meta-ar(t)chaeology: an embedded theory of place

Thinking about an ar(t)chaeological outcome that references its own ar(t)chaeology and what this might offer to an understanding of place and the human impulse towards place-making.
How might the “divergence in attitude” between “curious amateur” and “professional” impact on knowledge-making in such an entanglement of practice?  What constitutes a knowledge of place?  Whose knowledge is it?  Whose place is it?
What are the stopping places, the strata to which I have returned?
digging down – a chronological approach
What are the deposits that make up this new knowledge?
gathering method, matter and subject – a typological approach

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s