Unexpected Encounters with Deep Time Enchantment. Bog Bodies, Crannogs and ‘Otherworldly’ sites. The materializing powers of disjunctures in time

Abstract

Unexpected Encounters with Deep Time Enchantment. Bog Bodies, Crannogs and 'Otherworldly' sites. The materializing powers of disjunctures in time Deep time The concept of 'deep time' is rooted in challenges to officially sanctioned biblical narratives. Bishop James Ussher's edict that the earth was created in 4004 BC was challenged by James Hutton's observations on the deep stratigraphy evident in the exposed strata of Scottish sea-cliffs (McPhee 1981, 20). These observations led him to propose that the planet was much older. In fact it is 4.5 billion years old, whereas the span of humanity within this long-term history of the earth is relatively short, making it hard to grasp our place within this geological 'deep time' (McPhee 1981, 20). Chakrabarty (2009, 213-20) thus argues that in order to better understand both our situated position and responsibilities within the contemporary world with its climate and environmental problems, there is a great need to question the barriers between histories of geological deep time, natural history and that of the human. This will have major implications for how history is studied and comprehended. Such a union has the capacity to query what a world without humanity might be like, and analysing the important boundary of the 'Anthropocene', where (following the Holocene) human beings are understood to have crossed the nature:culture boundary to become one of the main actors in global geological change (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). The present can then be understood as a key period, whereby the transformation of the earth is happening at such an accelerated rate (Steffen et al. 2015) that it could threaten the life conditions for many species on the planet.

The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record

“…Christina Fredengren is amongst those to acknowledge and explicitly champion archaeology as an engine of this Bennettian vision of enchantment. As I understand her, archaeology affords engagements with time whose ever-emergent ‘novel materialities’ can be ‘read as indices of a variety of relationships, precisely because they “trouble” the present with objects and substances that have crossed temporal boundaries’ (Fredengren, 2016: 488). This means that archaeology has: ‘the power to disrupt notions of inevitability or neo-social evolutionism: to reveal alternative assemblages, arrangements and relationships … it could be deployed to speak to contemporary issues of inter-generational responsibilities (between generations), debates on “global” justice (in terms of historical inequalities), and our ethics towards, and care for, the human and more-than-human world.’ (Fredengren, 2016: 483)…”

“…‘the power to disrupt notions of inevitability or neo-social evolutionism: to reveal alternative assemblages, arrangements and relationships … it could be deployed to speak to contemporary issues of inter-generational responsibilities (between generations), debates on “global” justice (in terms of historical inequalities), and our ethics towards, and care for, the human and more-than-human world.’ (Fredengren, 2016: 483)…”

“…Fredengren's approach seemingly relies on a spiritual or ‘otherworldly’ rationale, wherein archaeology is enrolled in part to ‘provide religious experiences in a post-secular way’ (Fredengren, 2016: 493). Such religious motivations sit in tension with Bennett's more agnostic version of enchantment, and they arguably perpetuate a predicament that has long afflicted archaeology, where divine yearning is embraced by people to make sense of the world and its ‘mysteries’ (see Borck & Thompson, 2018, for more on the dangerous consequences of appealing to mystery and otherworldliness as part of archaeological practice).…”

“…I would counter that heritage-related dialogue is already being engineered, often in the absence of any knowledgeable archaeological voice whatsoever, but also by archaeologists themselves without the toolkit to steer such dialogue in a genuinely productive direction. Fredengren (2016: 496) warns that in pursuing the project of archaeological enchantment we also need to be wary of naivety, of seduction by affective powers that could lead to problematic outcomes. The vision I propose here, however, is underlain by the application of informed facilitated discussion and debate.…”

A ‘Reflexive’ Multi-Stage Survey Methodology for Historical Landscape Research in Central India:Field-Walking, Local Knowledge, and Satellite Imagery as Archaeological Site Prospection and Mapping Tools in the Sanchi Survey Project

“…The continued currency of ancient remains in presentday religio-cultural practice has important implications for both archaeological and environmental conservation in the face of increasing threat from destructive industries. Similar observations have been made for Southeast Asia 81 , while for northern Europe, Fredengren 82 highlights the importance of embracing local religious beliefs or 'spiritualism' when it comes to heritage and environmental conservation practices, drawing on Northcott's 83 argument that places with perceived religious or sacred associations are more likely to be respected and cared for. However, rather than reflecting a community of avid conservationists, these sites in the Sanchi area are marked out because of their ongoing association with place-bound deities and tutelary spirits, believed to occupy ancient settlements long after their abandonment 1,78 .…”