Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:15:22.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2019

Sara Perry Open the ORCID record for Sara Perry [Opens in a new window]
Sara Perry*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of York, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical studies increasingly testify to the capacity for archaeological and cultural heritage sites to engender wonder, transformation, attachment, and community bonding amongst diverse individuals. Following political theorist Jane Bennett, these sites have the power to ‘enchant’ and, in so doing, they are seedbeds of human generosity, ethical mindfulness, and care for the world at large. However, the means by which such enchantment is created, and the extent to which these intimate encounters with the prehistoric or historic record can be deliberately crafted, are little understood. Worsening the predicament, professional practices commonly thwart the potential for archaeology to provoke ethical action amongst humans. Here, I propose a multi-stranded conceptual model for generating enchantment with the archaeological record across both professional audiences and broader publics. With reference to the European Commission-funded EMOTIVE Project, I articulate one particular strand of this model: facilitated dialogue. Alongside exploring the role of digital culture in its advancement, I argue that an enchantment-led approach is imperative for achieving a truly socially-beneficial archaeological discipline.

Les études empiriques révèlent de plus en plus que les sites archéologiques et ceux appartenant au patrimoine culturel sont capables d'engendrer un sens de l’émerveillement, de transformation, d'attachement et de créer des liens entre des communautés comprenant des individus les plus divers. Selon les théories politiques de Jane Bennett, ces sites ont le pouvoir « d'enchanter » et, ce faisant, permettent de promouvoir la générosité, une prise de conscience éthique et un égard accru envers le monde en général. Mais on comprend encore mal comment ce sens de l'enchantement est créé et combien ces rencontres intimes avec le passé préhistorique ou historique peuvent être délibérément réalisées. Les difficultés sont accrues du fait que les professionnels de l'archéologie obstruent souvent le potentiel de l'archéologie en termes d'action éthique. Dans cet article, je propose un modèle comprenant plusieurs éléments conceptuels permettant de produire un sens de l'enchantement par rapport aux témoignages de l'archéologie et destiné autant à une audience de professionnels qu’à un public plus large. Dans le cadre du projet EMOTIVE financé par la Commission européenne, je présente une facette de ce modèle : le dialogue facilité. En dehors d'un examen du rôle de la culture numérique et de son évolution, je soutiens qu'une approche centrée sur l'enchantement est essentielle en archéologie, si l'on veut que cette discipline soit vraiment bénéfique sur le plan social. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Empirische Studien zeigen zunehmend, dass archäologische Fundplätze und Stätten des Kulturerbes in der Lage sind, uns zu bezaubern, uns zu verändern und ein Gemeinschaftsgefühl zwischen ganz verschiedenen Menschen zu schaffen. Laut der politischen Theorien von Jane Bennett sind diese Stätten fähig, uns zu ‚bezaubern‘ und damit können sie Großzügigkeit, eine ethische Achtsamkeit und eine Sorge für die gesamte Welt fördern. Wie man solch eine Bezauberung erzeugt, und in welchem Ausmaß solche persönlichen Begegnungen mit der urgeschichtlichen oder historischen Vergangenheit verbreitet sind, ist aber kaum bekannt. Die Situation ist dadurch noch verschlechtert, dass die Praxis das Potenzial der Archäologie, ethische Maßnahmen zu fördern, häufig verhindert. In diesem Artikel schlage ich ein vielseitiges Begriffsmodell vor, dass ein Entzücken mit den archäologischen Befunden generiert, sowohl unter Fachleuten und der breiteren Öffentlichkeit. Im Rahmen des von der Europäischen Kommission finanzierten EMOTIVE Projektes verdeutliche ich hier ein Aspekt dieses Modells: der unterstützte Dialog. Neben einer Untersuchung der Rolle der digitalen Kultur und deren Entwicklung wird hier den Standpunkt vertreten, dass wir einen auf Verzauberung orientierten Ansatz folgen müssen und so eine wirklich sozial tragfähige archäologische Disziplin erschaffen. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

archaeological enchantmentemotiondigital technologiesarchaeological methodmuseums and cultural heritage sitesprofessional practiceenchantement en archéologieémotiontechnologies numériquesméthodes archéologiquesmusées et sites du patrimoine culturelpratique professionnellearchäologische BezauberungGefühlDigitaltechnologienarchäologische MethodenMuseen und Kulturerbeberufliche Praxis
