Forthcoming Military History Conferences/Lectures

Only a couple of things that might interest most of us, namely the German occupation of the Channel Islands and a Cold War site in Germany.​

CHAT 2009 Programme​

Keble College, Oxford University​

Friday 16 – Sunday 18 October 2009​

Modern Materials: the archaeology of things from the early modern, modern and contemporary world​

FRIDAY 16 OCTOBER

2pm-6pm Session 1: Households, Home and Leisure (Chair: Dan Hicks)

Welcome: Brent Fortenberry (Boston University) and Laura McAtackney (University of Oxford)

Tom Fisher (Nottingham Trent University)
Hoarding, reusing, and disposing: the home as a repository for transient objects

Bob Ruffle (Worcester University)
‘Earthen Ware and other old things’: The (in)significance of pottery in the early modern household

Sarah May (English Heritage)
The Material Culture of the cult of the Infant (or why my loft is full)

Titta Kallio‐Seppä, Tiina Kuokkanen, Anna‐Kaisa Puputti, Timo Ylimaunu, Risto Nurmi
(University of Oulu) & James Symonds (University of Sheffield)
Dogs, table cloths, curtains, and gossip mirrors: engendering household spaces in early modern Finland

Tea

Sefryn Penrose (University of Oxford)
Treadmills: an archaeology of postindustrial physicality at work and in the gym

Carolyn White (University of Nevada, Reno)
The Materiality of Burning Man

Lisa Hill (University of Oxford)
Rediscovering the great outdoors: campsite archaeology

Rodney Harrison (Open University)
Materialising experience – archaeological approaches to theming and the experience economy

Mike Pearson (University of Aberystwyth)
All that remains: an imperfect archaeology of the Mickery Theatre, Amsterdam

Discussant: Mary Beaudry (Boston University)

6pm Wine Reception and keynote paper by Nick Shepherd (University of Cape Town)


SATURDAY 17 OCTOBER

9.30am-1pm Session 2: Assemblages & Manufacture (Chair: Laura McAtackney)

Jane Seiter (University of Bristol)
Telling a story with compass and rule: the use and abuse of maps in historical archaeology

Martin Locock (National Library of Wales)
A tale of two bricks: the Industrial Revolution explored

Chieh-fu Cheng (Academia Sinica Taipei)
Dutch beads in Formosa? The glass bead transactions in the early Historical Period of Taiwan

Craig Cessford (Cambridge Archaeological Unit)
Damn your creamware, local artefacts for local archaeologists

Caitlin DeSilvey (Exeter University)
A cobbler's curation

Coffee

Liu Jiun‐yu (National Taiwan University)
Contemporary Archaeology in Taiwan – an example from the excavation of Qing Dynasty Military Factory

Vesa-Pekka Herva & Risto Nurmi (University of Oulu)
Coppery dreams: attitudes to copper and biographies of copper coins in early modern Sweden

Chris Hewitson (University of Birmingham)
The Workman Laid Down His Tools –the success and value of recording material remains in 20th century workshops.

Krysta Rysewski (Brown University)
Design, Innovation and the archaeology of things

Discussant: James Symonds (ARCUS, Sheffield University)

LUNCH

2pm-5pm Session 3: Archaeological Practices & Archaeological Knowledge (Chair: Mary Beaudry)

Timothy Webmoor, University of Oxford
Epistemography & archaeological assembling

Christopher Witmore, Texas Tech University
Archaeology & Pragmatology

Matt Edgeworth, University of Leicester
Towards an archaeology of contemporary scientific discovery

Tea

Chris Matthews (Hofstra University)
Archaeology as artifact: addressing the modern materiality of American slavery

Dan Hicks (University of Oxford) (with Laurie Wilkie, University of California Berkeley)
Things as Events, Things as Effects

Laurie Wilkie (University of California Berkeley) (with Dan Hicks, University of Oxford)
Going About Things: a perspective from Manhattan

Discussant: Chris Gosden (University of Oxford)


SUNDAY 18 OCTOBER

9.30am-12.30pm Session 4: Conflict & Postcolonialism (Chair: Brent Fortenberry)

Wang Su-Chin (National Taiwan University)
Artifacts found in the 17th century strata in the Fort Zeelandia site

Gunnar Maus (University of Bristol)
The archaeology of the cold war early warning sites: perceptions of Waiserkappe, Germany

Tai‐Lung Lu (National Taiwan University)
An excavation on Fort Santo Domingo – a case study on historical archaeology of Taiwan

Gilly Carr (Cambridge University)
Occupation artefacts: exploring the materiality of military occupation in the Channel Islands, 1940-45

