Tehmina Goskar (University of Southampton; tehm@soton.ac.uk) and Ben Jervis (University of Southampton; bpj106@soton.ac.uk)

Medieval archaeology is one of the most vibrant fields of historical archaeology. In previous years and decades there has been much debate over the directions medieval archaeology should travel. This has generally centred around questions of interdisciplinarity: understanding the archaeology in the contexts of other disciplines such as history, anthropology and philosophy; or criticisms of the lack of archaeological theory applied to the interpretation of landscapes, sites and objects when compared with archaeologists engaged in prehistory. However we have identified many other areas of ‘fragmentation’ which archaeologists and those who use archaeological evidence have faced and attempted to overcome. Some examples include:

• Transitions between periods, e.g. Saxon to Norman, early to high medieval, late to post medieval
• Divisions between material specialists, e.g. ceramicists, numismatists, small finds or metalwork specialists
• Geographic boundaries, e.g. studies according to modern regional and national boundaries (Kent, Italy) or those according to contemporary boundaries (Wessex, Normandy)
• Landscape and settlement vs. object-based archaeology
• Cultural focus vs. biological/environmental focus (including human and animal remains)
• Life and death archaeology, e.g. finds and settlements relating to people’s lifestyles and those found within funerary landscapes
• Relationships between urban and rural archaeology
• Theme-based divisions, e.g. social, economic, cultural, military
• Fragmentation between professions, e.g. academia, heritage (including museums), commercial archaeology and conservation

This session seeks papers from those who want to, or have, overcome the kind of fragmentation outlined above in their investigations and research. Have you actively sought to apply theory to the way you view your period, sites and materials in order to transcend the traditional boundaries of your field? Can you demonstrate ways in which you have tried to challenge fragmentation successfully? Or, if you have tried and it has failed, why? Is some fragmentation necessary to retain specialisms and expertise or is it time to challenge the basis of these divisions which operate within the boundaries of outdated academic traditions?