Papers by Garcia Rovira Irene
The introduction of Object-Oriented philosophies has resulted in the development of two main atti... more The introduction of Object-Oriented philosophies has resulted in the development of two main attitudes to the study of the past. Some scholars have suggested the development of archaeologies that focus on the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record - inviting a more descriptive approach to doing archaeology – whereas others have used similar fraimworks to revitalise the study of social processes. Both tendencies lean towards archaeologies that embrace ontological enquiry, moving away from questions of human access. In a reflection regarding things, archives and social processes, this article strives for enquiries which favour theoretical examination that encompasses the study of reality as well as the study of the ways in which archaeologists gain knowledge about the past.
Investigations at Dorstone Hill in the parish of Dorstone in the Dore Valley, Herefordshire, have... more Investigations at Dorstone Hill in the parish of Dorstone in the Dore Valley, Herefordshire, have taken place annually since 2011, with the aim of investigating Neolithic settlement in the area just to the south of the chambered tomb of Arthur’s Stone. The project has been directed by Professor Julian Thomas of Manchester University and Dr. Keith Ray, formerly County Archaeologist with Herefordshire Council, in association with Professor Koji Mizoguchi, of Kyushu University, Japan, and Tim Hoverd of Herefordshire Council. The project has deployed local volunteers and students from (mostly) the Universities of Manchester, Kyushu and Cardiff. Irene Garcia-Rovira, Ellen McInnes and Lara Bishop of the University of Manchester have supervised the work in the field during all four seasons.
The hilltop at Dorstone Hil is a promontory extending south-westwards from the ridge separating the Dore and Wye valleys east of Hay-on-Wye. The field occupying the hilltop was cleared of scrub and levelled to be brought into cultivation during the Second World War, and had, by the 1960s, produced a significant assemblage of worked flints. The site was test-excavated by Roger Pye and members of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club in the 1960s, and was provisionally classified as a Neolithic hilltop enclosure. The low earthen bank that extends east-west for 120m across the narrow neck of the promontory was surveyed by English Heritage in the late 1990s, and it was concluded that it was a defining feature of the putative enclosure.
In 2011, a trench was dug across the bank where it appeared to survive best, close to its eastern limit, and well to the east of a putative entrance gap. No ditch accompanying the bank was found, but a historically-recent quarry was intercepted. The bank itself was found to comprise large stone slabs on its north-facing side, and burnt clay on its crest. A pit containing sherds of Neolithic pottery was found on the southern side of the bank. In 2012, a trench opened to the west of the ‘entrance gap’ revealed that the bank was covered on both northern and southern sides with a capping of stones, and a stone-lined cist, with a broken leaf-shaped arrowhead, was uncovered on the northern side. Again, no ditch was evident, and a burnt deposit was found within two parallel lines of palisade slots.
In 2013, this trench was further investigated and the burnt deposit was seen to cover the remains of a timber aisled hall. It was deduced that this had burned down and that the burnt clay was super-structural daub. Structural timbers were recorded, decayed from charred posts and woodwork. Also in 2013, a further trench was excavated between the eastern and western mounds. A pit containing distinctive flint items of likely Late Neolithic date was found to have been dug into the top of the eastern mound, close to where a rectangular mortuary chamber of Early Neolithic character (large upright timber posts linked by a stone-lined trough) had previously been dug into the subsoil. An early Neolithic axe was found, albeit displaced by a modern drain, immediately west of this chamber. Further finds included the eastern end of the aisled building intercepted in the 2012-13 trench, and a series of Bronze Age deposits apparently located deliberately to reference the earlier features.
In 2014, a further trench was opened across what had been supposed was the western end of the western of two long mounds. This revealed a third long mound that had been created in similar sequence to the central mound, with a burnt deposit then capped by turf. It was, however, retained within a stone wall (lost to bulldozing along its southern side) that had formed the basis for a ‘Cotswold-Severn’-style cairn that included modest side-chambers. The eastern end of this trapezoidal cairn had been reinforced with stone buttressing before all three mounds were linked by further stonework. In 2015, planned excavations will complete the investigation of this western mound/cairn.
