A brief history of TAG.

Gaydarska, Bisserka

Introduction

The Theoretical Archaeological Group (henceforth TAG) is now 31 years old--the best age anyone can ask for--just after the long years of hard work to win recognition and before the mid-life crisis. It is also the best rime to look back and assess the pitfalls and peaks, the obstacles and stimuli encountered during the rise to maturity. This analogy between TAG and an archaeological career is not mere rhetoric; it is also a way of explaining why such a prestigious and popular event has attracted so little historical analysis (Fleming & Johnson 1990). This apparent indifference concurs with the uncomfortable truth that 'archaeologists ... [do not have] the necessary tools to confront the history of their own discipline' (Diaz-Andreu 2007: 1). Perhaps we are reluctant to indulge in diagnosis, since TAG is still very much alive and kicking. Another explanation lies in the very format of TAG--an informal event, open to everyone without the inhibitions of assessment.

TAG's sole activity is an annual conference held in December. There are at least three ways to examine its development over the years. The first, and probably the most interesting, is the compilation of oral histories. Such an approach is already in progress by Pamela Jane Smith of the University of Cambridge, but, as Smith agrees, because of its subjectivity, it will always require verification and cross-checks. The second approach involves detailed discussions of speakers, sessions and trends, similar to the way people have commented on TAG (if selectively) in the few reviews that have appeared in print (e.g. Chippindale 1990; Bintliff 1991). A third approach, adopted here, is to analyse the speakers represented and the topics chosen in the hope of teasing out some trends. Only a pilot study has been undertaken so far, but the results show sufficient promise to draw some general conclusions about the development of TAG and to outline further research avenues for anyone attracted to the history of archaeological thought.

The results focus on three major areas: the development of themes over the years, gender balance among speakers and the participation of foreign speakers. It is appreciated that this is only a beginning. Although Antiquity hosts the notices of the conferences (http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/tag/index.html), a major obstacle to the inquiry proved to be the lack of a fuller archive, which meant that certain parameters had to be omitted: for example, quality control (were sessions ever refused, and if so, why?), the ratio between conference speakers and conference attendees, the change in status of participants (e.g. from postgraduate to professors), the ratio of full-time academic staff to students and the ratio of academic to non-academic participants. Also remaining as avenues for further research is the breaking down of big themes such as 'social change' into sub-themes, such as 'gender studies', or identifying under 'General Theory', more specific areas, such as Marxism.

The creation of a database

All 31 TAG programmes have now been retrieved (see Table 1), with three exceptions: the pre-TAGs in1977 and 1978 and the 1981 meeting. The textual information in the 28 programmes was transformed into an Excel spreadsheet database by year, containing the title of the sessions, the names of the organisers, chairs, discussants and speakers, their gender, professional affiliation and nationality. The institutions represented by the speakers were also included if such information was available. After the initial analysis, it became clear that the number of papers did not necessarily correspond to the number of speakers: in 2001, for example, 42 of the speakers presented more than 1 paper and 8 speakers presented 3 papers. For the purposes of the current study, it was felt that the number of people actually giving one or more presentations was more important than the number of times a speaker appears in front of an audience.

The origins and developmental phases of TAG

The official view of the origin of TAG is seen as the formation in 1977 of 'a discussion group on theoretical archaeology amongst staff and research students at Sheffield and Southampton Universities' (Fleming & Johnson 1990: 304). This view does not stand unchallenged: a series of conferences that took place in the mid- to late 1970s in Cambridge (Spriggs 1977; Green et al. 1978; Burnham & Kingsbury 1979) were considered by one of its organisers as 'pre-TAG events'. Certainly, the intellectual climate in British archaeology in the 1970s resulted in several theoretically-engaged academic events but a widely shared opinion is that the meetings in 1977 and 1978 in Southampton and Sheffield, respectively, were the progenitors of the series that began in 1979.

TAG developed in a number of distinct phases. From 1979 until 1991 it was a reputable but small-scale annual conference with between 50 and 100 speakers and up to 18 sessions (1987 is an exception with 122 speakers and 23 sessions). The break point was the 1992 'Euro-TAG'--not only a large-scale event of its own but a trend-setter. After this, the number of sessions rose to between 20 and 30, with 140 to 235 speakers. The number of speakers claiming to speak on archaeological theory varied, although the general trend was upward. The peak of interest so far, as measured by the number of papers, was in 1996, at Liverpool. This may also be the largest conference, with the number of participants exceeding 600. (The ingredients of Liverpool's success remain a secret).

