Discussion points
- What is Bradley's definition of "natural places" and what does an archaeology of natural places involve? If we consider the concept of the "site" in archaeology (and say in architectural practice or contemporary performance art as well?)- what is distinctive about his "natural places"?
- Throughout the first chapter Bradley insists on the "unaltered", "unmodified" character of Arctic sacred sites in the landscape. What is he trying to say with this emphasis? Do we agre with him when he claims that sacrificial sites are "rarely modified" or "never altered"? He argues that as distinct from the rest of the prehistoric Europe, Arctic archaeology "is concerned with the significance of unaltered places" (13) Are we seeing a natural/artificial division in the definition of the landscape here?
- In presenting the case for the Saami and their envisioning of their landscapes, Bradley uses extensively both archaeological and ethnographic data. Although archaeological practice is commented upon through Evans's case at Finnish Ukonsaari, there is not much discussion on how the ethnographic data is acquired and interpreted. As a result there is an ambivalence about the methodologies and sources behind his work, where ethnographically derived data is meshed with archaeology of the place- as if this was an unproblematic situation. A palimpsest that reifies the modern -taken for granted. Thoughts on this? I have a feeling archaeology here takes on the role of a "modern exact science" while ethnography is marginalized as the fuzzy, unsystematic "inexact" field method.
Keffie's powerpoints:
MOV00988.MPG - hierapolis video
In Like Flint - James
The Placement of Belief -Claudia
Stone Gods - Emily
The Leech Pond at Kerkenes Dag - Ömür Harmanşah
documenting place - Sarah
Linkages - Brad
Alteration of Natural Places - Jessica