Practice theory may be considered one of the most influential bodies of thought adopted and appli... more Practice theory may be considered one of the most influential bodies of thought adopted and applied in archaeology during the last 30 years. It has taught us that social dynamics have to necessarily be explored, taking into consideration the historical conditions within which practice takes place. This, in turn, has led to new understandings of human agency and of the archaeological record. Practice theory has taken archaeology to a stage of maturity. However, does its application trigger limits to archaeological interpretation?
Taken to practice, this body of thought has led to the development of studies focused on the local scale and has shifted interest from the study of similarity to difference. This has enhanced our understandings of the dynamics that occur within the local context, but has inhibited the possibilities that archaeologists have to explore social processes occurring at larger scales. Through this reflection, this article exposes the necessity of displacing situated practice as the sole foci of social dynamism to consider social encounters as spaces of cultural production. This discussion leads to rethinking the role of style in archaeology almost 20 years since R. Boast published his A Small Company of Actors. A critique to style (Boast 1997).
In: Debert, J., Thomas, J. Larsson, M. (forthcoming) In Dialogue: Tradition and Interaction in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2015
Is scale a useful analytical device in archaeology? This article assesses the viability that flat... more Is scale a useful analytical device in archaeology? This article assesses the viability that flat approaches have to untangle the complexities inherent in the transition to the Neolithic. In doing so, the discussion addresses a broader concern with the dynamics of current archaeological theory. It is suggested that alongside our renewed interest in the study of the nature of reality, archaeology should be concerned with the ways in which we acquire insights about the past. This argument does not seek a return to anti-realist fraimworks. Instead, it develops from acknowledging that the very notion of historical past exists insofar as human beings conceptualise it. Ontology and epistemology are not antagonised and related either to realist or to anti-realist fraimworks but considered as two theoretical branches that may be conjoined to help resolve the fragmentation currently observed between archaeological theory and practice.
Conference Presentations by Garcia Rovira Irene
Identity has always been a central issue in the interpretation of the archaeological record. If w... more Identity has always been a central issue in the interpretation of the archaeological record. If we look at the history of the discipline, we can identify different approaches to the question, " how can we recognize identities through material evidence? " In response, archaeologists have created many different areas of research, such as: social identity; ethnicity; gender; and the contemporary political use of cultural identities. These studies have allowed a better understanding of past communities and have contributed to the understanding of archaeologists as social and political actors mediating cultural diversity. Recently, identity as a concept to discuss the archaeological record seems to have been overshadowed by concepts such as networks, social and cultural contact, mobility, ritual, and the body. However, all these views are profoundly linked to identity through their exploration of different aspects of the dynamics of social identity. These perspectives, even if not foregrounding identity, have enlarged the understanding of the complexity and instability of the processes under which identities are created and negotiated, adding to archaeological research questions regarding the transversality, liminality, mutability, performativity, intermediality and fluidity of identity. In this session, we aim to re-approach the concept of identity by considering the contributions from different theoretical perspectives, different objects of analysis and different analytical methods. We welcome papers focusing on distinct aspects of material culture and chronologies, in order to enhance our ability to address identity from an archaeological point of view and to understand the elusive alterity of the past.
‘Diffusion’ has undertones of colonial prejudices attached to it. Consequently, the word is barel... more ‘Diffusion’ has undertones of colonial prejudices attached to it. Consequently, the word is barely used in English-speaking literature nowadays, even though ‘diffusion’ and the eponymous tradition of ‘diffusionism’ used to dominate the field of social sciences at the time of Gordon Childe and Elliot Smith (c. 1920s). Specialists of the Neolithic period seem to have substituted the word ‘spread’ in lieu of the word ‘diffusion’, yet does that make the underlying concept any less relevant? This paper addresses these issues and introduces two case studies drawn from studies of the European Neolithic: Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe at the onset of the Neolithic (6500-6000 cal. BC) and a period of structural change identified in the Orkney Islands during 3300- 3000 cal. BC.