Classifying topics

Over 500 individual sessions took place during the 31 TAG conferences. In this analysis it has been assumed that the session title, broken down into period, region and theme(s), represents what was intended to attract both speakers and audience. Thus, The dynamics of change in Iberian prehistory (1992) has been classified as 'change', 'Iberia' and 'prehistory'. The majority of titles do not contain any reference to region or period and are indexed as closely as possible to what is mentioned in the title--e.g. The application of archaeological theory to interpretation of ceramics (1987) becomes 'theory' and 'ceramics'. One trend apparent over the years is the evolution of the archaeological vernacular, striving for greater impact but often achieving greater obscurity. What in 1983 was simply Material culture theory became in 2002 Views beyond the privatization of ethics and the globalization of indifference: changing perspectives on 'agency', 'material culture' and historical memory. And while one can argue that such titles underpin the diversification of archaeological theory and the fragmentation of the discipline in the last decade, titles like Life (1995) or Not just tagging along (2003) are more challenging than informative.

After their initial logging in the database, the 500 sessions were grouped by theme. Twenty-five sessions could not be grouped, some because they discussed practical issues like funding (1995) or illustration (1996), while others had specific topics such as caves (1999) or psycho-analysis (2004). The remaining sessions, whose themes appeared more than once, were gathered in 94 groups, a sample still too large for the identification of diachronic trends. A further re-grouping was performed in which the 94 groups and the 25 individual sessions were each assigned to a meta-group. On the basis of the frequency of certain themes, seven meta-groups were identified--General Theory, Material Culture, Society, Landscape, Archaeological Science, Public Archaeology and Other. Needless to say, there were overlaps between the meta-groups and the separation was undertaken only for analytical purposes. For example, the 1990 session on Theoretical approaches to prehistoric landscapes had three initial themes--'theory', 'landscape' and 'prehistory' but ultimately was assigned to the 'Landscape' meta-group.

Results--chosen themes

The majority of the session topics occurred only once, but others were repeated. 'Gender studies' were discussed in eight sessions over the years; 'heritage' or 'environment', were presented on nine occasions; while the most popular topic, with 49 sessions, was 'theory', including titles such as Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?

One might expect that 'General Theory' would have been a regular theme throughout the 31 years of TAG, but it shows a fluctuating pattern, with steady rises and falls, including peaks in 1987 and 1993. In 1987, the sessions on 'General Theory' comprised more than 25% of all sessions. Given the fact that this was the most attended conference of the first TAG period, we may assume a culmination of heated debates over archaeological theory, especially in the year of publication of Shanks and Tilley's Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice (Shanks & Tilley 1987a) and Social theory and archaeology (Shanks & Tilley 1987b), and moreover only a year after Hodder's Reading the past (Hodder 1986).

The second peak, in 1993, should be considered together with another meta-group peak that happened in the same year--almost half of the sessions in 1993 are on 'Society'. Such an overall preference for theory and society is indicative of a very strong interest in interpretative modes and the widespread application of theory in archaeological contexts. One may say that this was the result of the active, confrontational phase of the processual/post-processual debate. In the following years, the antagonistic side of this debate diminished and the interest in 'General Theory' faded away into a mass of lower-level combinations and re-combinations. The 1999 TAG witnessed the lowest ever interest in 'General Theory'. Such a loss of popularity is confirmed by the number of 'General Theory' sessions in the following seven years, varying between two and four. As we shall see later, other themes colonise TAG or, should I say, become more fashionable, in the new millennium.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The most enduring meta-theme was 'Society' which included topics such as 'gender studies', 'burial archaeology' and 'warfare', and was discussed in most years in 25-33% of all sessions (Figure 1). Since the 1960s, archaeological interpretation had revolved around the reconstruction of past societies and such a pattern confirms this interest. There was a major peak in 1993 (above) and a low frequency of 'social' discussion in 1991 (one session out of 14) and 2001 (four sessions out of 29). In 1991, the stress was on archaeological science which may explain this extraordinarily low proportion, while by 2001 pure archaeological theory had become diluted as noted above and there was a growing trend towards ambiguously-titled TAG sessions.

'Material Culture' is slow off the starting blocks and, except in 1985 and 1987, remained unpopular until 1994 (Figure 1). After 1994, there is an increased interest in theorising material culture but such a pursuit is far from being consistent. In 1995, 2002, 2005 and 2006, 'Material Culture' was discussed in 20-25% of all sessions but in 1996, 1999, 2003, 2004 and 2007, there were only one or two sessions on that topic. Such a pattern implies that the bread and butter of archaeological study--its buildings and artefacts--command relatively little attention among archaeological theorists. Making a narrative out of artefacts is undoubtedly challenging but, by and large, it is not a challenge to which most TAG speakers have risen.

