Pararachutists or truffle hunters: using a successful metaphor, it is customary to divide archaeologists in this way. The metaphor is related to the tools used: old black and white photography of the RAF is now superseded by more sophisticated satellite shots; the pickaxe of last century’s labourer substituted by the trowl when not by the scalpel. However, the metaphor also relates to the way through which archaeologists observe things, the way in which they analyse processes and experiment with narratives: a look that must be attentive and meticulous like that of a truffle hunter, but must also know how to dare beyond specific detail, observing the world from above like a fearless parachutist.
It is with this perspective that the “Parachutists and Truffle-hunters: Archaeology from satellite to microscope, from the territory to paleo-environment” conference takes place on Wednesday 5th April, organised by the School of Medieval Archaeology in the Department of Humanities, that aims to confront different methods of analysis, looking to create a dialogue between them in the presence of influential Italian and foreign specialists.
On this occasion we have asked professor Sauro Gelichi, full professor of Medieval Archaeology and organiser of this event, a few questions regarding the evolution of archaeology.
1) How has modern archaeology evolved and how important are the technological innovations in contributing to provide other elements for the understanding and reconstruction of the past?
Technology has always been a support for archaeological research, more so than in other historic disciplines because archaeology deals with material objects. Therefore, making use of technology is not only useful, it is indispensable. Nevertheless, in recent years, an acceleration of technology – the speed of techniques that, as Aldo Schiavone said, has floored our development – risks disorientating us, making us lose our bearings in many cases. Therefore it is always good to return to the “fundamentals” of our vocation to understand where it is possible, or even better useful, to use new technologies, in order to give them a sense and a direction.
2) Geography, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, History of Art, Anthropology; there are so many disciplines that contribute to shedding light on the past from different angles and reconstruct a unique story. The modern archaeologist, like an investigator, brings all the information together and reconstructs a suggestive puzzle. Will the future of archaeology continue going in this direction?
To say that the future of archaeology consists of interdisciplinary angles is to state the obvious, because being interdisciplinary is already inserted into the subject that we study. However, this question is not irrelevant, because this interdisciplinary nature has been coloured by new and particularly performative disciplinary subjects in recent years. Therefore it is through this that we must reflect, to apply most of the numerous suggestions that arrive from these border zones. With regards to the other historic-anthropological disciplines, though, archaeology has a huge advantage in being able to renovate its sources and create new ones, which are able to open unsuspected prospectives of reading the past. This is its big ductility, on which archaeologists should rely more.
3) From the big to the small, from the details to elevated vision, archaeology changes perspectives and views, is this useful?
The diversity of the views in archaeology are not given axioms, but continuously tradable components in the fascinating space of confrontation which is a research project. It is through this that strategies, methods and tools are decided. It is the area where we must always return to offer substance and depth to what we are doing. Archaeology has passed through a merely ‘conservative’ dimension (the testimonies of the past that should be known because they must be preserved by future generations) to a ‘narrative’ dimension, in which the same construction of archaeological documents establishes a key moment because it is already charged with historical meanings. Understanding this passage, and interjecting it into our own deontological code, is fundamental for archaeologists, who must always redefine the confines of their action and project it onto the future. Moreover, the passage is fundamental for the community - the receiver of this 'narration' - that within it can maybe find the true, genuine sense of cultural heritage.
4) You spoke of narrations, but how to use them?
Communication is fundamental, but not because our society has made it a questionable tool of assertion and recognition (you exist only if you appear). Communication is ethically necessary, because only through it do the complexity and the specificity of the disciplines, such as archaeology, that deal with cultural heritage (therefore a common good) acquire a social value. Too often archaeologists have only shared the results of their research with their colleagues, using incomprehensible codes and speaking in jargon language. This is maybe one of the motives why, particularly in our country, archaeology is only somewhat presented to the public through trivialising and making a spectacle of it. Being rigorous in the analytical procedures – knowing how to control or guide different scientific understandings – having serious questions that must be answered, but also being able to be clear and efficient in the dissemination, is a difficult balance to achieve but one that we must always aspire to.