Coffee

John Chenoweth (University of California, Berkeley)
Quakerism and the lack of ‘things’ in the Early Modern British Virgin Islands

Wendy Whitby (University of Lancashire)
Resistance or acculturation? Chomash Cache Caves and Colonial California

Ana Cristina Yilo (University of Anzoátegui State, Venezuela) & Alasdair Brooks (University of Leicester)
Eating in English, speaking in Spanish – British transfer-printed ceramics in Venezuela

David Petts (Durham University)
‘Haughty Dull Magnificence’: Nabobs in the materialization of India in 18th century England

Sven Ouzman (University of Pretoria)
An archaeology of graffiti in post-Apartheid South Africa

Discussant: Laurie Wilkie (University of California, Berkeley)

12.30pm Concluding Comments Hedley Swain (Museum, Libraries and Archives Council)

1pm Close

 

Call for papers for session on Conflict Archaeology
Dear All,
A conflict archaeology session at the forthcoming Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) Conference 2009 is being organised, which it is hoped will be of interest.
This year, TAG will be held at the University of Durham, UK between Thursday 17th and Saturday 19th December.
Details of the conference are available on the TAG 2009 web site at: 
The session is entitled Halt! Who goes there? The theoretical and methodological considerations of conflict archaeology.
Session abstract
The study of conflict archaeology has emerged as a rich source of research over the past two decades. The subject possesses a very specific material culture focus and relies on accurate identification in order to inform interpretation correctly. However, the subject is under-theorised and risks becoming unsatisfactorily bipolar: at one end of the spectrum, many studies are too descriptive favouring traditional military historical or ‘distribution map’-style approaches with little convincing attempt at robust interpretation. Conversely, many theoretically informed conflict archaeology studies do not appear to be able to move beyond focusing on the ‘contested’ nature of the past.
This session will provide a forum where the development of conflict archaeology as a specialist area of practice can be assessed. It aims to:

• Review the progress of the theoretical and methodological development of conflict archaeology;
• Showcase new developments;
• Identify the contributions that conflict archaeology has made to archaeological methodology and theory; and
• Open up debate concerning how the discipline should develop theoretically and methodologically.

Papers that deal with conflict archaeology from the recent historical past, particularly the First and Second World Wars, are sought for this session, although case studies from other periods in time will also be welcome.
Particular themes to be addressed might include:

• the contribution of history and ethnography to conflict archaeology and vice versa;
• the value of landscape-based approaches such as phenomenology;
• the relationship between archaeology and experience / memory; and
• the use of GIS and computer modelling.

This will be a great opportunity to discuss what has been achieved to date and to identify how the subject is developing. I wonder if there is anybody out there in Militarch land who would be interested in offering a paper?
If you are interested in speaking at this session, please contact me with the following details:

• Name(s) of speaker(s)
• Organisation(s) / Affiliation(s)
• Title
• Abstract (200 words maximum)
• Contact details

Please note:

• The deadline for submission of individual paper abstracts to this session is 30 September 2009
• TAG organisers will edit down any abstracts that are longer than 200 words
• TAG organisers expect that proposals for individual papers will explicitly specify what contribution they are making to archaeological theory
• Slots will be 20 minutes long including the change over to the next speaker
• Conference participants are allowed to speak in up to two sessions only

I look forward to hearing form you.
Many thanks,
Jon Berry, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham
Email: jab743@bham.ac.uk / jonathan.berry@wales.gsi.gov.uk

 

