gems, glyptic, engraved gems, agate, cameo, intaglio, Adolf Furtwängler

Knowledge production in archaeology and elsewhere in academia is naturally dependent on the interaction between actors who connect, cluster and collaborate on fieldwork or other projects, and exchange information or test out new discoveries and ideas with colleagues within the various institutional and informal structures of the discipline such as university departments, professional societies, museums, congresses, workshops, journals, networks, etc. The strong social nature of these creative processes has long been acknowledged and applies to the whole field, including its so-called 'instrumental' actors. We all build on the achievements of others in our field and seek contact and exchange with colleagues working on similar material. Most of us are grateful for the opportunity to meet face to face, and we often stress the importance of collegiality and interaction for our own professional development. But not all of us are socially skilled; quite a few dread the pressure that the social arenas of the discipline generate and reproduce, while others are viewed as 'toxic' controversialists creating unwanted friction within the community. Tension and friction are constant presences, and perfectly legitimate professional disagreements that constitute a vital part of any healthy scientific or scholarly process can easily deteriorate into open conflict, even lifelong feuds, of a more personal kind that risk destabilising the dynamics of these institutional and informal structures, disrupting communication channels and forcing actors to rethink their positions and interactional modes and strategies. Much has been said about collegiality and the benefits of archaeologists coming together, but structural and interpersonal friction or conflict within the community, whether potentially constructive or mainly counterproductive, and the various effects on the dynamic processes of knowledge production and dissemination constitute equally important aspects that have been less studied. The environments in which we operate inform, stimulate, and restrict our work, speech, and actions, regardless of whether they are perceived as mostly positive or negative in character (Montuori and Purser, 1995: 83; Livingstone, 2003; Bourdieu, 2004). Conflicts and disputes potentially impinge on where, why, and how research is planned, conducted, presented, and received. Based on a fairly well-documented but little studied case from the formative period in the modern history of Classical archaeology, this chapter explores how dynamic scholarly processes can be affected when a so-called ‘key actor’ in the community feels excluded, disrupts, or withdraws from certain social aspects of the profession while at the same time struggling to maintain, even reinforce, his (in this case) shifting positions and strategic moves within its overlapping networks and clusters.