Currently, in social sciences and humanities, new narrative formats are being explored to describe and represent scientific results: movies, sound, live acts, photo comics… The “Focus” festival, held for several years at the MUCEM in Marseille, provides a good example. In this domain, archaeology is one of the few disciplines which, since its very beginning, has developed alternative writings based on what is referred to as “creative economy”, by reconstituting its discourse through images.
The theme of this conference raises the question of the social role of archaeology in the contemporary world. This vast question touches upon the history of the discipline and upon the definition of scientific knowledge acquired by archaeologists though increasingly sophisticated techniques since the digital era. But what is the discourse disseminated to the wider audience in relation to the scientific reality?
How to transcribe knowledge acquired upon past Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age societies on the sole basis of data preserved in the ground?
Since the 19th century, archaeological research identifies daily objects and structures of past communities. The use of these scientific data, their organisation to make them intelligible though images or words, allow us to translate more or less rapidly complex processes such as social structures, exchanges, or symbolic universes. Illustrations occur in scientific reports and publications in order to ease the reading of data which sometimes can be difficult, as well as to illustrate better research hypotheses. Archaeologists indeed build stories conducive to images, using increasingly complex tools (drone, photogrammetry, microscopy, hyperspectral imagery,…). Further, in order to build their narrative, multiple exercises in experimentation considerably improve hypotheses, whether for settlements, craft, ritual or domestic activities.
We therefore wish to ask professionals who work in the disciplines of archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, experimentation, ethnology, photography, cinema, documentary, graphic novels what feeds our collective imagination regarding these past populations.
What are the tools and methods being used? How is the change from an archaeological material reality to a, often more abstract, representation happening? Are the proposed reconstructions a useful tool for a better understanding of prehistoric societies? How are collaborations built between archaeologists, experimenters, movie directors and image professionals?
This conference aims at establishing the state of the affairs regarding restitutions of past populations’ life. Images are increasingly common thanks to the quick evolution of imagery and communication techniques, but also due to the inception of new technologies such as artificial intelligence. If images created under different formats (exhibition, graphic novels, documentary, fiction) constitute an outstanding tool for large and quick dissemination, one has to pay attention to the deontological dimension raised by such work.
Contributions will address three main thematic axes.
Axe 1 : The composite past : from image to experimentation – case-studies
From a bidimensional excavation plan we move towards 3D reconstitutions. From the excavation of rubbish to the production of crafted objects, from culinary refuse to natural resources and diet, from a grave to funerary rituals…. From socially valued objects to symbolic universes.
This first axis raises the question of the reconstitution of scenes from past life as inferred fromarchaeological data that is to make tangible what has long disappeared from material remains. This raises questions on the necessity to use images to formalise the most plausible representation from often partial information. The range of images is today extremely varied, from technical drawing to artistic representation, from modelling to 3D cartography.
Ethnology and experimentation are disciplines which interrogate our interpretations. Experimentation is itself a form of representation set forth in a scientific framework. If experiment results aim at getting closer to the archaeological object in all of its dimensions, it is also a tool for communicating and sharing with a public audience, fond of historical narratives and animations offered in archaeological living museums.
At the end of the 20th century ethnoarchaeology, a hybrid discipline, has focused on the study of material culture and technical systems of the – increasingly rare - modern traditional societies, which develop “comparable” strategies to those of past groups studied by archaeology. By documenting these different domains, such comparative approaches allow us to support and record this disappearing knowledge.
In this first theme, contributions will discuss results from experimental and ethnoarchaeological research in relation to archaeological data and the resulting knowledge. These will aim at evaluating the impact upon fixed images (posters, models, graphic novels, 3d images). These papers can tackle all aspects of daily life, of the environment, gender, religion, or disabilities in prehistoric societies.
Axe 2 : From documentary movie to virtual reality – case-studies
In a modern society based on visual (fixed or moving) experience, how do archaeologists use moving images to understand and valorise their research results? Arguably, maps, graphs, pictures, and technical drawings are used to illustrate scientific discourse, but in a more concrete way: how to animate faces, bodies and behaviours? How to represent objects in a given place, or moving within space and time?
The restitution of daily life rests upon the various remains preserved through time linked to domestic activities: architecture, production sites, landscapes, craft activities, but also data related to funerary practices, beliefs, war, mobility…
Aiming at representing past societies prompts archaeologists to an abstract level which often lies beyond the first interpretation of archaeological data, even if it stays close to observed facts.
In this second theme, papers will discuss different experiences of animated restitutions, from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. These case-studies will have to illustrate the difficulty of producing movies, documentaries, scripted stages generally speaking (audiovisual, virtual reality, living show…). What are the questions, constraints, choices and blocks faced by creators? More widely, do these images change the way of working or the archaeological interpretations?
Axe 3 : The « right » archaeological representation
As part of this third session, we will discuss the question of the scientific rigor of restitutions made by archaeologists. Numerous values are shared across the community: not to falsify primary data, document methods and tools, quote references etc. Finally, one has to ask on which basis do we evaluate that data and their representations follow necessary scientific criteria. We will discuss the imperatives ensuring the honesty of the representations, the limit between good practice and those ethically wrong. In the same way as the deontology of conservators, how to make the distinction between facts, interpretation and hypotheses? Can we use in the same way a scientific representation and a form of expression more suggestive? Do archaeologists have to retain control of these creations, especially those targeting a wider audience, or do they “only” have to guarantee a correct critical reading of the underlying data? Making the distinction between a scientific representation from a caricature remains a constant goal.
Organisers committee : Géraldine Faupin (SRA HdF), Samuel Guérin (Inrap HdF), Emmanuelle Leroy-Langelin (CD 62), Yann Lorin (Inrap HdF), Claude Mordant (Aprab), Élisabeth Panloups (CD62), Ivan Praud (Inrap HdF), Mafalda Roscio (Université de Lille), Marc Talon (SRA Bourgogne-Franche-Comté)
Scientific committee : Vincent Ard (CNRS), Tahar Benredjeb (festival du film d’archéologie d’Amiens), Frédérique Blaizot (Université de Lille), Géraldine Faupin (SRA HdF), Muriel Gandelin (Inrap Midi-Méditerranée), Christophe Goumand (Festival International du Film d’Archéologie de Nyon), Samuel Guérin (Inrap HdF), Philippe Hannois (SRA HdF), Patrice Herbin (CD 59), Sandrine Huber (Université de Lille), Emmanuelle Leroy-Langelin (CD 62), Yann Lorin (Inrap HdF), Florent Mathias (APRAB), Claude Mordant (APRAB), Théophane Nicolas (Inrap GO), Élisabeth Panloups (CD 62), Romain Plichon (Somme Patrimoine), Céline Piret (MiaBw) Ivan Praud (Inrap HdF), Bénédicte Quilliec (SRA Bretagne), Mafalda Roscio (Université de Lille), Ingrid Sénépart (RMPR), Marc Talon (SRA BFC), Claire Tardieux (responsable du site des Menhirs de Monteneuf)
