Paper short abstract:

This paper arises out of a certain frustration with traditional archaeological field practice. It draws upon a short ethnographic case study conducted as part of my doctoral research on archaeologies of leisure from the recent past. It aims to promote disciplinary dialogue and to provide some perspective on pushing at disciplinary boundaries.

Paper long abstract:

This paper arises out of a certain frustration with disciplinary boundaries and traditional field practice. While there has been discernible progress within archaeology towards non-hierarchical knowledge, disciplinary interconnectedness and epistemological plurality, it is interesting to observe - in common with other humanities subjects - that the notion of the 'post-discipline' has yet to emerge.

Dealing with landscapes, material and artefacts from the recent past, I utilise a range of research techniques from across the humanities and social sciences, including what might be understood as ethnographic approaches. In other words, I do not limit my academic practice to excavation, surveys and the analysis of written material; I also talk to living people.

While it is clear that more and more 'contemporary archaeologists' and 'archaeologists of the recent past' are utilising ethnographic approaches, there seems to be something discomforting about this for a number of our archaeological colleagues. Indeed, it is often suggested that such work is not archaeology. This leads me to explore two important questions: Are we to be defined by our methods? And, does disciplinary labelling matter?

In common with the sentiments expressed in the abstract for this session, my belief is that such forays into the methods developed by other disciplines do not serve to dilute or downgrade, but instead provide opportunities to engage in fruitful dialogue. As such, this paper will present a brief case study from my own research. In so doing, I also hope to provide an alternative perspective on pushing at disciplinary boundaries.