Archaeology


Theoretical Issues in Contemporary Soviet Paleolithic Archaeology
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 12: 403-428 (Volume publication date October 1983)
R S Davis
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

I was likely drawn to this article because I have been watching early episodes of MacGyver, a TV show that ran from 1985 to 1991. It seems very much to be a Cold War era show. Remember when there used to be talk of defectors left and right? So far I’ve seen a couple episodes that covered finding creative ways to get out of East Berlin, one involving a coffin that transformed into a jet ski. I watched the show during its original airing, but I’m finding that I may remember the pop culture references to the show more than I do the actual show. The show seems an interesting commentary on Americans and our view of our place in the world at the time; it’s not the most flattering view from an anti-imperialist perspective. I’m curious to see how the show develops and how it handles the fall of the Iron Curtain.

And then I come to this article with its talk of paleolithic archaeology in the the good ole USSR with its centralized organizational structure with headquaters in Leningrad, and it takes me back. I hadn’t thought recently of how Cold War era politics may have affected cross-cultural communication in the academic community at the time. Although Davis writes of how ideological differences between the USSR and the West translated into differences in theoretical orientations, he says that the main barrier to information sharing on Paleolithic research had to do with language. He mentions a forthcoming dissertation on Upper Paleolithic research from Olga Soffer-Bobyshev, who also mentions the language barrier. In a 1986 interview with the Mammoth Trumpet, Soffer said, “The data base there is so incredibly rich, and other than Richard Klein’s Ice-Age Hunters of the Ukraine, there was really nothing in the west for our non-Russian reading colleagues.” Soffer talks about her dissertation research in the interview with the Mammoth Trumpet.

The article left me wanting to read more on the concept of archaeological culture. Davis writes that the West was further along than the USSR in its thinking that cultures are the relevant units of analysis in Paleolithic archaeology. He writes that scientists in the USSR spent a long time divesting themselves of the concept that stages of development (Pre-Clan society, Era of Clan Organization, Decomposition of the Clan and Emergence of Class Society) based on Marxists ideology were the relevant unit – this made for an interesting commentary on the conservatism in academia and how it can be difficult to move away from a popular theoretical model even after it has been largely abandoned. Davies writes of how some archaeologists in the USSR took to publishing “basically descriptive, data-oriented excavation reports” in an effort to avoid dealing with the theoretical void created after abandoning a model that held sway for time.

I was about to say, “Enough time travel,” but then thought maybe I’ll take a look at how MacGyver manages to make a quiet exit from Bulgaria.   And this note comes with a theme song… Beatles “Back in the U.S.S.R.”

Ever true,

S.

Trends in the Study of Later European Prehistory
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 16: 365-382 (Volume publication date October 1987)
S J Shennan
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Reading “Trends in the Study of Later European Prehistory” I felt a poke in the direction of actually getting caught up on current events. And lucky me, I have several great newspapers on my desk at the moment. I tend to prefer thinking in terms of trends and types, but it’s good sometimes to take note of the current particulars.

A comment about the thinking of Gordon Childe seemed to me a commentary on current trends in Western cultures or at least U.S. culture. The comment contrasts cultures of the Near East with then emerging European cultures: “The Near East was the ultimate source of innovations and ideas; but after the growth of civilization, Near Eastern society became stagnant and oppressive; superstition ruled technology and suppressed innovation; society became totalitarian. European society, however, was open. Technological innovation was not subject to social control…” This type of thinking sticks out to me as something to toss around when viewing trends in the interactions between politics and academia in America as well the changing relationship between West and East, but I don’t feel that I have a lot of particulars to which to point

Is there some relationship between bursts of technological advancement and growing desires to turn to superstition and oppression? Will stagnation in one part of the world encourage innovation in another part of the world, and will that encouragement lead to greater freedom in that part of the world? Thinking of the West as a declining power and the East as an emerging power… Are declining powers more suspicious of innovation because they are afraid that new technologies will bring further decline, while emerging powers are more welcoming of innovation because they believe that new technologies will bring further progress? And how does all this work itself out culturally?