Call for Papers
Unthinking the Imaginary War. Intellectual Reflections of the Nuclear Age, 1945-1990
International Conference, jointly organised by the Centre for Peace History, University of Sheffield, and the Arbeitskreis für Historische Friedensforschung, in collaboration with the German Historical Institute London and the German Historical Institute Rome
Date and Venue: German Historical Institute London, 4 November – 6 November 2010
All politics during the Cold War took place under the threat of nuclear annihilation. While recent research has pointed to civil wars and insurgencies in Latin America, Africa and Asia to highlight the violence that the Cold War brought, our understanding of the importance and relevance of the nuclear arms race for the social and cultural history of the Cold War is still underdeveloped. The war-like character of the Cold War in the western world did not consist of injuring human bodies; it consisted of a sustained attack against the imagination (Michael Geyer). The Cold War was an ‘imaginary war’ (Mary Kaldor). The nuclear bombs that were used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 form part of a conventional war effort. As an all-out nuclear war never occurred thereafter, it could only be imagined through the military’s combat exercises, the government officials’ calculations of the destructive power of nuclear weapons, as well as computerised simulations and war-games on the one hand; and, through the often apocalyptic scenarios that Cold War critics drew up on the other hand. These simulations and images of nuclear war, and the fears they created, were a crucial aspect of the Cold War.
The proposed conference will take these ideas as a guideline for an exploration of the intellectual history of the Cold War. It aims to bring together historians, philosophers and scholars from cultural studies who are interested in intellectual, political and artistic reflections of the ‘imaginary’ reality of a nuclear war in the period from 1945 to 1990. It will discuss how the atomic bomb and its imaginary impact has served as a signifier in political, intellectual and artistic discourses, and how philosophers, writers, artists, but also defence intellectuals tried to think and unthink the political and strategic realities of the nuclear age.
The conference seeks to be as broad as possible in its geographical scope and in the range of intellectual reflections which come under scrutiny. Hence, we invite papers on Western and Eastern Europe, on the USA, but also on Japan, which played a crucial role in the intellectual critique of the nuclear age.
We are especially interested in papers on three key themes:
Critique and Dialectics: Writers and Intellectuals
Papers may focus on academic and non-academic intellectuals who have reflected on the hypocrisy and the paradoxes of the nuclear age, ranging from well-known academics and theologians such as E.P. Thompson and Günther Anders and Don Primo Mazzolari to writers such as Kurt Vonnegut and musicians such as Bob Dylan.
Imagining the Unimaginable: Artists
This panel will focus on highbrow and popular culture, as well as on the visual arts, photography, painting and film. It will analyse how artists have tried to imagine the unimaginable, nuclear destruction, and how they refined their artistic techniques in an attempt to respond to the peculiar nature and physical qualities of nuclear radiation. This panel will also consider the possible cross-fertilisation between artistic endeavours and other intellectual currents.
Expert Cultures: Defence Intellectuals and Peace Researchers
Experts and counter-experts are the focus of this panel. Papers will analyse both the reflections of dissident-officers and nuclear physicists in East and West, the war-games of defence intellectuals and the academic critique of peace researchers. The contributions to this panel will try to ascertain how the floating of signifiers of nuclear annihilation between the realm of the military and the defence community led to the image of nuclear war as a ‘simulacrum’ (Paul Virilio).
The organisers of the conference invite proposals for papers from historians, literary scholars, political scientists, art historians, philosophers and from those with cultural studies backgrounds, as well as from scholars in related disciplines. Comparative papers on more than one country are particularly welcome. Please send abstracts of your proposed paper (400-500 words) and a short curriculum vitae (one page) to Dr Holger Nehring, Department of History, University of Sheffield (h.nehring@sheffield.ac.uk).
We aim to offer support for travel and accommodation to invited speakers.
Deadline for submission of abstracts: 1 December 2009.

 

sounds to me as if their remit gives them a chance to hold the meetings in the tate modern or satchis... sorry gordon.

 

No definite details for this yet, as I've just learned of it. I'll post them when I get them.

"Dear all,
during the last Fields of Conflict Conference in Ghent we mentioned that we would like to host the next conference in Kalkriese (Museum) and Osnabrück (University) . Our plans have become more concrete now, and we want to invite you to Kalkriese and Osnabrück in spring 2011 (April or early May). Everybody who is interested in sites of conflict is welcome. Main topics will be ancient battlefields, besides post-battle processes such as looting, massgraves and offerings of war booty (all periods).
Further information about accomodation, excursion, call for papers etc. will follow when dates have been fixed.
If there are questions we will answer them when we have returned to the office (20. November).
Best regards
Susanne Wilbers-Rost (Kalkriese)
Achim Rost and Günther Moosbauer (University of Osnabrück)

Dr. Susanne Wilbers-Rost
(Leitung Abteilung Archäologie)
Varusschlacht im Osnabrücker Land GmbH
Museum und Park Kalkriese
Venner Str. 69
49565 Bramsche
Germany

Tel. +49 (0)5468/9204- 11
Fax +49 (0)5468/9204- 45
Email wilbers-rost@ kalkriese- varusschlacht. de
www.kalkriese- varusschlacht. de"​

 

Dear all
The following session has been accepted for the upcoming WAC Intercongress on ‘Archaeology in Conflict’. Details of the conference are available at: www.archaeologyinco nflict.org

The session is as follows:
THE ETHICS OF CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY

Organisers:
John Carman and Martin Brown
Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham , Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT , UK
Email: j.carman@bham. ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7493 Fax: +44 (0)121 414 3595

Conflict Archaeology – the study of past conflict through archaeological means – is a rapidly developing field, and is found in all periods from the prehistoric to the most recent. While prehistoric studies of conflict are located within more general studies of prehistory and informed by anthropology, historical (pre-20th century) conflict archaeology is driven by concerns derived from established military history, and 20th century conflict archaeology derives from heritage management concerns, none have yet developed a particular set of ethics.