'Landscape' has a similar profile to 'Material Culture'. Although 'Landscape' figures as a regular theme from the very beginning, the interest in 'Landscape' at TAG is inconsistent. Until 1997, there was only one session on 'Landscape' each year, if any (the ratio of one to no session is 10:6). The exception is Lampeter 1990, 28% of the sessions are on 'Landscape'--presumably reflecting a strong local bias. Since 1998, 'Landscape' has become a more widely discussed theme yet there are years when it does not attract any attention (e.g. 2000 and 2004). If we accept the limitations of defining a discussion topic only by the title, there are two possible explanations for such a surprising pattern. First, the common perception of a long-lasting interest in landscape theory is misleading and, indeed, the real situation is that theorising landscape only became popular in the late 1990s. Alternatively, landscape was being theorised at meetings other than TAG (e.g. Landscape History Society and period/region-based conferences).

The broad umbrella of 'Archaeological Science' provided at least one session per year, except for 1979, 1983, 1984 and 1992. The lack of 'Archaeological Science' sessions in the first years of TAG should be viewed in the context of 'looking for theory' and a resistance to the overly positivistic engagement of archaeological science at the time. In that sense, the four science-related sessions in 1982 could be considered a breakthrough. The aim of the 1992 TAG was an opening-up to the outside world, which may explain the lack of any sessions on 'Archaeological Science'. The usual number of 'scientific' sessions over the years is between two and four, with two peaks in 1987 (Bradford) and 2006 (Exeter) and an exceptional peak in 2000 (Oxford). 'Archaeological Science' received further promotion in the plenary session of the 1991 TAG (Leicester) and was supported by the other three sessions in the programme.

'Public Archaeology' has featured at TAG almost from the very beginning and has remained as a low-level but constant presence. This suggests that archaeologists were never totally oblivious to the importance of the public face of the discipline. Another factor is the healthy number of participants from various heritage organisations reflecting the career destinations of postgraduates. However, issues such as education, heritage, media and communication have received relatively little attention at TAG, while they have flourished elsewhere (e.g. IFA and EAA).

The final meta-group defined was simply named 'Other', reflecting its diversity. Unclassifiable topics have appeared at TAG almost from the very beginning and, since 1992, there has been an obvious increase in the number of sessions that boast enigmatic, elaborate or metaphorical titles or sessions that cannot be readily associated with any of the other 6 meta-themes (e.g. 'catastrophe theory'). Such a pattern shows the fragmentation of the discipline and the diversification of the TAG menu. In 1996, 2003, 2004 and 2005, 'Other' themes reached peaks of 33% of all sessions. This may indicate either the liberalisation of theory, so that any topic may be considered at least once(!) or the diversification of the archaeological theory debate, with increasing numbers of approaches that do not obviously relate to the three pillars of theory--'Landscape', 'Material Culture' and 'Society'--or to the other three meta-themes. Only a more detailed future study can establish whether this is a semantic issue, a lack of theoretical focus or the emergence of new meta-narratives.

Institutional involvement

Starting as an inter-university debate between Southampton and Sheffield, from 1979 TAG became an open annual event with these institutions leading the way by hosting the conference three times. Another six universities have welcomed TAG discussions twice (Reading, Durham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Bradford and Lampeter), that judging by the number of participants from these institutions (Table 2) reveals them as especially attuned to theory debates. The majority of hosts (12 universities) have been involved in its organisation only once, among them Cambridge and London which score among the highest providers of attendees. By contrast, Oxford University which hosted TAG in 2000, has had an average number of two participants per year at other TAGs. University College Dublin, which organised the event in 2001, has also demonstrated a positive change of attitude towards archaeological theory.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Gender balance

Whenever gender issues are discussed in the context of public roles in contemporary society, they tend to emphasise the under-representation of women. This is entirely valid for the discipline of archaeology, not only in Britain but worldwide (Nelson et al. 1994). Alarming equity issues were published in 1994 (O'Sullivan 1994), well after the first wave of feminism. The present study has indicated that in the matter of presenting theory since the 1970s, women have been less prominent players than men. Of a total of 4431 speakers, 2900 (65%) were male, 1444 (33%) were female, and 87 (2%) were of unidentified gender. Until TAG 1991, the fluctuation of the numbers of all speakers depended on the fluctuation of the participation of male speakers, while female speakers had little or no influence at all (Figure 2).

