1. Introduction. The dance/archaeology conjunction

(1) However, one needs to signal the work of Robyn Gillam who has worked on performance in ancient Egypt discussing its historical context but also dealing with its re-enactment as a pedagogical tool, thus engaging with its performativity (Gillam 2002; 2005).

(2) The literature is extensive but one has to mention here Thomas 1991 and Tilley 1994.

(3) For example, Richards writes “ the movement of people through constructed spaces creates a fluidity which is temporal in nature. Space and time are no longer seen as backdrops to human action but rather an embodiment of it” (Richards 1993,149).

(4) Such as TAG 2002, Manchester and TAG 2005, Sheffield; the two day Third Cotsen Advanced Seminar on the Archaeology of Ritual at the Cotsen Institute, UCLA, 2004; my lectures at the Archaeology Center, Stanford University, 2004 and at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Letters, Porto University, 2005.

(5) A discussion of the archaeology/history relationship would constitute an unnecessary digression. A good number of archaeologists today would echo Ian Morris when he says that “archaeology is cultural history or nothing…because archaeology is a way of thinking about material culture and culture changes of the past” (Morris 1997,3). Whereas more traditional historians would be more inclined to work with written texts and disregard material culture which was seen as the domain of erstwhile antiquarians (the ‘ancestors’ of modern archaeologists), cultural historians tend to go beyond those boundaries and so do interpretive archaeologists. Moreland for example has challenged more traditional views on the relationship of artefacts and texts by pointing out that rather than seeing them as sources of information about the past, one needs to consider their efficacy in the past as technologies of power and resistance (Moreland 2001). I would also like to refer readers to the articles by Jan Vansina “Historians are Archaeologists Your Siblings?” first published in History in Africa, 1995, 22 pp 369-408 now available at the Africa Forum and by Peter Robertshaw “Sibling Rivalry: the intersection of archaeology and History” first published online in 1999 and also available at the Africa Forum. Any perceived disciplinary tension becomes particularly important with reference to the history and archaeology of Africa or Asia and the impact of colonialism.

(6) This too is sometimes perceived as resulting in a tense disciplinary relationship. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue, it can be said that a point of divergence is that the art historian brings to the enquiry focused on images of the past a concern with aesthetics, which will not necessarily be on the archaeologist’s agenda. It is however increasingly more difficult to establish disciplinary domains, as their boundaries are constantly redefined. Chris Gosden, for example, writes that though the experiences of people in the past may remain elusive “the ways in which they set up worlds which made sense to them is available…through an appreciation of the sensory and social impacts of the objects that formed the fabric of past lives” (Gosden 2001, 167), reassessing the whole debate concerning archaeology, aesthetics and art.

(7) Dance too can be subservient to politics. A good example is provided by the social –realist drama-ballets of Soviet Russia, by the now iconic Red Detachment of Women made in China during the cultural revolution or even by the Indonesian sendratari Ramayana in Bali and in Java at the temple complex of Prambanan, in Central Java, regarded as a modern state ritual (Hough 1992; Lopez y Royo 2002).

(8) Preston -Dunlop and Sanchez-Colberg define choreology as the scholarly study of dance and dance practice. Choreology today encompasses many sub-disciplines, thus we have notating and score reconstruction; ethno-choreology (study of dance and their ethnicity); the scholarly study of dance as a theatre practice,: finally, archaeo-choreology (research into and recovery of lost dances AND dance practices). Choreology has tended to have a more restricted meaning, that of ballet notation; however more recent uses of the term have made it almost synonymous with dance studies (Preston Dunlop and Sanchez-Colberg 2002).

(9) I need to emphasise here that none of my remarks imply that in order to understand and talk about dance one has to be able to 'do' it. We accept unquestioningly that to be interlocutor in discourses about (visual) art one need not be a practising artist. With the more recent emphasis on practice-as-research in dance and the performing arts in general there has also been an increasing (mis)understanding that only those involved in practice can competently discuss dance. This is not the view I am putting forward.

(10) It has been quite common, for example, to divide archaeologists into those who 'do' (meaning that they go out and dig and do not waste time in idle theorising) and those who practise ‘armchair archaeology ‘ and engage in theoretical work (with no digging). Needless to say ,this perception is lopsided, for it is not possible to separate theory from archaeological practice.

(11) The myth of Isadora Duncan as someone who could only improvise or views of Nijinski as the ‘mad genius’ are indicative of this way of thinking, which reinforces the idea that intellectual expression is separate from artistic expression, whose locus is the body. The very history of dance as a low ranking academic discipline earlier linked with physical education and only since the 1970s coming into its own as ‘dance studies’ in British university departments reflects this fundamental dichotomy of body and mind which is central to Western philosophical discourse.

(12) For the solid metaphor in material culture and archaeology see Tilley 1999; for intertextuality in dance (as dancing texts) see Adshead-Lansdale 1999.

(13) Although an overlap may be perceived, the ‘dance work as artefact’ is a separate notion from that of ‘artefact of dance’. The latter refers more specifically to the material culture of dance, in other words, the remains of a dance performance inclusive of any audio-visual recording.

(14) More accurately, Van Zile discusses this in terms of drawing a distinction between a permanent dance score, the permanent artefact, and an ephemeral dance work, the ‘original ephemeral artefact’.

(15) See also Pakes 2003 and 2004 for her review of arguments relating to the process of dance making and to the artistic outcomes of such processes in the context of knowledge embodiment in practice-as-research.

(16) I borrow this model of artefact studies from Susan M. Pearce (Pearce 1994, 129, fig 18.2).

(17) It is worth mentioning here the Preservation Politics conference which was held at Roehampton University of Surrey in 1997 (Jordan 2000). The conference examined our relationship to past dances and dance styles and reflected a range of views and attitudes to dance heritage, from most conservative to most radical. The issue of authenticity was discussed in all the interventions and this is symptomatic of its perceived importance.

(18) In this context one needs to be aware of the problematic use of the term ‘cultural property’ with reference to heritage, inclusive of dance heritage. See Carman 2005.

(19) For the use of digital technology for documentation and recording see Lopez y Royo Iyer 2001 Internet Archaeology.

Return to Endnotes