See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263373813

The Adventure of Ideas

Article in Norwegian Archaeological Review · June 2012

DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2012.679431

CITATIONS READS
4 418

1 author:

Christopher L. Witmore
Texas Tech University
102 PUBLICATIONS 2,084 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher L. Witmore on 21 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comments on ‘Follow the Cut’ 103

works are listed in his bibliography), not to field archaeologist’s own intellectual struggle
mention a growing body of literature on the to engage with, and contribute to, old and new
archaeology of the body and of the senses archaeological theory, while marginalized
(e.g. Hamilakis et al. 2001, Skeates 2010). from it by the nature of his profession.
But in the process of promoting this worth- Nevertheless, there is a place in my heart
while approach, Edgeworth falls back on a set and in the archaeological literature for self--
of enduring archaeological stereotypes that reflexive thick description, and Edgeworth’s
simply do not reflect the great breadth of case studies contribute successfully to this
archaeological practice and practitioners that genre, especially his second example about
exist outside his own experience. The first is of excavating a ring-ditch. Here, I found some
archaeology as excavation and discovery: ‘the nice, evocative descriptions of archaeological
practical task of excavating an archaeological practice, and of the ways in which the mean-
site’ composed – according to Edgeworth – of ings of excavated archaeological sites and
intact, buried terrestrial deposits filling fea- artefacts can unfold over time, and for these
tures such as pits, postholes and ditches, dur- I thank him. But it would be naïve to believe
ing which artefacts and structures ‘break out that his approach and perspective stem from
into the open, suddenly or gradually taking ‘inside’ archaeology. Edgeworth’s advocacy
form for the first time in our cultural universe’. of a greater emphasis on sensory engagement
The second is a hero-myth of the thoughtful in archaeological practice and theory actu-
and skilful, experienced field archaeologist or ally stems from a much wider, interdiscip-
noble digger (and an environmentally deter- linary, ‘sensory turn’ across the social
mined northern European one at that), who – sciences and humanities at the beginning
trowel in hand – bravely scrapes, chops, jumps of the twenty-first century (Howes 2006,
and digs in the harsh elements of pouring rain, pp. 114–115), to which archaeologists can
wind and occasional sun, while fully engaged certainly make their own small but signifi-
with the multiple sensory dimensions of the cant contributions.
archaeological remains being excavated.
Neither of these pictures adequately repre-
THE ADVENTURE OF IDEAS
sents, for example, my own recent experience
of excavating in a very dark underground cave CHRISTOPHER WITMORE
whose largely featureless and disturbed
archaeological deposits actually turned out In redressing a deeply seeded attitude where
to be well known to local herders and treasure archaeological theory is seen as derivative of
hunters, and my experience of successive post- work taking place elsewhere, Matt Edgeworth
excavation analyses which repeatedly revealed presents readers with a bold paper that renews
dimensions of the artefacts that we had simply a long-standing call for confidence on fresh
been unable to make sense of during the exca- empirical grounds. Adhering to the trenches
vations. In other words, Edgeworth’s poetic produced through archaeological excavation,
ode to the trowel and celebration of the Edgeworth argues that our most fruitful theo-
unsung skill and thoughtfulness of the field retical paths emerge out of the material
archaeologist is just too idiosyncratic. It is encounter. Here we meet a practitioner who
revealing that, in his short biography, both walks the walk and talks the talk, but not
Edgeworth labels himself as a ‘British field in a way that would relegate these activities
archaeologist’. In fact, his essay can simply (what we do and what we say) to separate
be read as a personal account of a British realms. Indeed, Edgeworth’s paper is indicative

Christopher Witmore, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.679431 © Norwegian Archaeological Review (2012)

104 Matt Edgeworth et al.

of a broad sea change that has come to be about Y, which is really XY and, more often
associated with the return to things (Olsen than not, X. For the sake of clarification, I am
2010, see also Alberti et al. 2011). It also falls pushing against both that stubborn image of
into a wider discussion concerning the role of theory as a separate, airy domain purified of
theory in archaeology (e.g. Johnson 2006, all material relations (A.N. Whitehead
Conkey 2007, Bintliff and Pearce 2011). referred to this as the ‘bifurcation of nature’;
Given the restrictions of space, I will limit see Witmore forthcoming) and any scheme
my comments to the notion of internal versus that would reduce the adventure of archaeol-
external theory and to an empirical fidelity to ogy to any exclusive and hegemonic relation
the materials with which archaeologists deal. between ideas and practice, mental judgement
Here, I aim to defend our freedom of move- and sensory impressions. This was never a way
ment against any interdisciplinary embargo, in which good theory operated (Shanks 2007).
not to take flight away from the cut, the Good theory is a mode of engagement. And,
rhythm, the matter, but in order to better as Edgeworth himself suggests, good theory
care for these things by meeting them halfway. should provide guidelines as to how to move.
In this, the spirit of my comments runs with, And thus, good theory does not get in the way
rather than against, Edgeworth’s call to recog- of allowing our matters of concern to define
nize ‘the power of emerging evidence to re- themselves – and Edgeworth states these
shape our actions and thoughts’. Much of points well.
what I say accentuates and furthers this argu- Good theory, moreover, takes skill. Akin to
ment and, in so doing, I will reiterate some working with a sturdy trowel, one needs to
salient points made by Edgeworth. learn how to wield it; and like tracing a cut,
As with the relationship between the USA this work can be overdone or underdone. If
and China, archaeology, for Edgeworth (and the ideas are imposed upon things then what
many others), suffers from a radical trade def- they offer is silenced and too much pressure
icit when it comes to theory. It is against this has been exerted. If, on the other hand, things
background of a widening gap in the exchange are treated as if they speak for themselves, in
of ideas with other disciplines that Edgeworth absence of the modifying impact of an archae-
situates his core argument – theory should not ologist, then too little pressure has been
lead our dealings with things; rather our deal- exerted – at that point a dishonest and dog-
ings should lead the theory. This background matic materialism sets in (note: this is not to
weakens his otherwise significant thesis say that things do not articulate each other,
because reckoning theory in terms of inside only that the expectation that they would go
versus outside is both arbitrary and provi- about doing what they do irrespective of a new
sional. Boundaries are the most futile of clas- interlocutor is disingenuous).
sificatory devices for a science. Time and We should not reduce the adventure of ideas
again throughout the history of archaeology to some arbitrary and somewhat complacent
the moment someone draws a line, someone polemic of inside versus outside; this is a ruse
else inevitably strays across it, laying claim to often deployed by those who wish to satisfy
new territory. The old image of internal versus vested interests. As Edgeworth suggests, ideas
external theory draws upon these dogmatic, should follow on the matters of concern and,
misguided politics of territorial delimitation. as such, good theory is feral, it goes wherever
To be sure, the issue is not one of interior or it is led (see Olsen et al. 2012). Good theory
exterior, but of good and bad theory. requires bricolage: we take whatever a given
With respect to excavation, good theory situation demands, and the vestiges, monu-
cannot be applied; if, by apply we mean foist- ments, artefacts with which we deal demand
ing X upon Y in order to say something more a wild and free creativity.
 Comments on ‘Follow the Cut’ 105

