Performance as Research Working Group 

 Proceedings of the meeting at the IFTR (International Federation for Theatre Research) conference, University of Hyderabad, India 6.-10.7.2015. 

Ethics of Care in Revisiting the Archives of 

Dublin Contemporary Dance Theatre


Emma Meehan


This paper explores a performance as research project to revisit and develop sections from Lunar Parables (1983) choreographed by Sara and Jerry Pearson with Dublin Contemporary Dance Theatre (DCDT). Thirty years after the production, I worked in the studio with the original dancers and company members to revisit sections of this work, to remember its content and context. We also reflected on how past choreographic approaches inform current practices and how the material can also inspire new perspectives, ideas and dance material. This has raised personal difficulties around revisiting their archives, and I draw on Eddy’s (2015, 283) question of ‘what is the legacy to be remembered, and in what form, by whom?’ An ethics of care and responsibility has also emerged within my own role in relation to the legacy of DCDT, aligned with how Roms (2012, 48) ‘reconceive[s] of the archives as a collaborative effort of caring for an artist’s legacy.’ In responding to Kershaw’s (2009, 15) argument for practice-as-research to have a ‘democratically deconstructive and decentering agenda’, I explore the process of working collaboratively with the dancers and choreographers in this project. 


Dublin Contemporary Dance Theatre and the Revisiting Lunar Parables Project

DCDT (1979-1989) were the first state funded contemporary dance company in Ireland. I have described elsewhere the company’s struggles in working within Ireland and the lack of critical attention to their work (2015).  In 2014, I received an Arts Council of Ireland dance bursary award to research and develop a project on revisiting the archives of DCDT, focusing on Lunar Parables (1984). My aims were to recreate sections to reflect on Irish choreographic heritage, to explore the potential to further develop the archival material in new directions, and to reflect on my role as a dramaturge/director of the project as an approach to developing new work from the archival materials. Lunar Parables was choreographed by Sara and Jerry Pearson with Dublin Contemporary Dance Theatre and was toured to various festivals and venues including the Project Arts Centre in Dublin and the Edinburgh Festival. The production combined contemporary dance and the literary texts of W.B. Yeats read by Niall Tóibín, with traditional Irish music by Clannad, Stockton’s Wing and De Danaan and multimedia projections. This was representative of the kind of work produced by the company, crossing disciplines and exploring Ireland’s literary heritage through the medium of contemporary dance, often developed with choreographers from outside of the country to extend the skills and repertoire of the company. 


The original dancers in the work were couple Loretta Yurick and Robert Connor who now run Dance Theatre of Ireland, Joan Davis who is a somatic movement therapist and an independent dance practitioner in Ireland, and Mary Nunan who runs the MA in Contemporary Dance at the University of Limerick as well as working as a dance artist. Having secured some funding and the commitment of each of the artists to work on the project, I devised questions and tasks as a way for the individual artists to delve into their archival materials and start to explore. Each person first re-visited alone five sections from Lunar Parables. The dancers attempted to re-learn these short scores in advance and then the whole group met in the studio to share them, piece together ensemble sections and evolve a response to them from their current perspectives. I worked in the studio as a 'dance dramaturge' with the dancers, while Nunan provided additional support as a mentor. On reflection, her background in the somatic practice of Authentic Movement (with a process of mover-witness exchange) and her meditation practice allowed a very in depth interaction between us which aided in negotiating the complex issues that emerged in the process. I also wanted to try some of the dance material with younger dancers in Ireland who had no previous knowledge of the work. I chose an experimental Irish dance company called Fitzgerald and Stapleton, whose work stems from the Deborah Hay process, to examine how a different dance practice/background could inform and develop the work in new directions. In addition, we consulted with the original choreographer Jerry Pearson via Skype, to investigate the initial aims and style of the work but also his approach in his production Body of Work that incorporates elements from his 45 year dance career. 


Along with studio-based improvisations and tasks that I set, the following questions guided the process: What happens when we revisit past work from a contemporary perspective with changes in aesthetics, practices and priorities? What can reembodying choreographic work tell us about our current practice and can it inform new projects? How do past dance practices inform current styles and approaches? How can choreography be remembered and shared through practice? 2014 also marked the 25 year anniversary of the closing of DCDT due to funding difficulties, and was an important moment to consider both dance legacies and futures in the current economic climate.


