Researching Morgan Llywelyn's Fiction (original) (raw)

Reading the Ephemera of Caithness

Abstract In the northeast of Scotland, in the county of Caithness, local volunteers are taught to “read” the landscape. During a public engagement program, AOC Archaeology teaches archaeological practices to members of the local community . These outdoor workshops use the old “reading” memory-metaphor (Aristotle, 1908; Cicero, 1954; Freud, 1925; Krell, 1990), to inscribe new memory traces upon Caithness landscapes to forge new connections between the local population and the fragmented archaeological remains of the area. The volunteers are asked to interpret ambiguous archaeological remains on the basis of their own experience. This challenges them to re-inhabit the North Scottish moorlands overlaying new inscriptions upon the existing landmarks (David & Wilson, 1999; Fowler, 2000). During this experimental workshop, they attempt to identify, record and finally excavate archaeological ephemera. The ephemera are obscure and scattered traces of human activity surviving from the Bronze and Iron Ages through to the Post-Medieval periods, which constantly transform by the erosion of time, the encroachment of peat and by current land management or amenity practices (Barber, 2001). During the workshops, locals establish new places of interest, rediscover old tracks and trails and carve new ones as part of an emergent cultural practice. AOC archaeologists challenge the locals to “read the landscape” and to unravel the “time depth” of the ephemera. During the workshop’s introductory process, two kinds of “reading” take place: the distanced reading of the expert and the embedded sensory-rich readings of the expert/apprentice team. Archaeologists look for shapes of interest on LiDAR topographies that do not relate to contemporary activities and that may resemble known archaeological formations. These are selected as possible sites for exploration and are later parsed, in the field by teams of archaeologists and local participants. In addition to these organised practices, several others emerge by the local’s own investment of the landscape. As the ephemera are inherently vulnerable to erosion and transformation, they are frequently employed in a wide range of activities and narratives. The Caithness landscape is here presented as an infinite database of memory traces, a palimpsest of signs of forgotten spatial languages and of newly inscribed ones upon this overused writing pad. Which architectural qualities enhance or constrain the reading of the ephemera and which are preserved in old and new inscriptions? How do the well-structured AOC readings articulate with the spontaneous readings of the locals? How does the “reading” memory metaphor affect the quality of the carvings that take place in Caithness(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)? These are the questions that the paper addresses. Please cite as: Ntzani Dimitra & Barber John. 2013. The Ephemera of Caithness, in MAS-Context, 2013, 19(3), 22-33 Paper fully accessed at http://www.mascontext.com/issues/19-trace-fall-13/reading-the-ephemera-of-caithness/ Whole Trace Issue can be downloaded at: http://www.mascontext.com/19-trace-fall-2013/