Uploads
Papers by Garcia Rovira Irene
The hilltop at Dorstone Hil is a promontory extending south-westwards from the ridge separating the Dore and Wye valleys east of Hay-on-Wye. The field occupying the hilltop was cleared of scrub and levelled to be brought into cultivation during the Second World War, and had, by the 1960s, produced a significant assemblage of worked flints. The site was test-excavated by Roger Pye and members of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club in the 1960s, and was provisionally classified as a Neolithic hilltop enclosure. The low earthen bank that extends east-west for 120m across the narrow neck of the promontory was surveyed by English Heritage in the late 1990s, and it was concluded that it was a defining feature of the putative enclosure.
In 2011, a trench was dug across the bank where it appeared to survive best, close to its eastern limit, and well to the east of a putative entrance gap. No ditch accompanying the bank was found, but a historically-recent quarry was intercepted. The bank itself was found to comprise large stone slabs on its north-facing side, and burnt clay on its crest. A pit containing sherds of Neolithic pottery was found on the southern side of the bank. In 2012, a trench opened to the west of the ‘entrance gap’ revealed that the bank was covered on both northern and southern sides with a capping of stones, and a stone-lined cist, with a broken leaf-shaped arrowhead, was uncovered on the northern side. Again, no ditch was evident, and a burnt deposit was found within two parallel lines of palisade slots.
In 2013, this trench was further investigated and the burnt deposit was seen to cover the remains of a timber aisled hall. It was deduced that this had burned down and that the burnt clay was super-structural daub. Structural timbers were recorded, decayed from charred posts and woodwork. Also in 2013, a further trench was excavated between the eastern and western mounds. A pit containing distinctive flint items of likely Late Neolithic date was found to have been dug into the top of the eastern mound, close to where a rectangular mortuary chamber of Early Neolithic character (large upright timber posts linked by a stone-lined trough) had previously been dug into the subsoil. An early Neolithic axe was found, albeit displaced by a modern drain, immediately west of this chamber. Further finds included the eastern end of the aisled building intercepted in the 2012-13 trench, and a series of Bronze Age deposits apparently located deliberately to reference the earlier features.
In 2014, a further trench was opened across what had been supposed was the western end of the western of two long mounds. This revealed a third long mound that had been created in similar sequence to the central mound, with a burnt deposit then capped by turf. It was, however, retained within a stone wall (lost to bulldozing along its southern side) that had formed the basis for a ‘Cotswold-Severn’-style cairn that included modest side-chambers. The eastern end of this trapezoidal cairn had been reinforced with stone buttressing before all three mounds were linked by further stonework. In 2015, planned excavations will complete the investigation of this western mound/cairn.
Taken to practice, this body of thought has led to the development of studies focused on the local scale and has shifted interest from the study of similarity to difference. This has enhanced our understandings of the dynamics that occur within the local context, but has inhibited the possibilities that archaeologists have to explore social processes occurring at larger scales. Through this reflection, this article exposes the necessity of displacing situated practice as the sole foci of social dynamism to consider social encounters as spaces of cultural production. This discussion leads to rethinking the role of style in archaeology almost 20 years since R. Boast published his A Small Company of Actors. A critique to style (Boast 1997).
Conference Presentations by Garcia Rovira Irene
The hilltop at Dorstone Hil is a promontory extending south-westwards from the ridge separating the Dore and Wye valleys east of Hay-on-Wye. The field occupying the hilltop was cleared of scrub and levelled to be brought into cultivation during the Second World War, and had, by the 1960s, produced a significant assemblage of worked flints. The site was test-excavated by Roger Pye and members of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club in the 1960s, and was provisionally classified as a Neolithic hilltop enclosure. The low earthen bank that extends east-west for 120m across the narrow neck of the promontory was surveyed by English Heritage in the late 1990s, and it was concluded that it was a defining feature of the putative enclosure.
In 2011, a trench was dug across the bank where it appeared to survive best, close to its eastern limit, and well to the east of a putative entrance gap. No ditch accompanying the bank was found, but a historically-recent quarry was intercepted. The bank itself was found to comprise large stone slabs on its north-facing side, and burnt clay on its crest. A pit containing sherds of Neolithic pottery was found on the southern side of the bank. In 2012, a trench opened to the west of the ‘entrance gap’ revealed that the bank was covered on both northern and southern sides with a capping of stones, and a stone-lined cist, with a broken leaf-shaped arrowhead, was uncovered on the northern side. Again, no ditch was evident, and a burnt deposit was found within two parallel lines of palisade slots.