Background of Lunar Parables 

The company sought to engage with Irish themes along with embracing international trends in dance, reflecting new ideas of what constituted ‘Irishness’ in an era of travel, tourism, television and international trade in the country. However, Irish identity, texts, characters and stories continued to be important sources of material for their works as pieces that related to the Irish context inevitably were more familiar or accessible for an Irish audience unfamiliar with contemporary dance. During the recession times of the 1980s, it may have been difficult to see the impact of the economic, social and cultural changes in Ireland. At the same time, the leap in attitudes to the body during this period and the impact of international influences, through media and travel, meant that Ireland was at a moment in history when the values of the past and contemporary influences were being negotiated.


As a result, some of DCDT’s works explore the meeting of the contemporary and traditional such as in 1984, when DCDT contributed to the ContempEire festival, a festival of contemporary Irish culture. On DCDT’s contribution to the festival, critic Diana Taplin comments: 

In their second programme for the ContempEire Festival, the Dublin Contemporary Dance Theatre, performing at Powerscourt Townhouse Centre, just possibly touched on this issue of national style with their suite of contemporary Irish folk dances…this suite explores with simplicity and innocence some of the possibilities for Irish folk-inspired contemporary dance, with fertile results.1

The title of the festival ‘ContempEire’, along with DCDT’s contemporary interpretations of traditional dance, suggests that Irish identities had become more malleable than at the beginning of the nation state where ‘Irishness’ was depicted as separate from outside influence. 


Lunar Parables developed some of the materials presented in the ContempEire festival, dealing with the symbols and philosophies of W.B. Yeats, slides of lunar scenes and Celtic designs, along with Irish music. Cross-fertilisation seems to be a theme of the work – traditional reels and jigs exist in their own right but at times crossed with synthesizer sounds, provoking a dark brooding atmosphere. The mixture of contemporary dance with references to traditional Irish dancing, along with Celtic design and geometric patterns in Yeats’ writing, are clearly incorporated into the choreography. Written and spoken (live and recorded) language are combined with dance in layers throughout the production, while projections display text, designs and other imagery related to Yeats’ writing. During the performance, the dancers mix imitations of Irish steps with leaps and twists of the full body, extensive footwork, hand dances that cast shadows, rows of leaning bodies, lifts, rolls, spirals, circled arms, circles in space around each other, crossing arms resonant of Beckett’s Come and Go, ‘luscadh’ partner spins from Irish set dancing, solos, duets and group sequences. At times, there is a sense of the light, upward motion and footwork of traditional Irish dance but the use of sweeping upper body movement and extensive movement through space shows its cross-fertilisation with contemporary dance. However, unlike the Riverdance extravaganza which updated the traditional form by sexualising it, the ladies are dressed in relatively demure three-quarter length orange dresses, with bloomers underneath which are revealed if the skirt raises anywhere above the knee. 


Diana Taplin comments on the piece that ‘there are times when I yearned for more dancing of the intricate-step-and-technical-prowess kind, as I do in many of DCDT’s works. They are inclined to oversell the ‘expressive-pedestrian’ school of movement which does not pull enough out of their capable technique.’2 However, Graham Sennett comments on the programme, including Lunar Parables and two other pieces that ‘they all add up to the best show in Dublin at the moment.’3 The production shows how the company combined Irish literary texts and traditional dance motifs with contemporary dance. There appears to be an uncritical appreciation of Yeats’ writings at times, such as his reference to ‘disembodied powers’ separating body, mind and spirit, and at other times in his discussion of his wife’s automatic writing which he assumes must be the spirit and voice of another man working through her as he is surprised by its power. At the same time, seeing these four significant contemporary dance figures dancing together and the fact that the production characterised the kind of work DCDT produced, stimulated the idea in me to revisit the work. While I had my own interests and perspectives on Lunar Parables, I was curious to understand what information the company members might offer and what they might be interested to develop through practice. 


