Category Archives: Discussion Topics

Summaries of discussion themes for ANTH 331. Posts are written by weekly Seminar Discussants and examine topical and thematic issues presenting in course readings.

Archaeology and Social Studies Education: My Final Project

Posted on by
Reply

This course focused in part on presentation of archaeology to the public, both how and why. I believe that one of the strongest benefits that the discipline of archaeology can provide to the public is through education. Archaeology makes history tangible and local, so students who learn history through archaeology are learning in a way that makes history personally relevant to them.

I chose to create a classroom unit based on this belief. My project consists of five lessons created with fourth graders from my hometown of Weston, CT in mind. The lessons teach the history of Native Americans in the Connecticut area from the first inhabitants of the area 10,000 years ago to the colonial period alongside lessons in archaeological methods. Though students would by no means gain a complete knowledge of either archaeology or American Indian history and culture from this unit, the unit was created with the goal of having each topic reinforce the other, with the result that students are interested in retaining the information they learn and continuing to learn on their own.

One of the highlights of the unit I have created is the final lesson, a mock excavation in which students form groups to carefully excavate artificial plots of land, then record data about artifacts, ecofacts, and environmental conditions, and finally build a mini-museum. As a hands-on experience, the excavation should capture students’ attention and motivate them to carefully consider what they have learned. The mock excavation, with its focus on data recording and collaboration with teammates and stakeholders, also works to eliminate stereotypes and misconceptions the general public may have about archaeology.

 

All contributors to this blog are authorized to view the unit guide and the accompanying PowerPoint presentation, both stored on Vspace. Anyone else interested in seeing the project can contact me at caclevenger@vassar.edu for permission.

Archaeology in the Classroom

Posted on by
Reply

This week we talked about one of the most effective ways to get knowledge of archaeology out to the public: teaching it in classrooms. The focus was on grades K-12, though we talked a little about college courses in archaeology as well. Of the many case studies we read, one of the most emphasized ways to introduce archaeology to students was to find ways to make archaeology work for teachers. In other words, since teachers have to teach their students a specific set of topics and skills in order to meet state requirements, archaeologists should work with teachers to figure out how archaeology can be used to teach things that are required. Archaeology, being quite interdisciplinary in the real world, can be used to teach map-reading, math skills, the scientific method, history, music, and values, such as respecting different cultures.

The articles we read also offered tips for making archaeology really stick in students’ minds. Hands-on activities were a common theme. Whether in the classroom, at an archaeology event, or in a museum setting, crafts like pottery making and activities like throwing atl-atls were very popular. If these activities are accompanied by a lecture, question and answer session, or a handout with background information, they can be more than just entertainment for kids. Students have different learning styles, and receiving and interacting with information using different sensory modalities can lead to improved information retention for all. Another tip for making an effective archaeology presentation is to learn about the people in your audience beforehand, and craft the presentation with their ages, skill levels, and interests in mind. Finally, many of the authors we read could not emphasize enough the importance of taking advantage of the expertise of any educators you are working with, rather than just treating them as another person to be educated. They likely have more teaching experience than you might, and can help your archaeology presentation be as effective as possible. However, it is very important to communicate with your teacher-collaborators when crafting an archaeology presentation. Often, your goals as an archaeologist (to gain support for archaeology, to teach stewardship) may be different from the teacher’s goals (entertain the kids, maintain discipline, teach a variety of subjects and skills). Make sure that this is something that you discuss in the planning stage so that everyone benefits from bringing archaeology into the classroom.

Discussion Topic: Archaeology as Social Justice

Posted on by
Reply

The topic of my discussion was “Archaeology as Social Justice.”  This week, we dealt with defining some more theoretical terms relevant to the idea of community and public archaeology.  Some other goals of this week’s discussion were to answer questions like How can we address issues of class using archaeology?  What is the difference between critical archaeology and post-processual archaeology?  For critical theory, we looked to Randall McGuire, a professor of Anthropology and archaeologist who received his PhD at the University of Arizona in 1982.  Critical theory stems from consumerism: fed products that ultimately perpetuate class structure.  In critical theory, class relations are reorganized by ideology.  An example of this dominant ideology is meritocracy, which is the idea that people start on the same playing field and succeed by solely by working hard.  Ultimately, the goal is to bring these ideologies to light so that people can recognize and understand them.