The general pattern of gender balance over the 31 years of history can be divided into three periods. In the first period (1979-1990), there is a clear dominance of male participants. They represent between 76% and 89% of speakers of known gender. In the second period (1991-2000), male speakers are always above 60% but never reach the pre-1991 levels of clear dominance, with a maximum of 73% of all speakers in 1991. The next decade brings another, so far irreversible, trend in which male speakers hardly exceed 60% with the stable participation of women ranging from 38% to 44% of all speakers.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

This situation corresponds well to the general pattern noted by O'Sullivan (1994) in which women were involved professionally in British archaeology probably as much as men, but their public appearance has been slow to rise. It also fits well with another notable pattern: despite the fact that feminist ideas and gender issues have been part and parcel of many female archaeologists' studies since the 70s, there is an obvious time-lag between their initiation and their communication. Thus, one famous early gender conference was in 1988, while Engendering archaeology appeared only in 1991 (Gero & Conkey 1991). The same is valid for TAG--although women always attended TAG conferences, their appearance in numbers took longer to occur. At least two factors may be linked to the increased number of female speakers in the second period. First, the publication of Engendering archaeology boosted the confidence of women to get out of their labs and museums and present their research; and, secondly, by the early 1990s, those women involved in political and social affairs became part of the establishment.

The trend since 2000 indicates that the proportion of female speakers at TAG is increasing. Whether the explanation is the possible 'feminisation' of the discipline (and its academic branch in particular) or that women are taking a more equal share of public attention in British archaeology remains to be determined. An external check on such a trend is visible in the increased membership of female archaeologists in a professional organisation such as the EAA, where the percentage of female members since 2000 is over 40% (S. Kvetinova, EAA Secretariat pers. comm.).

The internationalisation of TAG

As with the gender balance pattern, the changes in participation of non-British speakers at TAG can be divided into three phases (Figure 3). In the first phase (1980-1991), non-British speakers (whether visitors from abroad or foreigners employed in the UK) are more or less constant at between 9 and 26 persons. The second phase (1992-1998) is characterised by sharp fluctuations in the numbers of non-British speakers. In contrast to the gender balance, in the third phase (1999-2007), the presence of foreign speakers has stabilised and failed to increase with attendance as a whole, forming 20% to 30% of all speakers at TAG.

Influence of other conferences

During its lifetime, TAG has witnessed the emergence of several prestigious international organisations with conferences to match their reputations, as well as several other theoretically-oriented conferences. Only three of them are selected here in terms of their possible influence on the development of TAG: Nordic TAG (founded 1985); the World Archaeological Congress (WAC: founded 1986); and the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA: founded 1994). A positive influence can be documented between Nordic TAG and its parent organisation. Nordic TAG never really takes participants out of the British TAG and, since 1992, both theoretical conferences seem to complement each other. Another positive relation is between TAG and EAA. For two years after the foundation of FAA, there was a drop in foreign participation ar TAG, for hitherto unexplained reasons, bur later years have shown a fresh interest. A clear example of the positive spin-off was the 1997 EAA annual meeting in Ravenna, after which Italian speakers continued business unfinished in Ravenna by sharing their research in a British context.

Only one international conference seems to have a negative influence on the development of TAG. In three out of the five years in which a WAC has taken place, there has been a decrease in the number of foreign speakers at TAG. The first year of WAC (1986) was a relatively 'bad' year for TAG and the heavy British involvement in the establishment of WAC may explain the weak attendance at TAG, not only of foreign participants but also of British speakers and attendees. 1994 was a crowded year for major events, witnessing not only a WAC in New Delhi but also the inaugural FAA meeting in Ljubljana. It is almost certain that a third major international conference in December of the same year may have led to conference/financial overload for some potential participants, not to mention the time clash between TAG and WAC. Although the fifth WAC was held in 1999, its timing in January meant that it was within a month of TAG 1998 in Birmingham and suggests a possible reason for the dramatic drop in the number of foreign speakers in 1998--a fall otherwise hard to explain. Where speakers are under pressure to prioritise, an annual conference such as TAG may be the loser.

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to survey the annual TAG conferences over the last 31 years in an attempt to find internal trends in an annual event that serves as a weathervane of the intellectual climate in British archaeology. Three clear periods can be identified--though they are separated by rather fuzzy boundaries.