Process of the PaR project

Working with Robert Connor and Loretta Yurick, I suggested that they revisit the material with the following questions in mind: What memories (physical memories, stories, feelings etc.) appear as you revisit the material? What elements are enjoyable and difficult to revisit in this material and why? Are there aspects of the material that you would do differently, spark new interest, you are surprised by, or that you want to investigate further? Does the approach/style/material link with what you practice today? The duet with Robert and Loretta has a lyrical quality to it, set to Yeats’ writings from various poems about couples. Robert noted that the choreography seemed to focus on the space between the couple. For example, at the start they moved in close proximity with their arms surrounding each other but without touching, which made it appear intimate and sensitive. Robert and Loretta tried to recreate the duet, but Loretta sustained an injury trying to recreate a high lift, so they began to adapt the duet to their current physical capacities and interests. They questioned ideas of love and relationships in the material, contrasting the ‘sweetness’ of the duet with some more ‘messy’ qualities of sexuality and relationship in adapting it. The capacity to reconstruct material thirty years later and methods for adapting for their current bodies became quite an important theme to both of them in their work.


Robert also worked to recreate the dark and brooding solo of The Second Coming based on the poem of the same title by Yeats. The choreography seemed to present the ‘rough beast’ described by Yeats in the poem, exploring the bound energy of the creature through the dancer’s body forming (Celtic) knots and twists alongside quick tempo releases of the limbs that immediately returned to another bound position. A lot of the movement was also close to the ground with deep lunges and rolls. The piece seemed to examine masculinity and sexuality unlike the choreography in the rest of Lunar Parables. Joan Davis recalled that her father was upset by seeing Robert rolling on the floor, because he felt it was undignified position for a man. The piece became a point of reminiscence for the original company members, and after watching Robert’s solo, they started to offer each other feedback, encouragement and direction as the studio-based research progressed. 


Joan Davis and Mary Nunan have worked together in recent years on Davis’ Maya Lila project which explored somatic practices in performance. They each brought this reflective body-mind practice to their explorations. Questions which they explored include: What happens when you revisit ‘embodied archives’ and body memories of Lunar Parables?  Can we find a way of communicating this? Do traces of Lunar Parables remain in your body? How can we fill in the gaps and ‘flesh out the bones’ of video/photographic archives? Using Lunar Parables as a point on the map, can you track your signature approaches, styles, methods, techniques and how have they evolved over your career? Although Davis and Nunan worked individually in preparation, they both developed reflective journals or audio recordings to feed back on the process of exploration, key to somatic approaches. However, they also seemed keen to re-embody the steps of the dance sections as closely as possible in order to confront this material with their bodies today. 


Mary Nunan’s solo based on Yeats’ Crazy Jane poems shows an exuberant and defiant character dancing to Irish jigs. It begins with Crazy Jane Talks with the Bishop and as a traditional jig starts up, Nunan dances with excited leaps, skips, arms waves, circular turns, at the end of which she stands with arms outstretched as if finishing a display of prowess. She repeats similar signatures of her dance of joy and madness to different Crazy Jane poems, suggesting that she would be same no matter who she meets. Her joyful exuberance is finalised in Crazy Jane on God when she dances again in circular spirals through rapid footwork, with her arms forming another circle, around and around until she dances off the stage and the lights go down. Initially, Nunan felt uneasy about watching her performance as a dancer thirty years ago. Watching the video, for her, revealed her ‘half wild, half trained’ quality as a young dancer and the current resources she could use to explore the character of Crazy Jane. Nunan became deeply invested not only in recreating the movement but using her current capacity as a dancer to make the movement more efficient, as well as finding ways to re-inhabit the wildness of the character. She also taught me parts of the dance to witness my background having an impact on the material and how ‘wildness’ of the material could be brought out by different artists. The multiplicity of past and present selves through the archive as well as the possibility of other performers inhabiting Crazy Jane became a theme of discussion. 


Davis, on the other hand, struggled to relate to the poem and choreographic material of the Crazed Moon. In the past, she recalled being deeply connected to the themes of child bearing and rearing in the poem but could not associate with the ‘drama’ of it now. In the piece, Yurick, Nunan and Connor sit in a circle on the stage with three balls which seem to serve two different functions – one to beat out the rhythm, cycles and repetitiousness of nature, time and life; the other to physically to represent the orbit of the moon. As Davis paces in a circle, the dancers bounce the balls in synchronised rhythm. When Davis pauses, there is a distinct break in the sound as the bouncing stops and the balls are suspended in the air by the dancers and slowly rotated in a circle. As the scene progresses, her whole body sways in spirals as the balls circle in the air, at times she bends her knees into deep pliés and at one point she is curled prostrate on the floor. As a viewer, it also evoked for me pagan rituals and mysticism, with the building repetition of beating sounds, the circular motion and references to the moon. One the one hand, Davis could see that her current work on mysticism and performing in nature could connect with this idea of the cycles of the moon, however when walking through the motions of the piece she felt disconnected. Although she found her preparatory research into her own personal history as a dancer and reuniting with the group therapeutic, she couldn’t find a way to bring her current practice in contact with the past material.