The article speaks of applying new approaches (in this case, structuralism, French neo-Marxism and German critical theory) to data and to fields of study (in this case data and archaeology having to do with later European prehistory). The discussion speaks to the fact that it’s so easy to highlight information that fits a certain theoretical framework while ignoring significant information that doesn’t happen to fit. I find sometimes that the purest fun can be had by tossing around ideas within the framework of some debunked theory. There’s no obsession with “rightness” or “truth.” There just the fun of bringing a new perspective to familiar ideas and seeing what new thoughts spring from that.

I’ll end with that.

S.

The Past, Present, and Future of Flintknapping: An Anthropological Perspective
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 13: 187-203 (Volume publication date October 1984)
J J Flenniken
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor….

My dearest Simone,

This article left me thinking of the various ways we make connections to the past.  Flenniken says,“As an anthropological term, flintknapping is simply the manufacture of stone tools by the reductive processes of flaking or chipping.” He also writes that “..flintknapping constitutes an anthropological concept whereby the processes of prehistoric flintknapping are better understood by modern flintknapping experiments.” He distinguished between people who simple make stone tools, artificers, and people like Donald Crabtree who are replicators, those who use the same tools, materials and methods employed by people of old (producing similar products and debris).

Shortly after reading this article, I was lost in thought about how magical it is to touch history in the way that replicators do. It’s one thing to visit the British Museum and gaze upon things that were used by such and such historical figure or to visit an historical site and touch structures and items that were used by early peoples. It’s quite a different thing to go through a similar process, to have the same considerations running through one’s mind, to make the same movements.

This connection to the past is one of the reasons that despite being tomboyish/bohemian as a child, I always loved wearing long dresses, hooped dresses, formal wear. In fifth or sixth grade I played the old woman on the “Old Woman in the Shoe” parade float. Yes, not exactly an historical figure, but … The music teacher loaned me a prairie-styled dress and bonnet to wear. I didn’t want to take the dress off. I loved gently lifting the skirt to walk up stairs. I loved the feel of the fabric brushing back against my legs with every stride. And somehow the feeling of being a bit out of place when walking among people in normal dress also highlighted the connection to a past time when most women wore such dresses and made such movements.

This connection is one of the great parts of reading your diaries. You share so many of your simple and grand thoughts, your simple and grand movements.

I’ll leave you with that.

S.

 

The Emerging Picture of Prehistoric Arabia
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 15: 461-490 (Volume publication date October 1986)
M Tosi
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to my Tutor….

My dearest Simone,

I was more consciously aware of holes in my knowledge when reading “The Emerging Picture of Prehistoric Arabia.”  A greater familiarity with the geography of the region, a very clear picture of the geological timeline and geological processes, a better understanding of non-Western history all would have helped.  Certainly I understand how to consult a map and appropriate reference materials, but I’m finding that I can no longer put off committing to memory a wider body of information.  I have too often told myself not to waste brain space on information that I could easily look up.

When I chose this article I didn’t immediately have in mind the fact that Arabia stands apart from the typical timeline of agricultural development.  Certainly I had been exposed to discussions of pastoralism, hunting and gathering and maritime economies, but I don’t know that I had given much thought to them in a prehistoric context in the sense discussed by Tosi, that study of the prehistory of the region could be used to complement “traditional focus on agricultural origins and early urbanism” and used to develop “a more comprehensive definition of economic evolution.”  It’s worthy of a bookmark.

As to the archaeology in the region, both the geographical and political climates in the region make establishing a prehistoric chronology difficult.  Erosion hampers the recovery of organic remains resulting in only a handful of radiocarbon dates; remains such as rock carvings and megaliths lack the contextual means of dating; passing of data from colonial authorities to local authorities and still more local authorities results in loss of context for the collected data.   Tosi’s discussion of all of these seemed interesting, but I wasn’t in a mind to digest it.

