Art//Archaeology//Art: Letting-Go Beyond

  • Doug Bailey
Part of the One World Archaeology book series (WORLDARCH, volume 11)


Professor Bailey investigates the articulations of art and archaeology. He argues that while recent influences of contemporary art have expanded archaeological interpretations of the past, more provocative and substantial work remains to be done. The most exciting current output is pushing hard against the boundaries of art as well as of archaeology. Bailey’s proposal is for archaeologists to take greater risks in their work, and to cut loose the restraints of their traditional subject boundaries and institutional expectations. The potential result of such work will rest neatly within neither art nor archaeology, but will emerge as something else altogether. The new work will move the study of human nature into uncharted and exciting new territories.


Art Archaeology Heritage Performance Theatre Photography Media Theory 



An earlier version of this paper was delivered as a Podcast maintained by University College Dublin (UCD) as part of the Sixth World Archaeological Congress ( I am grateful to my colleagues at UCD for inviting me to contribute to that forum and to the editors of this volume for asking me to provide a modestly updated version for the present book and for their editorial questions and comments.


  1. Andreassen, E., Bjerck, H., & Olsen, B. (2010). Persistent memories. Pyramiden: A Soviet mining town in the high arctic. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, D. W. (2005a). Prehistoric figurines: Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, D. W. (2005b). Beyond the meaning of Neolithic houses: Specific objects and serial repetition. In D. W. Bailey, A. Whittle, & V. Cummings (Eds.), (un)settling the Neolithic (pp. 95–106). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, D. W. (2013). Cutting the earth/cutting the body. In A. González-Ruibal (Ed.), Reclaiming archaeology: Beyond the tropes of modernity (pp. 337–345). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, D. W., & McFadyen, L. (2010). Built objects. In D. Hicks & M. Beaudry (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of material culture (pp. 556–581). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, G., Newland, C., Nilsson, A., & Schofield, J. (2009). Transit, transition: Excavating J641 VUJ. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, D. W., Cochrane, A., & Zambelli, J. (2010). Unearthed: A comparative study of Jōmon Dogū and Neolithic figurines. Norwich: Sainsbury Centre for the Study of Visual Arts.Google Scholar
  8. Bender, B., Hamilton, S., & Tilley, C. (2007). Stone worlds: Narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, D. (1999). Stream of consciousness: Mark Dion’s “Tate Thames Dig”. Artforum, 38, 116–121.Google Scholar
  10. Blazwick, I. (2001). Mark Dion’s “Tate Thames Dig”. Oxford Art Journal, 24(2), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonaventura, P. (2003). Segsbury project. Simon Callery. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  12. Bonaventura, P. (2011). Communicating in the present tense: An interview with Simon Callery. In P. Bonaventura & A. Jones (Eds.), Sculpture and archaeology (pp. 197–214). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Bonavenura, P., & Jones, A. (2011). Sculpture and archaeology. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Buchli, V., & Lucas, G. (Eds.). (2001). Archaeologies of the contemporary past. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  15. Callery, S. (2004). Segsbury project: Art from excavation. In C. Renfrew, C. Gosden, & E. DeMarrais (Eds.), Substance, memory, display: Archaeology and art (pp. 63–78). Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, S. C. (2004). Art from archaeology: Simon Callery’s segsbury project in cross-disciplinary context. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  17. Coles, A., & Dion, M. (Eds.). (1999). Mark Dion archaeology. London: Black Dog.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, C. (2004). Unearthing displacement: Surrealism and the ‘archaeology’ of Paul Nash. In C. Renfrew, C. Gosden, & E. DeMarrais (Eds.), Substance, memory, display: Archaeology and art (pp. 103–117). Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Fleming, A. (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16(3), 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. González-Ruibal, A. (2008). Time to destroy: An archaeology of supermodernity. Current Anthropology, 49(2), 247–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, R., & Schofield, J. (2009). Archae-ethnography, auto-archaeology: Introducing archaeologies of the contemporary past. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 5(2), 185–209.Google Scholar
  22. Hauser, K. (2007). Shadow sites: Photography, archaeology and the British landscape 1927–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Markonish, D. (2001). Interview. In M. Dion (Ed.), New England digs (pp. 21–47). Brockton: Fuller Art Museum.Google Scholar
  24. McLucas, C. (2000). Ten feet and three quarters of an inch of theatre. In N. Kaye (Ed.), Site specific art (pp. 125–138). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mithen, S. (2004). Contemporary western art and archaeology. In C. Renfrew, C. Gosden, & E. DeMarrais (Eds.), Substance, memory, display: Archaeology and art (pp. 153–168). Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Myers, A. (2010). Contemporary archaeology in transit: The material culture of the van. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 15(1), 138–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olivier, L. (2011). Dark abyss of time: Memory and archaeology. Lanham: Altamira.Google Scholar
  28. Pearson, M., & Shanks, M. (2001). Theatre/archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Renfrew, C. (2003). Figuring it out. The parallel visions of artists and archaeologists. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  30. Renfrew, C. (2004). Art for archaeology. In C. Renfrew, C. Gosden, & E. DeMarrais (Eds.), Substance, memory, display: Archaeology and art (pp. 7–34). Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Renfrew, C., Gosden, C., & DeMarrais, E. (Eds.). (2004). Substance, memory, display: Archaeology and art. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Shanks, M. (1991). Experiencing the past: On the character of archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., & Bender, B. (2000). Art and the re-presentation of the past. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vilches, F. (2007). The art of archaeology: Mark Dion and his dig projects. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(2), 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations