Sarah Viner (University of Sheffield; s.viner@sheffield.ac.uk) and Katherine Harrell (University of Sheffield; prp05kmh@sheffield.ac.uk)

Today the use of the terms ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ have little to do with relative population size but rather give an indication of a group’s status or rank within society and the perceived equality afforded to individuals from minority groups within established systems. There has been much recent discussion of the deep rooted connotations of the language used in archaeological writing, specifically focussed on how the choice of language and certain words can create bias in interpretations and act negatively on empirical approaches (for example Harrell and Viner in prep). In addition, numerous studies have highlighted the tendency of archaeologists to allow essentialist views to cloud interpretations of the past.

The juxtaposed ideas of ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ also have a significant impact on how modern archaeological practice is undertaken. The emphasis on a plurality of understandings and the need to encourage ‘archaeologies of the disenfranchised’ have shaken traditional archaeology with many finding such plurality difficult to reconcile with their own epistemological background (Scham, 2001). Where does this leave the study of ‘majority’ groups?

This session aims to discuss the past and present perceptions of minorities and majorities in archaeology. It will explore how modern perceptions of ‘minority’ vs. ‘majority’ impact our understanding of the past. Papers are invited that challenge essentialist ideas of ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ groups and those that move away from generalising ideas to explore specific complexities are encouraged. We welcome discussions of the challenge posed by investigations of ‘minority’ and/or ‘minority groups’ and the impact on archaeological thought and practice.

Scham, Sandra Arnold, (2001) The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 8 (2):183-213.