The author seemed to be an interesting sort.  Andrew Lawler wrote the following in a May 2010 article in Science:

“He told colleagues he was looking for ancient lapis lazuli mines. But when Maurizio Tosi crossed into Afghanistan at the height of the war between the Soviet Union and the mujahedin in 1984, his real goal was to locate wooden boxes that had once contained American-supplied Stinger missiles. Those missiles threatened Soviet helicopters, and Moscow was eager to trace the route they had taken into Pakistan. … ” (Link)

I should be able to locate the full text of this article soon.

Of late I have been distracted and uninspired.  Inspiration isn’t necessary for productivity, but it helps.  I hope that you do not grow tired of me.

Ever true,

S.

Professional Responsibility in Public Archaeology
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 12: 143-164 (Volume publication date October 1983)
T F King
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

A couple years ago I took an archaeological fieldwork class for which the site was located in a federal park.  Reading  “Professional Responsibility in Public Archaeology,” I was left with an even greater appreciation of the outstanding job the fieldwork professor did as far as creating awareness of and stimulating depth of thought about ethical concerns in public archaeology.  And he managed to do this without at all dampening the excitement of getting to dig and sift and catologue and record.  Looking back, I’m amazed at the smooth, seamless integration of classroom lectures, firsthand accounts of experiences in public archaeology and personal conduct during the course of the class; there was a truly holistic experience of an on-the-job course in responsibilities in public archaeology.  My mind had been thoroughly engaged regarding all the issues Thomas King discusses in “Professional Responsibility in Public Archaeology.”

King organizes his discussion along the lines of asking to whom the archaeologist is responsible.  He states that the lack of consensus regarding ethical concerns is generally based on disagreements over the object(s) of responsibility.  He describes six objects:

1. The Resource Base: responsibility to archaeological sites.
2. Companions-in-Arms: responsibility to colleagues.
3. Research: responsibility to the advance of scholarship.
4. Clients: responsibility to those who pay the tab.
5. The Law: responsibility to legal and contractual obligations.
6. The Living: responsibility to nonarchaeologists with interests in archaeological sites or data.

King says that some archaeologists become “true believers” in a particular object.  I started to think about my own experience in the field class and wonder which object was supreme in my mind.  Briefly speaking….

With consideration to (1) The Resource Base, decisions about where to excavate during my field class involved discussions about where the most gain could be had with the least destruction to what could be valuable data.  Given the excavation methods and techniques available, excavation in area A seemed productive whereas it might be best to leave area B unexcavated with the thought that the future might bring better excavation techniques that result in greater data recovery with less destruction.  It’s one thing to hear this discussion and it’s another to witness the self-restraint involved in making a decision to preserve a site.  As regards (2) Companions-in-Arms, other archaeologists who had worked in the area were brought in to guest lecture.  A walk-through of a site with an archaeologist who has different interests and different areas of expertise was such a good lesson in how data can have varying levels of significance depending on the research design.  With (3) Research, the importance of keeping good records that followed industry standards for the benefit of other scholars was emphasized.  For (4) Clients, personal accounts of working with a wide variety of public archaeology clients gave perspective to the more sheltered experience of working in a federal park.  For (5) The Law, classroom discussion of laws were reinforced with fieldwork examples of situations in which those laws came into play such as when there was a need to determine whether bone found at the site were human remains.  For (6) The Living, the professor was great at talking to people who wandered by to ask questions; he told personal stories that showed a respect for the concerns of living people with a “cultural and genetic connection,” as King puts it, to the site.

Well, that’s quite fast and incomplete, but the experience in the class gave me a lot to think about when reading King’s article.

Engaging in self-study is a very stumbly process.  I’m grabbing at the corners of tables and squishing my fingers into the edges of seat cushions.  And I wish I didn’t know about falling down.

