Re:  Archaeology, and "the truth"

One tenet of post-processual archaeology has been to present archaeology
as a constructor of narratives about the past, based in a more complete
understanding of the past that includes evidence and people either
ignored by written history, unavailable to historians, unrecorded, or
existing from a time "before" history (written documents which have
survived and which can be read).  In historical archaeology in the US,
we have seen the vast utility of this approach, especially as it has
opened up study of groups of Wolf's "people without history," such as
Africans enslaved on plantations, immigrants, members of the working
class, women, children and many others.  This is an approach of central
use to archaeology.

Yet, at much the same time, we have also seen a similar approach in
construction of narratives be used as part of a system of government.
The United States invaded Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction,
failing that, to create democracy, failing that--perhaps the next
narrative has yet to be written.  We've seen how well faith-based levees
work in New Orleans, and we've seen government scramble to come up with
a narrative that will explain away its failings at all levels, and let
politicians off the hook.  Part of this is the normal human process of
trying to comprehend great misfortune as a means to mitigate and survive
it, and part of this process has been suborned by incompetents who wish
to escape blame for great destruction, a destruction which, to date,
includes at least two cultural treasures of world-wide significance, the
archaeological heritage of Iraq, and the city of New Orleans.

In his recent book "Collapse," Jared Diamond stated that one of the
advantages present societies have, over the past societies whose ends or
complete transformations he discusses, is that we have archaeologists,
among others, who can point out past mistakes, try to define
similarities with present conditions, and offer guidance toward
avoidance of similar fates.  So, some questions:

Do we do this through creating alternate narratives to those advanced by
failed or failing governments, or do we do this by pointing out the
truth?  Can, or should, we present an alternate narrative AS the truth?

Can we arrive at, and have people accept, difficult truths, with,
perhaps, much less in the way of resources and talent than is available
to our potential opponents (e.g. Karl Rove)?

Can we do this when the popular perception of our profession (as
discussed here) is that we are treasure hunters who swing through the
trees looking for loot, and fighting bad guys?

Can we determine the truth, at all, and is this something that
archaeology should pursue?

I think this is something we should discuss, and I think the stakes are
much, much higher than they were just a few years ago.

D. Babson.


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 11:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: da vinci code & archaeology

I recently received a Laura Croft poster from my no-longer-a-teenager
son, who no longer wanted a photo of a scantily-clad Angelina on his
wall (figure that out).  What I'm not clear about is how her (fictional)
father and mentor got so bloody rich as an archaeologist.  Obviously, he
wasn't working for the State of New Mexico . . .
This past summer I met an archaeologist, from a couple of generations
back, who told me that he acquired the first of his "collection" of
prehistoric pottery in lieu of a paycheck when still a relative
youngster in the profession.  I wasn't sure then -- or now -- how to
respond; I think I just nodded my head.  Now, if he has told "civilians"
out there about this experience (and I certainly don't know that he
has), those civilians are buoyed in the notion that archaeology is about
the "stuff."
Haven't we all met more folks than we care to think about who, upon
learning that we are archaeologists, remark something like, "I always
thought that was so interesting," and "I almost majored in that in
college"?  Where did that interest collapse for them?  Probably at about
the point where they realized, if only in a dim and cloudy sense, that
they were more likely to do lithic analysis to assess patterns of
mobility (or record colors of bottle glass while looking for patterns of
access and consumption) than fight Nazis over the Ark of the Covenant,
or have co-eds write "I love you" on their eyelids.
Which probably makes all of us who stayed on as anthro majors . . . a
whole profession of cheap dates.
 
 
Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
Office of Archaeological Studies
P.O. Box 2087
Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
tel: 505.827.6343
fax: 505.827.3904
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
 

________________________________

From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of Daniel B. Davis
Sent: Fri 9/23/2005 7:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: da vinci code & archaeology



Unless there is a secret government team searching for the Ark of the
Covenant (don't look in Ethiopia!), the only large-scale archaeological
contribution to public perception and ideology is Indiana Jones and
Laura
Croft. Think about all of the crime investigation shows on TV; public
perception has been altered to the point where the findings of juries
are
now negatively influenced. If the presentation of the defense or
prosecution
doesn't match what jurors saw on CSI:Miami, somebody's in trouble.
As part of a larger public consciousness, archaeology as myth is much
more
appealing than archaeology as truth. We don't control our image; it is
filtered, refined, highlighted, and packaged in personas that reek of
adventure and sexuality. How can lithic analysis to assess patterns of
mobility compete with that?

-----Original Message-----
From: geoff carver [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: da vinci code & archaeology


I heard a paper on "The Da Vinci Code" at a session on iconoclasm at the
EAA
in Cork a couple of weeks ago. Basically, the gist was that it wasn't
even a
good thriller, but that, since the villain was an archaeologist trying
to
reveal the "truth," while the heroes were a few folk trying to repress
it,
this had implications for archaeology, our dealings with the public and
how
we perceive ourselves.
Ignoring the philosophical dimensions (what is "truth"?), are we at the
point where it is "better" to repress unpleasant "facts" for the "fair &
balanced" infotainment that seems to pass for news (and, some critics
would
have it, the formulation of public policy)? There was an interesting
(though
possibly inadvertent) juxtaposition of the DVC paper and another one
which
used photos from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to make its points about
the
powers of imagery, and I can recognize how some people might prefer to
think
that they were part of some divine plan, rather than the accidental
result
of random evolutionary forces, etc., but...
The question is: how did we get here? Inverting the old reverence for
truth-sayers and the wise, in favor of whatever the market imagines we
would
rather hear (or is willing to pay for us to hear)...?
Is archaeology contributing or resisting this trend?




Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New
Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this
message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email
System.