Tag Archives: public archaeology

Curio-Antiquing and Archaeology

Posted on by
Reply

This afternoon, I decided to indulge in a little noontime respite by settling down with a tuna fish sandwich and some cable TV. In negotiating between 30 Rock and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, I eventually ended up with Oddities, the third member of the Teddy’s Favorite Shows Triumvirate. This show also provides an uncanny manifestation of a mainstream archeology (note the website’s dappled display of biological anthropology)– that is, antiquing– as an entertainingly ruthless pursuit of historical curios.

Oddities details the exploits of a Brooklyn antique shop that draws in all sorts of wild and crazy products and people. Their wares range from sideshow props to quack medical devices to bits of anatomy (real or fabricated). The proprietors make their living by hunting out or discovering new items, not excavating items from their original geological context as an archaeologist might, but certainly unearthing items from the various nooks and crannies of society itself as the items are usually taken private collectors or from collections being decommissioned by museums. This form of alternative salvage archaeology (all too appropriately Brooklyn) leads the Oddities cast to some rather unique items accrued for somewhat soulless business.

In Season 3’s “The Power of A Grey Skull”, two of the cast members are asked to find an eye-catching piece for a local tattoo parlor. They eventually come upon a Peruvian elongated skull; take a look at how they handle the acquisition in this two-minute clip that refuses to be embedded in WordPress. Do you agree with the handlers’ assessments? What do you make of the gentleman who is selling the skull? What does each party hope to gain from the transaction?

In another episode, the proprietors are contacted by a seller who wishes to sell a mummified hand. They have to determine a) if it is authentic, and b) if they can sell it. How does their procedure differ from an archaeologist’s (particularly in terms of motivation)?

Once they determine the item is authentic, they have to go through their attorney to determine if they can legally sell it (if I remember correctly, they could not legally sell a form of human remains whose value exceeded $5000.) Do you think these items should be allowed to be collected/displayed/traded out if they don’t meet the criteria to be considered “valued” artifacts? Where do our morals stand on such issues, as scientists, and as part of the public ourselves? Isn’t a delight in rare and mysterious things from ages past the very reason we went into archaeology to begin with? Who are we to take an element of that away from the public, especially if they cannot afford to accredit themselves simply to partake in a dig, and especially if they items they are collecting are essentially museum scrap?

The Hero’s Excavation: The Mythopoetic Archaeologist in Popular Culture

Posted on by
Reply

After reading my colleagues’ discussions of Indiana Jones and the Titanic, I thought it might be appropriate to write about the romance of archaeology in popular culture, particularly in regard to notions of heroism:

Howard Carter inspecting King Tut with an unnamed colleague (Source: Teresa Wilde's Demon of the Week)

Like Indiana Jones, many of the most famous archaeological sites are characterized by a monolithic researcher, converting the archaeologist as a singular researcher into an archetype, a singularity. Tutankhamun’s tomb had Howard Carter; Olduvai Gorge had the Leakys; and Egyptology (until the Mubarak debacle, at least) had Zahi Hawass. The archaeologist as archetype is considered the supreme authority in their area of expertise, which permits them the authorship to unveil treasures and past events (another equally valuable of capital, one might argue) as yet another flourish to their legacy. We have already discussed the rhetoric of “discovery”, “seeking out”, “treasure-hunting”, and “revealing”, and I think it is telling that a single figure is often set at the head of these efforts. Recalling classical anthropology’s embedded militancy metaphors, the archaeologist becomes analogous to a war hero, or even a crusader, preserving and protecting and elevating a sacred property so that it does not fall victim to the ravages (or “savages”) of time.

We have discussed the difficulty of simply supplanting these dominant metaphors with our own “more appropriate” tropes; what sort of altered hero narrative do you think would be more befitting community archaeology (a priest, spreading a doctrine for the benefit of their parish to inspire them to good works?), or public archaeology (a wandering bard, like Homer or Johnny Appleseed?), or any other archaeological variants we have studied?  Do we need a hero narrative at all– or rather, why do you think it is there in the first place?

Alternatively, if you search "archaeologist" in Google Images, the results are-- more often than not-- a far cry from "heroic". (Source: How Stuff Works)

 

Image sources:

Howard Carter and an unnamed colleague. Teresa Wilde’s Demon of the Week Blog.

Alternatively, if you search… How Stuff Works.

 

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.

Review: NPS Archaeology Exhibit

Posted on by
Reply

The National Park Service’s Archaeology Program hosts a series of online archaeology exhibits, one of which is called The Earliest Americans.The Exhibit's Home Screen. The exhibit’s home screen has a sidebar with a list of subheadings containing links- the first two of which focus on archaeologists and archaeology as a discipline.  These hypermediate the exhibit as constructed, as the bearer of praxis and not just pure information. According to the first of these subheadings, the exhibit was inspired by a Harris poll that assessed the American public’s understanding of archaeology and attempts to move the public’s conception of archaeology away from archaeology and toward an understanding of publicly funded archaeology. The second subheading acknowledges past misrepresentations of early inhabitants of America and discusses the nomination of new National Historic landmarks. Three more subheadings divide the nation into the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast. These subheadings begin with a migratory narrative of the prehistoric people in the area then have further panels focusing on archaeological and geological conclusions about the area and artifacts.

Each subheading can be converted into a Word document, which betrays the exhibitors’ conception of the exhibit as closer to a book than a museum experience- though links allow the audience to explore under self-direction, there is no video or interactive programming, so text is the dominant medium.

The exhibit is as much about archaeology as it is about early American inhabitants. Photos of archaeologists at work juxtaposed with artist’s interpretations of prehistoric scenes encourage the audience to engage with the text as a product.  Links allow the interested reader to engage deeper with the scholars by reading the study on which it was based. However, this reflexive attempt is mitigated by the fact that the exhibit is almost entirely lacking a female perspective: though one female archaeologist is portrayed in a photograph, the illustrations show only male figures and the narratives are either male-centered or genderless.