Reading an Annual Review article once a week is still a little difficult for me, but I continue to believe that it’s a good plan for surveying the field.  I’m getting a better feel for where my interests lie.  Here are the next five articles I plan to read:

Conversation Analysis
Linguistics
Charles Goodwin and John Heritage
1990

Advances in Evolutionary Culture Theory
Cultural-Social Anthropology
William H. Durham
1990

Groups that Don’t Want In:  Gypsies and Other Artisan, Trader, and Entertainer Minorities
Cultural-Social Anthropology
Sharon Bohn Gmelch
1986

Philosophy of Science in Anthropology
Cultural-Social Anthropology
Abraham Kaplan
1984

Professional Responsibility in Public Archaeology
Archaeology
Thomas F. King
1983

The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 18: 369-399 (Volume publication date October 1989)
R Paynter
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

While reading the discussion of the relationship between complexity and inequality in “The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality,” I began to think about a cultural dynamic that existed among black, white and Chinese in my native region, the Mississippi Delta, where grocery stores frequented by black residents in the area were owned and operated by Chinese residents.  Robert Paynter summarizes the discussion thusly:

The relationship of complexity and inequality produces one of the great divides in social theory. Some theories hold that forces creating social differentiation–such as innate biological differences, naturally occurring ecological variation, geographical isolation, the productive efficiencies gained from the division of labor, etc–entail differential access to resources, and thereby result in inequality. Others see social differentiation arising from the reproduction of social equality–as in the proliferation of differences in systems of reciprocal exchange–or in the reproduction of social inequality–as in the use of divide-and-conquer strategies to maintain political and economic control.  Neoevolutionists work within the theories that derive inequality from complexity.

I thought that the dynamic in the Delta was a clear example of inequality reproducing inequality.  Firstly, I grew up with this dynamic.  I lived it.  Secondly, I had researched this subject in preparation for writing a screenplay several years ago and the sources I came across at that time supported my view.  (Yes, it is quite impossible to live in Southern California for any length of time without eventually working on a screenplay or a treatment for a screenplay.)  When I searched the net recently in preparation for writing a blog post on this subject, I found an article (several actually) that clearly has a more neoevolutionist approach to the Delta dynamic.  Take a look at how two authors, one from each side of the divide, discuss the circumstances that brought Chinese settlers to the Mississippi Delta.  John G. Thornell writes the following in Southeast Review of Asian Studies, Annual (2008):

The factors associated with the presence of a Chinese population in the Delta can be traced to the end of the Civil War in 1865. The war afforded freedom to four million slaves who had been the cornerstone of an agricultural economy. Planters, faced with the loss of the core of their labor force, responded by experimenting with foreign labor. Chinese and, later, Italians were recruited as part of this experiment.

Labor conventions were held to discuss the possibility of recruiting Chinese workers. In June 1869, at a meeting in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, cotton planters organized the Arkansas River Valley Emigration Company. Its purpose was to attract Chinese labor, who could be obtained in “great numbers and at cheap rates, and made efficient in the cultivation of cotton, and are proof against the malaria of the climate” (Cohen 1984, 78). (link)

So, a labor shortage resulted in an effort to recruit Chinese workers.  An extra layer of complexity, differentiation, stratification came about in an effort to solve an agricultural problem, a production problem.  I believe the writer above is a historian, but the theoretical position is the same as that Paynter ascribes to archaeologists in 1989:  “…most archaeologists have ignored the powerful drive towards differentiation inherent in socially unequal relations(113), instead seeking nonsocial, external sources of heterogeneity and, hence, social complexity.”  Paytner goes on to write that “in the past 15 years, advances in methods,  detailed culture histories, and new theories have called into question this subsumption of inequality within complexity.”  Given her attention to sources, Vivian Wu Wong’s recounting of the arrival of Chinese settlers to the Delta appears to rely more heavily on information derived from original research than does Thornell’s:

Central to this development of the Chinese community in Mississippi was the social and economic relationship which grew between the Chinese and blacks. Many among the southern elite attempted to replace black labor with Chinese coolies, so as to undermine the growing political power of freed blacks (7). Loewen argues that Chinese immigration was encouraged in order to increase “white political power by displacing voting Negroes; for the Chinese. . . would not vote” (8). At the time, Powell Clayton, Reconstruction Governor of Arkansas, believed that

the underlying motive for this effort to bring in Chinese laborers was to punish the Negro [sic] for having abandoned the control of the old master, and to regulate the condition of his employment and the scale of wages to be paid him (9).