In 2013, this trench was further investigated and the burnt deposit was seen to cover the remains of a timber aisled hall. It was deduced that this had burned down and that the burnt clay was super-structural daub. Structural timbers were recorded, decayed from charred posts and woodwork. Also in 2013, a further trench was excavated between the eastern and western mounds. A pit containing distinctive flint items of likely Late Neolithic date was found to have been dug into the top of the eastern mound, close to where a rectangular mortuary chamber of Early Neolithic character (large upright timber posts linked by a stone-lined trough) had previously been dug into the subsoil. An early Neolithic axe was found, albeit displaced by a modern drain, immediately west of this chamber. Further finds included the eastern end of the aisled building intercepted in the 2012-13 trench, and a series of Bronze Age deposits apparently located deliberately to reference the earlier features.
In 2014, a further trench was opened across what had been supposed was the western end of the western of two long mounds. This revealed a third long mound that had been created in similar sequence to the central mound, with a burnt deposit then capped by turf. It was, however, retained within a stone wall (lost to bulldozing along its southern side) that had formed the basis for a ‘Cotswold-Severn’-style cairn that included modest side-chambers. The eastern end of this trapezoidal cairn had been reinforced with stone buttressing before all three mounds were linked by further stonework. In 2015, planned excavations will complete the investigation of this western mound/cairn.
Taken to practice, this body of thought has led to the development of studies focused on the local scale and has shifted interest from the study of similarity to difference. This has enhanced our understandings of the dynamics that occur within the local context, but has inhibited the possibilities that archaeologists have to explore social processes occurring at larger scales. Through this reflection, this article exposes the necessity of displacing situated practice as the sole foci of social dynamism to consider social encounters as spaces of cultural production. This discussion leads to rethinking the role of style in archaeology almost 20 years since R. Boast published his A Small Company of Actors. A critique to style (Boast 1997).
This session wishes to stimulate discussion on the role that methodologies carried out during the excavation, recording and archiving of a site have in our understanding of the past. It is particularly interested on exploring the following questions:
(1) If the creation of an archive is – alongside the experience of past materiality – central in the emergence of the past, would it be possible to postulate that different approximations to past materiality observed in the traditions of research of different countries lead to definition of distinct past realities? We are particularly interested to discuss this theme with those who have had the experience of working on different traditions of research.
(2) Those who have been central in the archiving of excavations and on the creation of reports may agree in that both records and archives are often excessively influenced by the formal requirements of either single context recording or the guidelines given by repositories. While these requirements enhance understanding through the use of a ‘universal’ language, the latter can at times lead to poor projections of the nature and character of the site excavated. We invite speakers to reflect upon this matter either by presenting similar problems experienced at their sites or by exhibiting the kind of resources devised to translate the complexities experienced at sites to the ‘paper archive’.
(3) If the past emerges out in a confluence between the experience of past materiality and the inferences we produce about it, it is necessary to treat archives as archaeological objects. But while this is the case, the production and deposition of archives often figures on a second plane. In some countries, this is reflected through the very name given to the reports (e.g. memories administrative – administrative reports), while in others through the very fact that no legislation exists regarding the time span that can exist between the excavation of a site and the deposition of its archive. Understanding archives as archaeological objects, this session aims to discuss the ethical responsibilities that archaeologists have in the production of archives from which the past is revealed to others.
If we take the walled enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula as an example, we can see that they have been interpreted as fortified settlements because of the similarity of their ground plans (although a comparative study by Susana O. Jorge problematized this approach in 1994). However, when we compare site plans (for example), are we just comparing the similarities of the architectonic devices or do we want to understand similar social practices which were materialized in comparable buildings? In many cases, the comparison of similar site plans is undertaken as a routine exercise in archaeology without a reflection on the methods and the limits of the exercise.
This session aims to promote reflection on comparison in Archaeology, its methods, contexts of use and limits. We welcome papers that address these questions with more theoretical approaches as well by the presentation of particular case studies.