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 22 , Special Issue 3: Digital Archaeologies , August 2019 , pp. 354 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartram, R. 2017. Housing Historic Role Models and the American Dream. Qualitative Sociology, 40: 1–22.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 2001. The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and Ethics. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Black, G. 2018. Meeting the Audience Challenge in the ‘Age of Participation’. Museum Management and Curatorship, 33: 302–19.Google Scholar
Bonacchi, C., Altaweel, M. & Krzyzanska, M. 2018. The Heritage of Brexit: Roles of the Past in the Construction of Political Identities Through Social Media. Journal of Social Archaeology, 18: 174–92.Google Scholar
Borck, L. & Thompson, A. 2018. The Miseducation of the Public and the Erasure of Native Americans [online] [accessed 11 March 2019]. American Anthropological Association blog, available at: <https://blog.americananthro.org/2018/11/22/the-miseducation-of-the-public-and-the-erasure-of-native-americans/>>Google Scholar
Cameron, F. 2005. Contentiousness and Shifting Knowledge Paradigms: The Roles of History and Science Museums in Contemporary Societies. Museum Management and Curatorship, 20: 213–33.Google Scholar
Canning, E. 2018. Affective Metadata for Object Experiences in the Art Museum. Master of Museum Studies dissertation, University of Toronto. Available at: <https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/91417/4/Canning_Erin_201811_MMSt_thesis.pdf>>Google Scholar
Carnall, M., Ashby, J. & Ross, C. 2013. Natural History Museums as Provocateurs for Dialogue and Debate. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28: 55–71.Google Scholar
Carver, M. 2011. Making Archaeology Happen: Design Versus Dogma. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Dean, C. 2005. The Fragility of Empathy after the Holocaust. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Deufel, N. 2017. Agonistic Interpretation: A New Paradigm in Response to Current Developments. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 26: 90–109.Google Scholar
Fredengren, C. 2016. Unexpected Encounters with Deep Time Enchantment: Bog Bodies, Crannogs and ‘Otherworldly’ Sites. World Archaeology, 48: 482–99.Google Scholar
Fredheim, L.H. 2018. Endangerment-Driven Heritage Volunteering: Democratisation or ‘Changeless Change’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24: 619–33.Google Scholar
Gargett, K. 2018. Re-thinking the Guided Tour: Co-creation, Dialogue and Practices of Facilitation at York Minster (unpublished MA dissertation, University of York).Google Scholar
Gilson, J.F. 2015. An Exploration into Inspiration in Heritage Interpretation through Virtual World Café (unpublished PhD dissertation, Royal Roads University, British Columbia). Available at: https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10170/810/gilson_jacquline.pdf?sequence=1Google Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., González, P.A. & Criado-Boado, F. 2018. Against Reactionary Populism: Towards a New Public Archaeology. Antiquity, 92: 507–15.Google Scholar
Hardy, S. 2017. The Archaeological Profession and Human Rights. In: Moshenska, G., ed. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Hart, T.R. 1998. Inspiration: Exploring the Experience and its Meaning. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38: 7–35.Google Scholar
Hearne, R. in press. The Archaeological Imagination: New Ways of Seeing for Mental Health Recovery. In: Darvill, T., Heaslip, V. & Staelens, Y., eds. Historic Landscapes and Mental Well-being. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Hoare, J. 2018. Heart on Your Sleeve? Emotion, Wearable Tech and Digital Heritage. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress and Expo of Digital Heritage, San Francisco, USA, 26–30 October, 2018.Google Scholar
Högberg, A., Holtorf, C., May, S. & Wollentz, G. 2017. No Future in Archaeological Heritage Management? World Archaeology, 49(5): 639–47.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2018. Embracing Change: How Cultural Resilience is Increased Through Cultural Heritage. World Archaeology [online]. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1510340.Google Scholar
Hutchings, R. & La Salle, M. 2014. Teaching Anti-Colonial Archaeology. Archaeologies, 10: 27–69.Google Scholar
Hutchings, R. & La Salle, M. 2018. Salvaging Archaeology. Antiquity, 92: 1–3.Google Scholar