Finally, the section with all four dancers which draws on Celtic design patterns revealed the relationships between dancers, and their ways of working. Robert and Mary often prompted the re-learning of the dance, with each person inputting and helping others to learn difficult parts by demonstrating, singing, and creating names for sections to call out as they ran through the piece (such as ‘arm of torture’, ‘ballet arms’ etc.) What really struck me about working on this piece was the process of reconstructing which revealed a company dynamic and ways of working. However, I was also aware that this may have altered across time, with each person perhaps having found new ways of relating and asserting their position within the group.


Through a Skype connection, Jerry Pearson answered the dancers’ questions and the group discussed Jerry’s capacity to draw out each person’s abilities and to inspire people to develop movement materials. It felt awkward that he was not in the room, which was primarily because the funding grant was not large enough to allow for an international collaborator. With Jerry’s absence, I felt uncomfortable in my own role because I did not want to become the choreographer, but wanted to guide the questions and explorations of the dancers. I also wanted to focus on the material primarily as a way to revisit the work of the company and reflect on it, rather than reconstructing the work. I had an idea of developing an installation /performance which explored the embodied archives of the company and I wanted to allow the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of this unfold in the process of revisiting the materials. In this way, I often felt I was offering an uncertain pathway, which I feared was frustrating for the dancers. 


In revisiting Lunar Parables, my role as ‘dance dramaturge’ was complex as a guide, fellow traveller, organiser, facilitator, mediator, and so on. I had instigated the project and gained the funding, assigned the tasks and organised the project. However, the material to be explored had been created by Pearson and the group – I had much less knowledge of it than them and felt at times unsure how to participate. This meant that when the dancers were working practically in the studio, they were often guided largely by their own interests as artists without much intervention by me as I observed their process. Graham (2013) who has worked collaboratively with dance groups as a dramaturge notes that ‘Through listening, reflecting, questioning, dialogic skills and suggestion, the dramaturge can continue to travel but also remember where [the dance artists] have come from.’ Working with the archive, I was finding trails and connections between past and present to guide the development of the work. However, my role could not clearly be described as dramaturgy and I searched for other ways to consider the practice. Simon Ellis describes his choreographic role as a ‘stewardship’ of the materials of performance, with the choreographer participating as one of the many contributors in making the form of performance over time (2015, 95). I worked as ‘pathfinder’ of the overarching project with many contributors, which including both involvement and standing back – a collaboration and development with a groups of practitioners and researchers. 


I was also interested to work with Fitzgerald and Stapleton who had never heard of DCDT although they know the original members separately as established figures in the field. For them, resonances included the invisibility of dance artists, funding issues, gender and the body in Irish culture and so on. I brought Fitzgerald and Stapleton into the studio with the original company members for a fruitful discussion of what visiting the DCDT archives meant for them. We shared the performance score developed by Fitzgerald and Stapleton drawing from the poetry in Lunar Parables and Deborah Hay’s process. However, the DCDT company members did not seem to easily relate to this as it was very far from the original dance material. In a sense, the embodied archive and context of working alongside the original dancers was missing, so this was something to consider if I was to invite other dancers to explore the DCDT archive towards the making of new work. As the coordinator of the project, I felt that consultation for the next stages would be necessary not only to see how I might be interested to develop the project, but also to consider what might be of value to the original company members.


Archive and Performance

My interest in the DCDT archive came from writing my doctoral research about Joan Davis’ somatic-informed performances called Maya Lila. I uncovered information about DCDT, which she had founded in the late 1970s, and its impact on the current dance landscape, although very little has been written about their work. Much later, Yurick informed me that she had videos of the company’s work so I spent time watching these. By this time, I had begun work at the Centre for Dance Research at Coventry University where Sarah Whatley had led the Siobhan Davies Replay project that created a digital dance archive of Davies’ work. This had become a resource for Siobhan Davies to reconsider the meaning of her archive today, including creating a gallery performance called Table of Contents that drew on several of her past works. The capacity to digitise and share archival materials has become increasingly possible through advancements in technology, perhaps spurring a generation of practitioners who can easily create and access their archives to reflect on them through practice. Whatley (2015, 83) notes that ‘more recently there has been a much greater interest from dance artists in re-enactments via the understanding of the body as archive’ which is relevant to my work in the studio with the dancers. She goes on to discuss André Lepecki’s concern with this contemporary ‘will to archive’, with his theory that ‘one re-enacts not to fix a work in its singular (originating) possibilization but to unlock, release, and actualize a work’s many (virtual) com- and incompossibilities, which the originating instantiation of the work kept in reserve, virtually’ (Lepecki, 2010, 31). This provokes ideas about archives as reusable resources rather than fixed and final repositories of the past. I became interested in how this idea might be applied to the DCDT archives as sources for uncovering new possibilities rather than preserving a heritage.