1. 1979-1990: in its early years, there was a constant interest in 'Society'. 'Material culture' had its peak in 1985, and 'Landscape' in 1990. In 1987, research interests in 'General Theory' and 'Archaeological Science' were dominant. Speakers were predominately male and British.

2. 1991-1999: this period witnessed the all-time peak in the number of both speakers and attendees--the 1996 TAG in Liverpool. Thematically, the 1990s started with the lowest-ever interest in sessions on 'Society', but this was soon to be overcome and reached its peak in 1993. In the same year, there was a peak in 'General Theory', after which interest gradually faded away to reach its lowest-ever level of interest in 1999. The number of women speaking increased from 1993, but the gap with the men remained. The number of foreign speakers also increased bur not their proportion of the total.

3. 2000-2007: the new millennium started with a massive interest in 'Archaeological Science' which remains one of the major areas of discussion at TAG, although not at the same level. 'Material Culture' steadily attracted more attention and, a decade after its first peak, reached its second summit of popularity. The increased interest in 'Landscape' in the late 1990s reached a peak in 2001, only to fade away gradually, with a comeback in the last three years. 'General Theory' discussions have come back on track after the loss of interest at the end of the previous period and, at TAG 2007, regained the peak of interest last reached in 1993. But the dominant meta-theme in recent years, with few exceptions (2002, 2006, 2007), has been the 'Other': 33% of the sessions now have ambiguous or general titles. Women speakers began to close the gap on the men, increasing in comparison to the previous period and ranging from 38% to 44%. However, the proportion of foreign speakers remained steady at 20-30%.

The subdivision of TAG into three phases appears to correlate well with its shifting status in British archaeology. During the first period, TAG remained marginal to mainstream archaeological practice, while the boom of participants in the second period reveals as much about the search by the profession for new theoretical insights as it does the struggle to gain academic appointments (Thomas & Tilley 1992). During the last period, which continues into the present, TAG is part of the establishment in British archaeology, particularly as a forum for postgraduates and professionals.

The methodology adopted in this study has prevented an in-depth engagement with the processualist/post-processualist debate and its impact on the dynamic of the TAG conferences, but there are indications that TAG has reflected the changing emphasis between the search for system and the stress on agency, with archaeological science perhaps providing a third voice in the debate.

The principal conclusion of this overview is that the self-perpetuation of TAG over the years has attracted increasing attention to archaeological theory in a way unparalleled by any other local or international forum. The tremendous impact that this annual British conference has enjoyed in the dissemination of archaeological theory, and ultimately the creation of a positive attitude towards theory, is comparable with any of the major methodological breakthroughs in the archaeology of the twentieth century.

Acknowledgements

The current research was conducted within the AREA project over a period of four months. I would like to thank Margarita Diaz-Andreu for inviting me to do the research and supporting me in various ways, not only in this four-month period. I am very grateful to Chris Cumberpatch, Win Scutt, John Chapman, Robin Skeates, Pam Graves, Andrew Millard, Nicky Milner, Clive Gamble and Bob Johnston for providing various issues of TAG programmes. Chris Scarre, Robin Skeates, Jarl Nordbladh, Colin Haselgrove, Matthew Spriggs, John Collis and S. Kvetivnova provided primary data and valuable comments, for which I am indebted. I express my gratitude to two anonymous referees who helped me to see the paper with different eyes and raised some challenging issues. Very special thanks to John for editing my English and most of all for the constant stimuli to improve the paper.

References

BINTLIFF, J. 1991. Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG: the current state of British archaeological theory. Antiquity 65: 274-8.

BURNHAM, B.C. & J. KINGSBURY (ed.). 1979. Space, hierarcby and society interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis (British Archaeological Reports International Series 59). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

CHIPPINDALE, C. 1990. Theoretical Archaeology Group: 11th conference. Current Anthropology 31(4): 463-6.

DIAZ-ANDREU, M. 2007 A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology. Nationalism, colonialism and the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GERO, J. & M. CONKEY (ed.). 1991. Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

GREEN, D., C. HASELGROVE & M. SPRIGGS (ed.). 1978. Social organisation and settlement: contributions from geography, anthropology and archaeology (British Archaeology Reports International Series (Supplementary) 47). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

FLEMING, A. & M. JOHNSON. 1990. The Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG): origins, retrospect, prospect. Antiquity 64: 303-6.

HODDER, I. 1986. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

NELSON, M., S. NELSON & A. WYLIE (ed.). 1994. Equity issues for women in archaeology (Archaeological Papers of the American AnthropologicaI Association 5). Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association.