Kajda, K., Marx, A., Wright, H., et al. 2018. Archaeology, Heritage and Social Value: Public Perspectives on European Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 21: 96–117.Google Scholar
Kidd, J. 2018. ‘Immersive’ Heritage Encounters. The Museum Review, 3. http://articles.themuseumreview.org/tmr_vol3no1_kiddGoogle Scholar
La Salle, M. & Hutchings, R. 2018. ‘What Could be More Reasonable?’ Collaboration in Colonial Contexts. In: Labrador, A. & Silberman, N., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–38.Google Scholar
Latham, K.F., Narayan, B. & Gorichanaz, T. 2018. Encountering the Muse: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Inspiration and Information in the Museum Context. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science [online]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618769976.Google Scholar
Loh, A. 2017. I Feel You. Artforum, 56 [online] [accessed 12 March 2019]. Available at: <https://www.artforum.com/print/201709/alyssa-k-loh-on-virtual-reality-and-empathy-71781>>Google Scholar
Lynch, B. 2013. Reflective Debate, Radical Transparency and Trust in the Museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28: 1–13.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. 2017. The Gate in the Wall: Beyond Happiness-making in Museums. In: Onciul, B., Stefano, M. & Hawke, S., eds. Engaging Heritage, Engaging Communities. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
May, S. 2009. Then Tyger Fierce Took Life Away: The Contemporary Material Culture of Tigers. In: Holtorf, C. & Piccini, A., eds. Contemporary Archaeologies: Excavating Now. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
McDonald, H. 2011. Understanding the Antecedents to Public Interest and Engagement with Heritage. European Journal of Marketing, 45: 780–804.Google Scholar
McGuire, R.H. 2008. Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
McKinney, S. 2018. Generating Pre-historical Empathy in Classrooms (unpublished MSc dissertation, University of York).Google Scholar
Mirashrafi, S. 2017. A Collaborative Experience in Çatalhöyük (unpublished MSc dissertation, University of York).Google Scholar
Morse, N., Macpherson, M. & Robinson, S. 2013. Developing Dialogue in Co-produced Exhibitions: Between Rhetoric, Intentions and Realities. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28: 91–106.Google Scholar
Moshenska, G. 2006. The Archaeological Uncanny. Public Archaeology, 5: 91–99.Google Scholar
Nilsen, A.P. & Bader, M. 2016. The Psychology of Empathy: Compelling Possibilities for Museums. In: Gokcigdem, E., ed. Fostering Empathy Through Museums. Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 115–30.Google Scholar
Nixon, T. 2017. What About Southport? A Report to CIFA on Progress Against the Vision and Recommendations of the Southport Report (2011) [online] [accessed 12 March 2019]. Available at: <https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/What%20about%20Southport%20A%20report%20to%20CIfA%20against%20the%20vision%20and%20recommendations%20of%20the%20Southport%20report%202017_0.pdf>>Google Scholar
Packer, J. & Bond, N. 2010. Museums as Restorative Environments. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53: 421–36.Google Scholar
Park, S. & Santos, C.A. 2017. Exploring the Tourist Experience: A Sequential Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 56: 16–27.Google Scholar
Pekarik, A., Schreiber, J., Hanemann, N., Richmond, K. & Mogel, B. 2014. IPOP: A Theory of Experience Preference. Curator: The Museum Journal, 57: 5–27.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2018. Why are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel's Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6: 212–27.Google Scholar
Perry, S. & Taylor, J. 2018. Theorising the Digital: A Call to Action for the Archaeological Community. In: Matsumoto, M. & Uleberg, E., eds. CAA2016, Oceans of Data: Proceedings of the 44th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
Perry, S., Roussou, M., Mirashrafi, S., Katifori, A. & McKinney, S. in press. Shared Digital Experiences Supporting Collaborative Meaning-Making at Heritage Sites. In: Lewi, H., Smith, W., Cooke, S. & von Lehn, D., eds. The Routledge International Handbook of New Digital Practices in Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums and Heritage Sites. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Perry, S., Wright, H. & Richards, J. in prep. Narrating the Archive: Exploring Storytelling as a Means to Advance the Scholarship of Data Curation. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology.Google Scholar