Key to my project was Schneider’s (2011, 100) idea that ‘the place of residue is arguably the flesh in a network of body-to-body transmission of affect and enactment – evidence, across generations, of impact’. The body-mind of the practitioner as an archive, with residues and remains informed my exploration of the archives through practice – revealing conflicting or surprising memories, different ways of accessing dance materials and relationships to the production, personal and contextual information, a deep understanding and valuing of the original performance material and ideas, and a place to bring forward the new experiences reaped in the process. The archive was conceived of in this project as open and unfinished, contacting practices of today, and offering opportunities for reflecting on past legacies. This led to the production of new practical and thought experiments– but also an overwhelming amount of materials that can never be fully explored and will remain for future researchers and practitioners.


Martha Eddy (2015, 283), writing about legacies of somatic practices, asks ‘What is our legacy? What is our responsibility to keep the specific values that emerge from shared practice alive? How much do we move on to new language and perspectives as key thinkers/movers/influencers of our lives die?’ However, the practitioners of DCDT are very much alive and continuing to practice, and questions remained about what was of value to revisit, explore, let go of, and so on. Rather than seeking defining narratives of contemporary dance Ireland to preserve their place in history, I became interested in the diverging perspectives and approaches of the company members as past and present practices meet, and how the process offered insight into how relationships and collaborations inform practices and networks that permeate and disperse in Irish dance culture. In others words, as Roms (2012, 36) notes, I am interested in ‘how those remains speak of performance as an artistic project that is sustained over a body of work, sometimes over the entire lifespan of an artist.’ Although I was focussing on one performance work as a starting point, this led to an inquiry about tracing personal and career histories, relationships between members, the current practices of each member and their place/displacement within the current dance scene.


I also became aware as a researcher with access to the company’s archives that I felt some sense of responsibility in finding a way to facilitate an understanding of the archives which was of value to the dancers. Each of the dancers had issues with how to deal with the archives such as feelings of discomfort about past work and skills, feelings of disconnection from past materials and concerns of being revealed in public and online. In particular, the documentation of the project through video and audio recording brought up fears of how this information would be edited and shared, who would see it and what control the artists would have over their representation. This is interesting considering that the project explored the documentation of DCDTs work which had not been given much critical attention since its performance. However, in a digital age, the capacity for materials to be shared online rapidly, circulated without the author’s consent or the original context, was worrying to the artists. In this way, this archival project explored what Roms describes as ‘collaborative practices of care’ (2012, 48). She notes the challenges of such work: ‘The many layers of emotional investment, expectations, and a sense of obligation in return for a generous sharing of time, materials and trust are often sensitive to negotiate and can lead to conflict where opinions about the work and its legacies differ’ (2012, 47). The need for listening, arguing perspectives and negotiating temporary resolutions became apparent in issues such as conflict over documentation consent forms, and the freedom to explore the archives in differing ways. At the same time, these issues gave me a deeper understanding of them as a company and how they might work together now in the development of this dance project in the future.


Irish dance artist and scholar Jenny Roche (2011, 8) notes that ‘the dancer and choreographer refer, consciously and unconsciously, to their embodied past… The moving identity holds traces of past embodiments that are also available to the dancer to be re-embodied again.’ In a sense, this is what I was tracing in watching the dancers revisit their past material. While acknowledging the value of the establishment of the National Dance Archive in Limerick, Roche (2011, 9) addresses the issue that archives offer valuable information, but ignore the expert knowledge in the ‘narratives held by the dancers who embodied the work.’ Working with the original dance company members has allowed me in to understand the process of creation as much as the final piece, the cultural conditions in which the work was made, and values the expert contribution of the dance artists. Roche (2011, 10) comments that: 

‘The new National Dance Archive of Ireland represents an opportunity to ‘flesh out’ the body of Irish dance thus far. Although much will inevitably be lost when gathering for the archive, it is worth asking how we might catch the often unnoticed moments, memories and embodied experiences that give identity and add layers of meaning to the work itself.’

