | Melanie Giles

4:25pm | Discussion | Alice Stevenson

Full paper abstracts available here:
https://tag2024.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/tag-2024-session-abstracts-1.pdf

5:00pm | Archaeological theory since 1984 and the politics of human displacement | Ian Hodder

This talk looks critically at the evolutionary paths of archaeological theory in the UK since 1984. There is much to applaud and celebrate but I have become concerned about the perhaps unwitting implications of some of the developments. Two long-term trends are identified – one is the transformation of materialism into materiality, and the other is the gradual decentering of the human. The focus on post-humanism occurs throughout many disciplines in many forms and it is a trend that mirrors societal concerns and debates about AI, the internet of things, cyborgs and singularities, the Matrix rather than meshworks. An argument is made that this displacement of humans parallels the displacement of humans from the work place, from community and from identity. The two trends together weaken attempts by humans to assert their rights in relation to specific material conditions of existence. ‘Archaeology in 1984’ (Antiquity 58(222), pp.25-32) was written in response to Orwell’s fantasy. 40 years later, what will be the role of archaeological theory as an Orwellian future beckons?