O'SULLIVAN, D. 1994. Mapping women's place in contemporary archaeology, in M. Nelson, S. Nelson & A. Wylie (ed.) Equity issues for women in archaeology (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5): 94-7. Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association.

SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1987a. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--1987b. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.

SPRIGGS, M. (ed.) 1977. Archaeology and anthropology: areas of mutual interest (British Archaeological Reports International Series (Supplementary) 19). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

THOMAS, J. & C. TILLEY. 1992. TAG and 'post-modernism': a reply to John Bintliff. Antiquity 66: 106-14.

Bisserka Gaydarska, Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

Table 1. Summary of TAG conferences including the total
number of participants, their gender, nationality and number
of sessions in each meta-theme. Key: T1--Material culture,
T2--Society, T3--Public Archaeology, T4--Landscape, T5--
Archaeological Science, TG--General Theory, T7--Other.

 Non-
Year Host institution ALL M F British British

1979 Sheffield 34 27 7 30 3
1980 Southampton 44 40 4 31 12

1981 Reading data unavailable

1982 Durham 75 54 14 55 18
1983 Cardiff 51 39 11 33 17
1984 Cambridge 76 56 12 50 26
1985 Glasgow 91 75 14 70 17
1986 UCL 52 42 6 42 10
1987 Bradford 122 92 24 101 20
1988 Sheffield 96 72 23 74 22
1989 Newcastle upon Tyne 91 72 16 75 16
1990 Lampeter 107 82 24 80 24
1991 Leicester 88 64 21 68 18
1992 Southampton: Euro-TAG 154 106 40 90 60
1993 Durham 212 132 77 132 79
1994 Bradford 135 83 49 105 30
1995 Reading 140 94 45 109 30
1996 Liverpool 246 160 83 175 63
1997 Bournemouth 229 144 76 133 90
1998 Birmingham 162 101 59 146 13
1999 Cardiff 204 134 G8 135 60
2000 Oxford 232 169 81 161 59
2001 Dublin: TAG in Ireland 220 118 97 153 56
2002 Manchester 155 93 62 119 32
2003 Lampeter 186 112 72 140 38
2004 Glasgow: Tartan TAG 168 104 G4 126 40
2005 Sheffield 235 138 90 167 65
2006 Exeter 209 119 87 145 58
2007 York 227 127 99 160 60

Year Host institution T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7

1979 Sheffield 1 2 0 1 0 1 0
1980 Southampton 1 2 0 0 2 1 1

1981 Reading data unavailable

1982 Durham 1 5 1 0 4 2 1
1983 Cardiff 1 3 0 1 0 2 2
1984 Cambridge 0 3 0 1 0 2 4
1985 Glasgow 4 3 1 1 3 3 1
1986 UCL 0 2 0 1 1 4 1
1987 Bradford 2 6 2 0 5 6 1
1988 Sheffield 0 3 2 0 1 4 2
1989 Newcastle upon Tyne 0 6 2 1 3 3 3
1990 Lampeter 1 4 1 5 2 2 3
1991 Leicester 1 1 1 1 4 3 3
1992 Southampton: Euro-TAG 1 6 1 0 0 4 6
1993 Durham 1 12 1 1 2 5 5
1994 Bradford 2 5 0 1 2 4 2
1995 Reading 5 4 1 0 3 4 4
1996 Liverpool 2 6 1 1 4 3 9
1997 Bournemouth 3 9 2 0 1 3 5
1998 Birmingham 3 7 0 4 1 2 3
1999 Cardiff 1 9 0 4 2 1 6
2000 Oxford 5 6 2 0 7 3 7
2001 Dublin: TAG in Ireland 4 4 3 5 2 4 7
2002 Manchester 5 5 0 3 2 2 3
2003 Lampeter 2 7 1 2 1 4 9
2004 Glasgow: Tartan TAG 2 5 1 0 2 4 7
2005 Sheffield 5 5 2 2 2 2 7
2006 Exeter 5 7 1 3 5 3 1
2007 York 2 6 1 4 3 5 5

Table 2. Number of all participants (minimum 25) over the entire
period of TAG and their institutions.

No. of
participants 25-50 60-100 105-150

Universities or Bournemouth Birmingham Durham
institutions Edinburgh Bradford Reading
 Exeter Bristol Glasgow
 UCD Cardiff Lampeter
 Leicester
 Liverpool
 Newcastle
 Oxford
 Manchester
 York
 Various heritage
 organisations

No. of
participants 160-200 Over 440

Universities or UCL Cambridge
institutions Southampton
 Sheffield