Archaeolog

A session organized by Alfredo González-Ruibal (Complutense University of Madrid) and Ashish Chadha (Yale University).

The relationship between archaeology and modernity is a growing concern for archaeologists. On the one hand, archaeologists ask how the discipline is involved in the construction of modern categories of thought, knowledge and society? Can modernist divides and prejudices be bypassed or, even as many hope, overcome? What is the role of archaeology in processes of totalitarianism, nationalism, colonialism, or racism? On the other hand, historical archaeologists have been exploring the origins and expansion of modern societies since the late 15th century through their material remains. In so doing, they are helping to build a different image of the modern world, one that pays more attention to everyday practices, long-term processes, subaltern groups, and the local appropriations of global products.

The aim of this session is to study the dark side of late modernity (or supermodernity) by probing the negative outcomes of modern categories of thought and action through the archaeological traces they leave behind. We would like to focus on the contemporary past (20th-21st centuries) and high-modernist ideologies (sensu James Scott), because the failures of modernity have been greater and more tragic during the last hundred years—from totalitarian regimes and genocides to ecological disasters. Indeed, such failures became a matter of deep public concern at the beginning of the twenty-first century. However, we will consider papers dealing with other modern periods whose topic is strongly related to the issues discussed in the session. With an archaeological gaze, we will address the material remains of failed and destructive modernities: concentration camps, prisons, battlefields, nuclear testing grounds, new killing technologies, projects of social engineering (model farms, resettlement schemes, modernist cities), totalitarian architecture, ghettos, colonial settlements, industrial failures, mass graves, human-driven ecological disasters, etc.

This session will provide occasion to debate some key questions: What is the role of a critical archaeology that faces the abuses of modernity? Can we use our discipline to raise public awareness on the failures and crimes of high modernism? What should be the terms of our political involvement? How should we carry out this sort of archaeology? How is the negative or ambivalent heritage of late modernity to be managed? We welcome papers which address particular case studies, propose methodologies for studying the traces of destructive modernities, or offer new theoretical insights.

If you want to participate in this session, please send an email to Ashish Chada or Alfredo González-Ruibal no later than February 14th.

For more information on the conference:
WAC-6 2008 Dublin

Brent Fortenberry, Boston University

Travis Parno, Boston University

This year’s meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology in Albuquerque, New Mexico examined the interface between the archaeological community and the various publics with whom we interact. Papers explored the logistics, methodologies, and theories behind public archaeologies, a subject which has recently gained much attention.

While a majority of the authors broached these issues, some particularly evoked discussion and meditation regarding creative approaches understanding the nature of public archaeology.

E. Thomson Shields, Charles Ewen, and Donna Kain tackled the challenges resulting from perceptions of archaeology that are generated by popular media outlets such as television and film. While shows such as ‘Digging for the Truth’ bring some form of archaeology into the public sphere, the over-sensationalized nature of these programs misconstrues archaeological ethics and methodologies. Using a video podcast of excavations at the Saint Thomas Church in North Carolina as a case study, Shields, Ewen, and Kain argued that professional archaeology needs to take steps to integrate its data into new multimedia paradigms, thus resulting in a wider engagement with archaeologically-generated knowledge.

Echoing these concerns over accessibility and archaeological data, Mark Freeman and Barbara Heath presented the Poplar Forest: Retreat Home of Thomas Jefferson website as an illustration of the unique ways that archaeological datasets and narratives can be experienced in cyberspace. Its non-linear format allows the user to navigate the intersections between “Place,” “Period,” and “Perspective.” Within this negotiation, the user has control over the order and types of information that they can explore, and in many ways this methodology allows the visitor to be actively involved in the processes of discovery and mediation.

Flordeliz Bugarin and Margaret Wood’s presentation of their work at the Nicodemus National Historic Site highlighted some of the logistical challenges associated with public outreach efforts. During the excavation of this former black community, project coordinators were faced with issues of public apathy, even among the descendent community. To combat these concerns, they moved beyond the tradition archaeologist/public divide and initiated a plan to train interested individuals in the methods of archaeology, thus actively involving the community in the creation and interpretation of their history. The Kansas Archaeology Training Program (KATP) will promote a departure from connoisseurship and give birth to future networks of experienced local archaeologists.