Both the Chinese in California, as well as the Chinese in Mississippi, played significant roles in the economic development of American capitalism. One distinct difference however was the fact that Chinese in the South were specifically brought in, as Loewen describes, to displace black labor. One must therefore examine the role that the Chinese played in industries which relied heavily upon black labor, to understand the ways in which the Chinese contributed to the southern economy. (link)

Mississippi ChineseWong’s recounting fits more with an inequality reproducing inequality model and more with my experience.  Wong quotes James Loewen, a source with which I am familiar.  I read Loewen’s, The Mississippi Chinese : Between Black and White when doing background work for my screenplay.  Loewen, a sociologist, did original research concerning the Chinese population in the Delta.  Thornell also references Loewen but mainly to take “Between Black and White” from the title.  Wong and Thornell reference many of the same sources but they do so in light of their differing perspectives.  Might the more neoevolutionist recounts of Chinese presence in the Mississippi Delta illuminate Paynter’s statement that an “increasing number of practitioners now suspect that the relationship between complexity and inequality as traditionally conceived is at best a case of the tail–and possibly the tale–wagging the dog”?

Both Thornell and Wong discuss the case of Lum v. Rice, a case brought in 1924 by a Chinese American after her child was prohibited from attending the white school (under separate but equal, Plessy v. Ferguson).  I lived in Rosedale, Mississippi, the town in which the school was located (but much later than 1924).  The Supreme Court decided that it was legal for the School Board in Mississippi to prohibit Wong’s attendance at the white school, upholding a decision by the Supreme Court of Mississippi.  Wong thought the decision hinged on the ambiguity that could result as regards children of mixed black and Chinese heritage:

However, Cohn points out that the “condition” that was attached to the admission of Chinese children to white schools, reveals the underlying fear that the white community had with admitting Chinese children into white schools. Stating that the Chinese “themselves must see to it that no children of Chinese-Negro blood apply through their community” suggests that Whites were not so much worried about admitting Chinese children into white schools as they were in admitting black children (24).

Thornell does not discuss children of mixed heritage when noting the establishment of Chinese mission schools:

Even in the face of the Gong Lum decision, the Chinese rejected the black schools. Instead, they partnered with the white churches in which they had become members. These churches offered another post-Gong Lum alternative: the establishment of Chinese mission schools in some Delta communities.

Thornell emphasizes the practical nature of the decision to establish the mission schools.  Loewen makes note of the fact that the Chinese population in Mississippi were careful to exclude children of mixed African and Chinese heritage from participation in the Chinese community and that these children were barred from attending Chinese mission schools.  Decades later, Loewen notes that many of the local American Chinese did not approve of the mention of mixed Chinese-African children during the filming of a 1984 documentary Mississippi Triangle, “an intimate portrait of life in the Mississippi Delta, where Chinese, African Americans and Whites live in a complex world of cotton, work, and racial conflict.”  Did Thornell’s omission result from a decision that discussion of children of mixed heritage was not significant or from a sensitivity to the sentiment of the American Chinese community, both, neither?

By the time my aunt was in high school in the 1980s, the school from Lum v. Rice was somewhat integrated.  She attended high school with the children of the owner of one of the local Chinese-owned grocery stores (Buck’s).  My memory is that they were the only Chinese American students at the school attended by black and white students.   Elementary and middle schools were still heavily segregated.    There were two Chinese-owned grocery stores in Rosedale at the time, Buck’s and Wong’s.  Buck, the patriarch, was a lot more socially interactive with black customers than was the proprietor at Wong’s, so it’s less surprising that his children attended the integrated high school.  In recent years, there has been a severe decline in the number of American Chinese in the Mississippi Delta.  The formally Chinese-owned groceries in Rosedale are now owned by black residents.