This session seeks to examine the need for – and possible forms of – ethical considerations for Conflict Archaeology. It will address issues such as whether particular periods require a different set of ethics from those of others; what those ethics may relate to; whether ethical standards should be set or if a more ‘fluid’ approach needs to be taken; the relevance of ethical debates in other areas of archaeology; and how the study of past conflict may inform – or be informed by – the engagement of archaeologists in active conflict zones.

We seek contributions that take any position on any of these issues or others that relate to the theme of the session. We welcome contributions especially from all periods of Conflict Archaeology and from all parts of the globe.


Please send abstracts of 200 words or so to me at the email address below as well as to the conference organisers. We look forward to hearing from you and seeing you in Vienna . The notional deadline is 31st December but we are also prepared to consider proposals that come in during January.
Best regards
John

Dr John Carman
University Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Heritage Valuation
Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity
Arts Building , University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT , UK
Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7493
Fax: +44 (0)121 414 3595
Email: j.carman@bham. ac.uk

 

It's a bit far for most of us, but you never know.
ARCH Highland -

 

Any Stateside rogues interested?​

​

Call for papers​

​

“ROMANES EUNT DOMUS”, or the Archaeology of Resistance​

A proposal for an AIA Colloquium at the Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Meeting​

San Antonio January 6-9, 2011​

Finding evidence for (cultural) resistance has been a part of archaeological and art historical research since the inception of these disciplines. Despite the application of multiple models and a wide variety of approaches, however, there is little consensus on how to identify resistance in the material record. The purpose of this panel is to continue this discussion from the perspective of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds (ca. 2000 BCE-500 CE). The evidence of this region includes well-documented wars and revolts, but also lesser known settings of potential resistance such as colonies, displaced communities, liminal areas and frontiers, religious groups, and subaltern identities. Within this framework, we hope that a cross-cultural perspective will allow us to start developing a methodology for identifying resistance in the material record.

For the purposes of this panel we employ a broad definition of resistance, including passive and active rejection of prevailing social norms as well as challenges to ruling powers. We ask: when is persistence of local style or traditions a form of resistance? How can we identify everyday subversive acts through dress, eating habits, and other patterns of consumption? How is architecture used to create alternative spaces? Why do textually documented wars not always appear in the archaeological record? How is the past used in the present? Should unselfconscious counter-narratives be considered resistance? Other areas of inquiry might include religion, the body, space, the everyday, theory, gender politics, ancestors, diasporas, visual culture, historiography, and the post-colonial.

Despite the title, we do not focus only on the Roman Empire but welcome any contributions concerning the Mediterranean and Near East .

Organizers:
Lidewijde de Jong (UNC-Chapel Hill)
Robyn Le Blanc (UNC-Chapel Hill)
Lindsey Mazurek ( Duke University )

Please submit your abstract, including your contact information, presentation title, length of time requested (15 or 20 minutes) by March 12 (2010) to archaeology. resistance@ gmail.com. The ab­stract in English must not exceed 250 words and should conform to the AIA Style Guidelines (http://www.archaeol ogical.org/ webinfo.php? page=10453). Updates can be found at: http://humanitiesla b.stanford. edu/deJong/ Home. Please send any questions to: archaeology. resistance@ gmail.com.





--
Lidewijde de Jong
Assistant Professor, Department of Classics
212 Murphey Hall, CB#3145
UNC-Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3145 , USA
Office phone: 919 962 7655
Fax: 919 962 4036
Email: ldejong@email. unc.edu
Website: http://humanitiesla b.stanford. edu/deJong/ Home


__._,_.___

 

Too bad it doesn't include North America, as the phrase "We ask: when is persistence of local style or traditions a form of resistance? How can we identify everyday subversive acts through dress, eating habits, and other patterns of consumption? How is architecture used to create alternative spaces? Why do textually documented wars not always appear in the archaeological record? How is the past used in the present? Should unselfconscious counter-narratives be considered resistance? Other areas of inquiry might include religion, the body, space, the everyday, theory, gender politics, ancestors, diasporas, visual culture, historiography, and the post-colonial."


