Comments on ‘Humanness as performance’ by John C. Barrett

Abstract

different and concomitant senses, innovatively utilizing archaeological data to piece together sensuous pasts. The archaeology of the senses highlighted that sensory engagement is synaesthetic and argued that Western narratives arbitrarily created five distinct sensory categories (Hamilakis 2011, 210). This critical engagement with the senses developed the discourse and reconfigured the potentiality of sensuous engagement in the past for contemporary audiences. Reading Barrett’s paper, it is obvious that the role of the visual is vital in his theoretical discussion, as seen in his proposal that new visual technologies might offer opportunities for excavators to better understand historical locations (Barrett 2022, 12); his argument that action can be read like a sign (2022, 6) andhis emphasis that performances are observed (2022, 9); the visual permeates his discussion. Barrett’s discussion could be accused of ocularcentrism; developing the performative aspect of his argument will likely remedy this issue. Barrett focusses on performance, drawing a distinction between the performer and the observed (2022, 8); a Baradian phenomena entangles these positions. A more profitable line of enquiry might be the analysis of ‘doing’ or making together, whether we consider the affective relationships formed during ‘communitas’ (emotive collective togetherness; see Turner 2012) or the embodied knowledge and communication that occurs in communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Wendrich 2013; discussed in Govier 2017); rather than reiterating a cartesian division (cf. Barrett, 2022, 9), the interwoven character should be addressed. For the record, I am for the archaeological record– in the sense that I think archaeologicalmaterials hold knowledge and information about past events (cf. Barrett, 2022, 11). If we take Barad’s theory on board, it is clear that there is a great amountof information in archaeologicalmaterializations owing to the interwoven character of matter and discourse. As such, the archaeological record is not simply a ledger or register or script documenting a sequence of events but an opportunity to gain ontological insight into factors suchasdiscursivity, power, causality, agency andmateriality.Regardlessof training and expertise (cf. Barrett, 2022, 9), nooneperson or excavation teamshould be placed in the privileged positionof sole responsibility for interpretation; informationmustbecollected andshared in amanner that makes further research possible. Finally, I see no need to offer a blanket statement about what humanity is or isn’t, was or wasn’t, especially one that starts with the notion that humanity ‘respected the significance of people, plants, animals, and things’ (Barrett 2022, 1) – evidence of human activities unequivocally suggests otherwise.