Processual archaeology is essentially deductive positivist theory, which adopts a strict way of performing scientific study.  The idea here is to create studies that are replicable with refutable or non-refutable hypotheses.  Processual archaeology seeks to explain why societies are more complex than others.  Post-processualism emerges against processual archaeology, coming out of post-structural thought.  Post-processualism is kind of like an umbrella of techniques against processualism, including meaning, critique, and transformation.  The critique aspect of post-processualism deals with the researcher knowing his or her biases and understanding context.  Transformation of post-processualism deals with creating a new practice.

We talked a little bit about feminist literature and research relating to archaeology, which largely deals with the intersecting of categories of experience with each other and the relationships among domination, power, and balance.  Marxist archaeology puts class above other categories of experience.  Indigenous archaeology intersects with some of the feminist perspective but asks the question, how do these result in colonization?  Ultimately it is important to understand how we create and use knowledge.  In order to transform archaeology, we must understand how we create knowledge.

Democratizing Heritage: New Media

Posted on by
Reply

This week our discussion centered on the use of visual and new media in public archaeology.  This blog already provides examples of a wide range of alternative tools for communicating archaeology: blogs, digital narratives created through Voicethread, Youtube videos, and online museum exhibits to name a few. What possibilities do media outside of the traditional academic categories open for doing public archaeology? What challenges to alternative media present?

General consensus seems to be that new media are a powerful tool for communicating with the public- more compelling and interesting than traditional texts. New media are more accessible both to readers, who have the ability to give direct feedback, and to authors, who can be published online without much of the gatekeeping of print.

Chip Colwel-Chanthaphonh saw the potential in an online archaeology exhibit to reach a wide audience while also providing not just information, but an experience that steeped the viewer in culture through music, image, video, text and art. For him, “alternative” archaeology is best matched with alternative media. Ruth Van Dyke explores other possibilities in new media, including experimental video that challenges the conventional codes used in archaeology documentaries, hyperlinked web sites that force the viewer to navigate his or her own course.

Though critical movements in archaeology have led to a deeper self-consciousness in the producers of archaeological knowledge when writing texts, Sara Perry sees a lack of critical examination in the use of images. She uses the example of visualizations used for the peopling of areas as a troubling example in which contemporary and objectivizing conceptions are projected on the past and legitimated through the unquestioned mode of image.  She suggests remediating such images to force the viewer to engage with them as constructed media rather than as transparent depictions of reality. Van Dyke also notes the power images, in particular photographs, have to legitimate themselves; a picture says, “I was there”. She suggests using this power to drive new interpretations that challenge present accepted interpretations.

 

 

 

The texts mentioned here focus on how new media can be and has been used to communicate archaeology, but only in one direction, from the archaeologist to the non-archaeological public. Could video, interactive programming, or other non-traditional forms  ever be considered appropriate for communication strictly within academic circles?

 

 

 

Museums and Communities

Posted on by
Reply

This week our discussion focused on the relationship between Museums and their communities, addressing the key themes of the readings, minority criticisms of the museum, the changes and different approaches that have arisen from their demands, including the founding of community and tribal museums, and the issues that must still be addressed in the future.

