Current trends in historical archaeology emphasize the centrality of capitalism and colonial discourse in examining commonalities in the archaeologies of fictive worlds such as the British Atlantic. Yet far from informing archaeological practice, overly simplistic incorporation of postcolonial and neo-Marxian approaches in comparative archaeologies can actually impede our ability to disentangle the complexities of the early modern colonial experience in a socially relevant fashion. While the disparate colonial settlements of the Atlantic share a recognizable material culture as physical testament to the overarching impact of European expansion, contemporary implications and memories of colonial entanglements vary wildly. A critical consideration of the role of overtly theoretical approaches in developing a nuanced archaeology of the early modern period in the north of Ireland, where the construction of present-day identities is firmly rooted in dichotomous understandings of the impact of British expansion in the 16th and 17th centuries, raises broader questions about our responsibilities in addressing conflict and in redressing the disjuncture between espousing and practising theoretically informed archaeology.

In the years leading up to the First World War the academic understanding of the earthen mounds we know as mottes underwent a series of dramatic changes. Exploration of the paradigms behind these viewpoints tells us much about the way in which knowledge comes into being and is used. In particular, archaeologists have created their own foundation myths, complete with hero and demon figures, which serve to emphasize a progressive account of research. The reality is often somewhat more reactionary. In this paper I argue that archaeological histories have impeded understanding of the discipline as the complexities of research remain hidden. As viewpoints become entrenched, creative thought is stifled because the subject is believed to be understood. In castle studies, one a-priori paradigm is that the English motte-and-bailey castle was introduced by the Normans, an idea commonly attributed to Ella Armitage. This paper explores the context behind the adoption of this idea through a case study focusing on changes in understanding. Acrimonious dismissal of alternative points of view has maintained the dominance of this paradigm. I conclude that critical historiographies such as this best serve the development of future understanding of the discipline.

On a first reading of this paper, I thought Audrey Horning might have crossed wires and contradicted herself. Is the weakness of much historical archaeology its deficit in theory-building, or is it, in contrast, a reluctance to emerge from theoretical analysis into a locally focused public archaeology which engages with contemporary political debates?

Few observers could argue with the proposition that archaeology has dramatically changed in the past couple of decades. Perhaps tacitly or even unknowingly adopting one of the central tenets of critical archaeology, archaeologists everywhere have learned to expand their audiences and to consider the contemporary meanings of their interpretations. Members of descendant communities and other stakeholders now commonly demand a role in the retelling of history. The 1930s view of ‘every man [sic] the historian’ has become ‘every person the archaeological interpreter’. Archaeology is no longer the sole purview of the ivory tower and the detached, absent-minded archaeologist. The days of sitting quietly in a well-appointed laboratory measuring potshards are largely gone. Only the best-funded, venerable of practitioners has this luxury today.

Audrey Horning has a lot to say about the abuses of overarching theory in archaeology. Her most cogent critiques, directed at the rather careless application of postcolonial theory to the archaeology of Northern Ireland and the failure of that theoretical model to deal effectively with the complex and fragmented identities of this continually embattled society, spoke powerfully to my own experience. The intellectual currency of colonialism and postcolonialism is becoming as rapidly devalued as that of domination and resistance. This is not to say these concepts have no merit – only that they suffer from overuse and a persistent lack of nuanced examination.

Dr Horning's paper touches issues of fundamental importance both to contemporary Ireland as a place of historically rooted cultural contestation and to the discipline of historical archaeology in Ireland. It has a core message: archaeologists can blunt some of those sharp edges of cultural-political division that originated in Plantation-era settlement by revealing how historical sites that seem on the surface to belong on one or other aggrieved side in the island's history are susceptible to more nuanced, and arguably more legitimate, interpretations.

In 1999 the Irish Post-Medieval Archaeology Group (IPMAG) was established by a diverse group of Northern Ireland archaeologists and heritage professionals, drawn from the commercial, government, museum and university sectors. The aims of the organization, discussed at length at the group's inaugural conference held in Belfast in February of 2001, include (one) undertaking initiatives to raise the profile of post-medieval archaeology within the whole of Ireland, (two) fostering greater contacts between those individuals engaged in researching the archaeology, history and culture of post-1550 Ireland and (three) lobbying for increased academic attention to be paid to the period within Irish universities. That the organization has made progress in approaching these aims is clear, as acknowledged by Tadhg O'Keeffe: ‘the archaeological study of the “historical” (post-fifteenth-century) past is now a big deal in Ireland’. IPMAG conferences have been held in conjunction with academic institutions (Queen's University, Belfast, 2001; Trinity College, Dublin, 2002; University of Ulster, 2004; University College, Cork, 2006), public institutions (Ulster Museum, 2003), and commercial archaeology companies (Aegis Archaeology, Ltd, Limerick, 2005).

This paper discusses the relationship between art, perception and human engagement with the environment in Minoan Crete through the depiction of landscapes and the ‘natural world’ in art. It is argued that the conventional approaches to Minoan ‘nature scenes’, based on the representation and expression theories of art, are overshadowed by modernist assumptions about art and human–environment relations. The paper then proceeds to discuss the workings of visual perception and the dynamics of human–environment systems. On that basis, the nature of human–environment relations in Minoan Crete is reconsidered and an ‘ecological’ approach to ancient art explored. A tentative suggestion is made that Minoan nature scenes might be understood as instruments for perceiving and knowing the environment, and some broader implications of the ecological perspective for the interpretation of the archaeological record of Minoan Crete are indicated.