Not only are we exploring the archives for the information they offer, but we are examining how embodied response unfolds layers of meaning which invigorate the meanings left behind by a body of work. 


Reflecting on ideas of the much debated ‘ephemeral’ qualities of dance, Whatley (2015, 97) also notes that 

‘Contemporary dance’ carries a weight of responsibility to the present day in its labeling, arguably negating a relationship to and with dance’s history so tends towards the need for dance to continually reinvent itself with each new generation of artists/artist practices, without the benefit of learning from and being fed by the past.Without a tangible history that is brought to bear on present day practices, ‘contemporary dance’ is contingent on a continual ‘nowness’, having no reference to the past, or duty to acknowledge or ‘speak back’ to the past.

Certainly in Ireland, a lack of attention, time and resources to reflect on the past work has meant that each new generation of dance artists feels as though they are reinventing the wheel, and the much quoted culture of ‘loss and recovery’ (Seaver 2006, 36-37) in contemporary dance continues to ring true in the recognition and reconsideration of dance heritage in the country.  The project of revisiting DCDT’s archive, to me, could potentially invite us to consider where we came from, where we are now, and make connections across forms and artists – tracing our history, presents, and futures. I am interested in the multiple experiences and potentials of these DCDT archives rather than creating a ‘truth’ about our contemporary dance heritage. I am inspired by Reason’s (2003, 87) proposition to ‘develop a concept of the live performance archive that embraces the transformative conditions of both memory and archive’. As archives live through bodies and memories, and shift in audience and performer perception, the potential of the archive to continually transform and inform through bodies of the performers offers opportunities to examine a living body of work or ‘live archive’. 


Video documentation of Revisiting Lunar Parables: 

Taplin, “Reshaping Folk Rhythms”, The Sunday Tribune, October 14, 1984.




Taplin, “Multi-Media Harmony”, The Sunday Tribune, December 30, 1984.    

Sennett, “Magic in the Project”, Evening Press, March 20, 1985.



Eddy, Martha (2015) ‘Early Trends: Where Soma and Dance Began to Meet – Keeping the Meeting Alive’, in Sarah Whatley, Natalie Garrett Brown and Kirsty Alexander (eds) Attending to Movement: Somatic perspectives on living in this world. Axminister: Triarchy Press.

Ellis, Simon (2015). ‘Recovery: Jealousy and Transmission’. Paper presented at Centre for Dance Research, Coventry University and published in Performance Research 20:6, 95-100.

Graham, Fiona (2013) ‘A Nomadic Practice: The work of the dramaturge in performance development’. Paper submitted to the Performance as Research Working Group.

Kershaw, Baz (2009) in Allegue et al. (eds) Practice-as-Research in Performance and Screen. Palgrave Macmillan

Lepecki, André (2010). The Body as Archive: Will to Reenact and the Afterlives of Dances’ Dance Theatre Journal 42: 2. 

Meehan, Emma (2015). ‘Dublin Contemporary Dance Theatre: 

Body, Language and Fleshing Out the Bones of Irish Cultural Heritage’. Cheryl Stock (ed) Contemporising the past: Envisaging the future, World Dance Alliance.

Reason, Matthew (2003) ‘Archive or Memory? The Detritus of Live Performance’ New Theatre Quarterly,19:1 

Roms, Heike (2012) ‘Archiving Legacies: Who Cares for Performance Remains?’, in Gunhild Borgreen and Rune Gade (eds) Performing Archives/ Archives of Performance, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press; University of Copenhagen.

Schneider, Rebecca (2011). Performing Remains: Art and War in Times of Theatrical Reenactment. London and New York: Routledge.

Seaver, M. (2006). ‘Loss and recovery’. Irish Theatre Magazine, 6, (27), 36-38.

Whatley, Sarah (2015) ‘Materiality, immateriality and the dancing body; the challenge of the inter in the preservation of intangible cultural heritage’ in Causey, Meehan and O’Dwyer (eds) The Performing Subject in the Space of Technology: Through the Virtual Towards the Real. Basingstoke: Palgrave