The most important idea that ran throughout the readings this week was the desire of native communities to take control of the ownership and representation of their heritage, and to bring the idea of ownership to the general public’s attention. While Clifford describes how, at the Kwagiulth Museum and Cultural Centre, each label contains the phrase ‘owned by’ followed by an individual’s name, Atalay criticizes the NMAI’s exhibition for failing to mention the issues of “cultural and intellectual property rights” and give viewers the opportunity to engage with issues such as “who has the right to control, utilize and profit from Indigenous knowledge, symbols [and] images” (Atalay, 608). These examples, however raised the tricky questions of the ownership and repatriation of rare and precious artifacts. Should scholars and museums give back ownership of objects that they have the means to better preserve for the future, or objects that, through analysis, have the possibility to provide valuable information? Another common theme was the importance of collaboration with Native communities at every stage of the process, in order to create exhibits that counter stereotypes and are relevant and beneficial to the community’s needs. The readings also discuss the importance of highlighting contemporary issues facing indigenous communities, in order to show the public that these are not static, unchanged cultures, but active ones that are both producing new things in art and culture and facing the issue of survival.

In order to fully understand the importance of museum representation, and the criticisms of museums that arose to fight for representation, one must realize the power of the museum as an instrument of civil society. Karp discusses the power a museum has to construct knowledge, provide the public with a certain set of cultural values and define the ideal citizen, which easily excludes groups who do not fit that image. With the catalyst of the civil rights movement, minority groups began to fight for better representation, arguing that museums had an all white staff, served a cultural elite and followed a Western-based knowledge approach that excluded minority perspectives and stories.

As minority groups began to voice these ideas through picketing, demonstration, establishing coalitions, and even vandalism, museums began to focus on their responsibility to their communities. Changes began to occur in subject matter, the exhibition planning process and the variety of activities museums offered. Museums established advisory boards, complied of individuals from the cultural groups they are representing, to aid and approve exhibitions, and have often turned them into permanent consultative positions. One of the most challenging questions of our discussion, however, was if this advisory involvement is enough, or if these boards are merely token positions. While this is definitely a good step, I think that there is more that can be done, in both changing the structure of the museum, and in educating and providing opportunities in the museum field for minority students. While there has been an increased interest in visitor feedback, with the installation of focus groups and comment books, and community outreach and education, with the Philadelphia Museum of Art helping provide ten Latino students with paid internships in the museum field, and many other museums, especially those in urban areas stressing the importance of the “education and vocational training of young people,” and creating mentor-ship programs for students (Simpson), still more can be done.

Another major issue we discussed is how museums address controversial issues. How far does one go in exposing the truth in an exhibition? Atalay’s major criticism of the NMAI is that they did not go far enough in the presentations of the guns and bibles, which were instruments of oppression and horror. Atalay claims that “there can be no stories of survivance without an understanding of the extreme struggle and survival in the face of horrific circumstance,” arguing that the full gory context must be provided in order for viewers to fully understand Native American survivance (Atalay, 610). In this decision of how revolutionary to make an exhibition, however, the curators hope to be offend as little of their audience as possible. Simpson states that the curator tread[s] a tightrope between offending one sector of the community or another: for no matter how warranted a revisionist approach may be, it almost certainly cannot fail to offend those who prefer the nostalgia and glories of heroic myths to the realities of the past,” highlighting how even within one cultural group, it is very difficult to make everyone happy, much less dealing with an entire diverse public. Thus controversy often arises when a museum challenges a popular belief or national ideology, or when there is a misinterpretation of the exhibit’s mission. Simpson believes such issues can can be avoided by clearly stating one’s objectives, close collaboration with native communities, creating open places for discussion, and using vandalism as a starting point for dialog and bringing difficult issues to the public’s attention.

Finally, we discussed the development of community and tribal museums as spaces for communities to take control of the representation of their cultures, to house community activities and to promote their culture. In contrast with cosmopolitan, majority museums, tribal museums challenge the idea of a unified, linear national history, focusing instead on the importance of family relationships and local narratives. Even these community spaces, however, may not be as open as they seem, as certain communities may be given preference over others, and exhibits may not be rotated as often as they proclaim.

Thus, while great strides have been by museums to connect to their public, there are still many issues they must address in the future, including indigenous ownership, minority involvement in the planning process, establishing long term relationships with diverse communities, dismantling their Eurocentric approach, including multiple perspectives, and daring to expose the truth of the colonial past.