I realize that I am belabouring the issue, but these things ensures our use of any ideas will
I do so because I wish to separate boundary always be novel, for in this engagement they
polemics thoroughly from Edgeworth’s argu- undergo change. If those ideas that pass into
ment. Throughout its history archaeology has our archaeological habitat are not modified,
benefited from thoughtful practice which then it is bad theory. Full stop.
drew upon diverse spheres of exchange and Good theory makes us look in places that
these transactions are part of the character of we would not otherwise have looked – good
archaeology – consider, for example, theory is embedded in what we do. Good
C.T. Newton and photography, Ambrose theory also helps to create a space for hesita-
Lansing and radiocarbon dating, Patty Jo tion. Anything can modify a course of action
Watson and ethnography (Rathje et al. in excavation, even a sharp bit of rock pro-
2012). The trials and tribulations behind this truding from the baulk – to be open to any-
work are now naively given and often implicit thing in the excavation of a ditch is a classic
in what we do. The things that hold our con- notion of pragmatism. It is also good archae-
cern are themselves heterogeneous assem- ology. In this, the key is not to impose arbi-
blages that have arisen through long chains trary limits on what may be operative in a
of labour and reflection – consider the amount given situation. (Here, I hesitate to point out
of work behind the realization of a grubenhaus a slight asymmetry in Edgeworth’s account of
as a distinctive feature or that no excavator B’s excavation of the ring ditch – both B and
ever finds an occupation level for they are the arrowhead mutually articulate each other
always abandonment levels. (Strangely, the and therefore the process is one of co-emer-
question of whether or not other agencies gence, both entities are modified through their
were behind the deposition of a bone needle encounter. Moreover, instead of evacuating
was missing from Edgeworth’s line of interpretation from this scenario, why not
questioning.) remove it from an exclusive interaction
Does it really matter where the inspiration between human and the material world and
comes from if it leads to fresh angles on what give it back to relation between the arrow and
we hold to be our common matters of con- ring ditch? See Witmore forthcoming.)
cern? Well, yes, but not in the way that a Good theory also leads to an achievement
spatial image of interiors and exteriors would that others can build upon. Indeed, I recall
suggest. This too is a matter of fidelity, it is an another figure whose name began with an L,
issue of honesty, integrity, and good scholar- who happened to be French, and who had a
ship evidenced in a deep awareness of intellec- profound impact upon the likes of Lévi-Strauss
tual genealogy and the adventure of ideas. But and Latour; only he was an ethnologist and
this is not to say the ensuing work is deriva- archaeologist – André Leroi-Gourhan.
tive, secondary or reducible to that theory – on So what counts as success? As Isabelle
these grounds it is not unfair to recall a slogan Stengers puts it, ‘the constraints must be satis-
from actor-network theory, which is ‘follow fied by the solution they construct’ (2011, p.
the actors themselves’ (Latour 2005, p. 12). To 18). And here I echo Edgeworth on following
the contrary, our matters of concern trans- the cut, the rhythm, the material – as archae-
form those ideas, actions, personalities, etc., ologists our primary fidelity should not be to
which are brought to bear upon them. The cut, ideas or communities that lead us away from a
the rhythm, the materials, among many other bone needle, a pig metatarsal or a ring ditch,
things, make a difference that must be but to the things themselves. But what happens
accounted for. It follows that ideas from when the path leads to indetermination, as it so
other domains do not pass into our archaeo- often does? What do we do when we encounter
logical milieu pristine and unscathed. The gaps, as is so often the case? Sometimes a new
weight Edgeworth asks us to confer upon path presents itself because no other possibility
 106 Matt Edgeworth et al.

remains. To ‘trust’ that a possibility will reveal What makes archaeology’s habitat unique
itself is different from being ‘confident’, that is, is its commitment to things as common con-
to carry on with the attitude that we have cerns and it is those concerns that lead to its
everything at our disposal to confront any diversity (Olsen et al. 2012). Archaeology’s
situation (here I am drawing on an argument richness encompasses more than excavation
made by Stengers (2011) concerning the dis- or survey, more than phosphate or pottery
tinction between ‘trusting’ and ‘being confident analyses, more than mapping or creating a
in’). How can this be if the possibilities that database. Each locus demands different ques-
present themselves are ever changing? tions, but it is the exchange between these
There are many lines to follow in this essay. disparate fields that mutually enriches them
Still, the commitment Edgeworth encourages (Witmore 2004). This richness bears upon the
us to consider is one that requires less mastery matter to which archaeology is obligated –
and more modesty, less hubris and more matter which will always be inexhaustible,
humility, and more care (Olsen et al. 2012). matter which leads archaeology into a crea-
These are lessons that I have learned from the tive adventure that should begin and end in
author, among others, and they operate on wonderment, and in this it is better to keep
both the empirical and speculative levels. things open rather than closed.

Reply to Comments from Åsa Berggren,

Alfredo González-Ruibal, Tim Ingold,
Gavin Lucas, Robin Skeates and
Christopher Witmore
MATT EDGEWORTH authors (Edgeworth 2006a). In describing
aspects of British archaeological practices, I
do not deny cultural diversity in archaeologi-
MATERIAL FLOWS AND RESISTANCES
cal practices worldwide although I assume
First of all I would like to thank all the dis- commonalities too. Thus when Alfredo
cussants for the time and thought given to González-Ruibal describes immobile and
reading and commenting on the paper. In solid features in Mediterranean archaeology
response to comments, I focus especially on he is actually talking about another aspect of
points of disagreement, since these illuminate the same material flows I refer to in this paper,
key areas of discussion. and there is much we can agree on. His point
Several discussants correctly point out that about some materials going against the flow is
examples used are context-specific and very a good one. But you have to have a flow for
British. This is unavoidable, given my back- something to go against it. The archaeological
ground, though elsewhere I have gathered eth- record is traditionally viewed as a static
nographic accounts of excavation practices in record, and that is how it is represented in
other countries and traditions by various excavation reports and texts in general: there

Matt Edgeworth, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
E-mail: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.679432 © Norwegian Archaeological Review (2012)

View publication stats