Poole, S. 2018. Ghosts in the Garden: Locative Gameplay and Historical Interpretation from Below. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24: 300–14.Google Scholar
Poria, Y., Butler, R. & Airey, D. 2003. The Core of Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30: 238–54.Google Scholar
PPG16, 1990. Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning. Prepared by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, now the Department for Communities and Local Government [online] [accessed 11 March 2019]. Available at: <https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120906045433/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/156777.pdf>>Google Scholar
Redfern, N. 2017. Archaeology Where Next? How to Maximise Archaeology's Benefit to Society. Paper delivered to YOHRS Seminar, University of York, 4 October 2017.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. 2014. Public Archaeology in a Digital Age (unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London). Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1436367/Google Scholar
Rico, T. 2015. Heritage at Risk: The Authority and Autonomy of a Dominant Preservation Framework. In: Samuels, K.L. & Rico, T., eds. Heritage Keywords. Boulder (CO): University Press of Colorado, pp. 147–62.Google Scholar
Roussou, M., Perry, S., Katifori, A., Vassos, S., Tzouganatou, A. & McKinney, S. 2019. Transformation through Provocation? Designing a ‘Bot of Conviction’ to Challenge Conceptions and Evoke Critical Reflection. In CHI 2019: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland, 4–9 May. Paper No. 627. New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300857Google Scholar
Schlanger, N., Nespoulous, L. & Demoule, J.-P. 2016. Year 5 at Fukushima: A ‘Disaster-Led’ Archaeology of the Contemporary Future. Antiquity, 90: 409–24.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. 2003. Respect, in an Age of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. 2012. The Archaeological Imagination. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Shorin, T. 2018a. The Disbeliever's Guide to Authenticity [online] [accessed 12 March 2019]. Available at: <https://subpixel.space/entries/the-disbelievers-guide-to-authenticity/>>Google Scholar
Shorin, T. 2018b. After Authenticity [online] [accessed 12 March 2019]. Available at: <https://subpixel.space/entries/after-authenticity/>>Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2018. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. London: Pelican.Google Scholar
Smith, L. 2014. Visitor Emotion, Affect and Registers of Engagement at Museums and Heritage Sites. Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 14: 125–32.Google Scholar
Staus, N.L. & Falk, J.H. 2017. The Role of Emotion in Informal Science Learning: Testing an Exploratory Model. Mind, Brain and Education, 11: 45–53.Google Scholar
Tøndborg, B. 2013. The Dangerous Museum: Participatory Practices and Controversy in Museums Today. Nordisk Museologi, 2: 3–16.Google Scholar
Tucker, H. 2016. Empathy and Tourism: Limits and Possibilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 57: 31–43.Google Scholar
Visser, J. 2017. Information and Communication Technologies for Heritage and Peacebuilding. In: D. Walters, D. Laven & P. Davis, eds. Heritage and Peacebuilding. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 53–63.Google Scholar
West, C. 2013. The Thing is…: A New Model for Encouraging Diverse Opinions in Museum Outreach. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28: 107–23.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M., Smith, L. & Campbell, G. 2018. Introduction: Affective Heritage Practices. In: Smith, L., Wetherell, M. & Campbell, G., eds. Emotion, Affective Practices, and the Past in the Present. London: Routledge, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Wills, J. 2018. The World After PPG16: 21st-century Challenges for Archaeology. Reading: CIFA & Historic England [online] [accesssed 12 March 2019]. Available at: <https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/21st-century%20Challenges%20for%20Archaeology%20project%20report%20October%202018.pdf>>Google Scholar
Witcomb, A. 2015. Toward a Pedagogy of Feeling: Understanding How Museums Create a Space for Cross-Cultural Encounters. In: Macdonald, S. & Leahy, H. Rees, eds. The International Handbooks of Museum Studies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 321–44.Google Scholar
Zhou, L., Shen, H., Wu, M-Y., Wall, G. & Shen, X. 2018. Benefits of Visiting Heritage Museums: Chinese Parents’ Perspectives. International Journal of Heritage Studies [online]. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428667.Google Scholar