Abstract

In the session ‘Tower of Babel: are we talking past each other?’. As more and more of us care for, study and appreciate the historic environment around us, there is a proliferation of interests, viewpoints and agenda which are often grouped into ‘sectors’. This session examines the sometimes challenging and often enlightening relationships between these different sectors – how do they interact, what different perspectives do they adopt, and how are these differences predicated on the contrasting discourses they produce? TAG has traditionally been attended by those working or studying in higher education, but there are also whose work is developer-funded, or who work or volunteer for a national body, are involved in community archaeology, or who are non-vocational – these are just some of the many different groups of individuals often thought of as having distinct, collective points of view. But as archaeologists, do we identify or associate ourselves with one or any of these groups? If we do, does that mean that we bring a distinct discourse to the discussion table? And more importantly, what happens when these different groups meet to arrange, debate, analyse, interpret and present the material remains that lie at the heart of what we do? We make the assumption in organising this session that understanding and improving the nature of dialogue between these different groups is essential in advancing archaeological knowledge, as well as to improving access to that knowledge. But is the notion of more comprehensive, inclusive archaeological discussion prevented by structural tensions between research, conservation and access? Is the gap between theory and practice too great to span? Can a more democratically inclusive archaeology be developed through an improved theoretical understanding of the contrasting discourses used? We invite speakers from a range of different backgrounds in archaeology to present their experiences of how inter-sectoral contact works (or doesn’t work), and to reflect on whether there are ways of unifying the languages of description and interpretation we each use