In Canada, we've been proud of the mosaic and tend to honour alternate cultures rather than suppressing them; yet, it is usually those who are most zealous of the traditions who tend to be disruptive to the common good. Several examples in our history - particulary 1972 FLQ crisis, Air India Flight 182 bombing 1985, Oka Quebec protests, protestors today at the Olympics - now would they be forms of resistance? Even in the WWII context, while there were many brave volunteers from Quebec and the Francophone community, as well as the Aboriginal community - there were also those who said it wasn't their concern since it was in Europe or a "British" issue. Those from Quebec and those with Francophone roots were here before the British won on the Plains of Abraham so as the previous inhabitants it is different really than when I use the Air India example as that is a case of bringing a fight from elsewhere here yet it is indicative of a resistance to assimilating within the culture of the new country - just as the traditions and lives of those within ethnically driven crime groups in the US such as the Mafia, Russian Mafia, etc...

For your consideration and feedback...

 

Well, that's a fair point.
It's hard to see what the Quebecois are protesting about though, given that a) they're not the original inhabitants (the Indians are) and b) French has been an official language in Canada for 40 years and French culture is so thoroughly assimilated throughout the country. What are they resisting- the country not being renamed Quebec? They already have their language, laws and culture protected by law, so it's difficult to see what else they could need.
The FLQ were a glorified bunch of student revolutionaries typical of the Sixties who quickly lost support when people realised they didn't have an answer to the question "what happens the day after the revolution"?. What were they resisting- capitalism? They seemed to have spent a lot of time complaining about Anglo-Saxon culture, were they all black/oriental?
The Oka were reacting to a dispute over land they considered sacred, so I suppose that could be called resistance. Interesting that they resisted a government in Quebec, where some people resist being part of Canada.
I would call the Air India bombing plain old-fashioned terrorism. The alleged perpetrators wanted an indeoendent Sikh homeland in India. They're not being oppressed as far as I can see.
And as for the anti-Olympics protests, that's good old-fashioned bandwagon-jumping. Where do the protestors shouting about stealing native land live exactly?
Anti-poverty campaigners? They seem to have no problem travelling great distances, so they're not big on practising what they preach.
I would call it an abuse of freedom of speech, since the only thing they seem to be resisting is not being the centre of attention.

 

"There are no revolutionaries, only closet aristocrats. The Bourgeoise change places with the aristocracy, whilst the proletariat stays exactly where it is. The old process is continued with the status quo unchanged."

In so many words, this is what Frank Herbert's character of LETO II (from "God Emperor of Dune"),tells his most trusted majordomo, Moneo, who is worried that his only daughter, Siona, is becoming far too much of a rebel to be considered for Imperial service in the court of the Kwisatz Haderach.

I tend to agree....

The French family that I have known for many years, their eldest son, with a degree in fine arts and exhibitions in Sydney and Melbourne, Frank Gohier used to complain that nobody was a revolutionary any more. "There is", he said, "no SPIRIT for change in modern people, caught as they are in their own comfort zone."

Even modern Americans, supposedly from a country with a revolutionary spirit, (The Spirit of 1776) will do very little to change the status quo in a quick manner. They will not even complain about the status quo unless their particular "comfort zone" is breached.

In many ways, we are LIVING the Orwellian "worst case", with large super powers continuously at war on the fringes, whilst internally most of their inhabitiants are unaware that there is even a war going on. No rationing, no shortages, no sacrifices needed. Just keep feeding them bread and celebrity trivia and they think everything is "fine".

There are no revolutionaries anymore....only dictatorships....

 

Thanks, Gordon. It was one of those random thoughts that get sparked by interesting questions!

 

No worries, Michelle.

 

Some interesting stuff on here-
Violência e Pré-História - Violence and Prehistory

 

Lawrence, the Arabs, and the genesis of modern guerrilla warfare​

​

One day Special Conference

When: Saturday 15 May 20
Where: Clore Management Centre
Birkbeck University of London
Bloomsbury, London

On the 75th anniversary of T E Lawrence’s death, three leading academic specialists assess his role in the desert war of 1916-1918 and his relevance in understanding the conflicts of the last 90 years. Neil Faulkner and Nick Saunders are joint directors of a pioneering new field project that is investigating the archaeological remains of the conflict along the line of the former Hijaz Railway. Jeremy Wilson, author of Lawrence of Arabia: the authorised biography of T E Lawrence, is widely recognised as the world’s leading authority on his subject. Together, on the basis of radically new evidence and interpretation, they offer a day of illustrated talks and discussion that will reassess Lawrence, his role, and his legacy. And they will draw some stark lessons: about the parallels between the failure of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and the unfolding disaster of the ‘war on terror’ today.

See http://tinyurl.com/ykhy8dn for full details.​

 

Hello Historian,

Ahh.. I wished I could attend this meeting. I am sure that loads of information can and could be assessed by his recordings - toward the mindset of Muslims and especially those of today's Arabs.

Regards
Kruska

 

Me too.

 

This looks interesting-
Conflict and the Camera Season