FREUD AND VOLKAN Psychoanalysis, group identities and archaeology

Recent discourse in archaeological theory has highlighted that the discipline’s approach to existence and materiality is firmly entrenched in traditions of modern thought (Thomas 1996, 2004; Tilley 2004). It has also been shown that archaeological methodology has a tendency to be used as an interpretative metaphor by other modern disciplines in the description of their own methodologies (Miller & Tilley 1984: 1). For example, a popular topic in the archaeological and psychoanalytic literature has been Sigmund Freud’s ‘archaeological metaphor’ which he used to help illustrate the role of the psychoanalyst in treatment (see below: Thomas 2004: 161-9). Freud was an avid antiquary, and much of his thinking seems to have been inspired by the discoveries and advancements of the then burgeoning discipline of archaeology (Ucko 2001). Although archaeology has inspired many thinkers such as Freud in the development of new systems of thought, archaeologists, by contrast, have not engaged sufficiently with other newly developed disciplines in order to inspire more balanced interpretations. For example, since archaeological material is often found to be central to modern social and political discourses of identity, it is important that archaeological theory begin to engage with the theoretical issues being raised by other disciplines concerned with identity formation and materiality (Meskell 2002).