The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 18: 369-399 (Volume publication date October 1989)
R Paynter
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

“The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality” wasn’t the article I expected it to be based on the title.  I didn’t have detailed expectations, but when I read the one paragraph that spoke to how analysis of skeletal remains, burial practices, styles on ceramics, variances in structures could be used to study relations of equality and inequality, I recognized this subject matter to fit my expectations.  In place of a discussion of artifacts and remnants of structures and the contents of burials was a discussion of archaeological theory.  I gained insight as to why the discussion went the one way instead of the other while reading an earlier review written by Bruce Trigger, “Archaeology at the Crossroads:  What’s new?:”

By the 1950s, a growing number of archaeologists were smarting from the charge that their discipline was descriptive rather than theoretical in orientation and that they were the not very intelligent playboys of anthropology.

Given that there is a struggle regarding archaeological theory, I understand why Paynter organized his discussion of the study of equality and inequality in the context of neoevolutionism and criticisms of neoevolutionism.  I found various particulars of the discussion interesting and I will return to some of them later in the week.  Earlier last week I came across the following resource and found it helpful:

A free lecture at iTunes U, “Theories in Anthropology(#16 on the list once you click to the overview page),” provides a good overview of the development of anthropological theory (Evolutionism, Historical Particularism, Structural Functionalism, Neoevolutionism, Post-modernism, Feminist Perspectives…).  The lecture is provided by the School of Human Evolution & Social Change College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Arizona State University.

I’ve been reading articles in the New York Times Archaeology and Anthropology section.  The articles are written by journalists for the most part and they are written for the public.  I’ve been struck by the seeming necessity for storytelling and speculation on the part of the anthropologists/archaeologists presumably to excite the type of public interest that leads to more funding.  More often the articles lean heavily toward the storytelling.  Other articles, especially shorter ones, tend more toward bare facts.   Sometimes they present a story-like presentation from one group and a more just-the-facts commentary by another as in Lucy’s Kin Carved Up a Meaty Meal, Scientists Say.  My interest at the moment is not so much in stories versus science concerns.  I’m more interested in the stories themselves.  Are there similarities in storytelling style among archaeologists or do individual archaeologists follow the storytelling style of their native culture or do they follow the storytelling style local to the dig or research?

I browsed the net and immediately found a related grouping of articles discussing mostly the science versus storytelling concerns.  I only had access to the first pages of the articles, but that was enough get a feel for some of the issues and concerns.  A group of three articles appeared in Historical Archaeology in 2000.  Two of the articles in part critiqued an article by James Gibb, “Imaginary, But by No Means Unimaginable.”  Here’s the abstract for that article:

Abstract
“Imaginary, But by No Means Unimaginable,” a phrase coined by L. Daniel Mouer and Ywone Edwards-Ingram at the 1998 Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, epitomizes a new approach to archaeological analysis and public interpretation. The suddenness with which examples of storytelling appeared in conferences and publications has left little opportunity for comment, particularly to address the theoretical and methodological issues that underlie this hybrid of science, humanities research, and artistic expression. This commentary suggests that storytelling is more than a means of engaging public audiences: it is a form of archaeological analysis.

The idea of storytelling as a form of “archaeological analysis” stands out to me and brings back my question of whether archaeologists create, synthesize, fashion stories in a similar way.  I found comments from the other two articles of general  interests.  From “Scientific Creativity and Creative Science:  Looking at the Future of Archaeological Storytelling,” Larry McKee and Jillian Galle write:

Storytelling is not so much about fiction as it is about presenting a story–be it true or embellished–that connects with an audience.

More importantly, we argue that effective engagement must come from a well developed sense of what is important about the site being studied, and how this can be related to the changing needs of various audiences.

In “We Are All Storytellers”:  Comments on Storytelling, Science, and Historical Archaeology,” Teresita Majewski expresses concern that in narrowing down to strict science, some archaelogists lost sight of the human component in studying the past:

I welcome the potential of storytelling, or “interpretive archaeology,” to contribute to both public interpretation and archaeological analysis.

Thinking still of storytelling as archaeological analysis, I started to wonder whether there were courses out there that instruct on archaeological storytelling.  I found a syllabus from 2006 of a course taught at Berkeley titled Anthropology 136i: Archaeology and the Media: Digital Narratives in, for, and about Archaeology.  Here are some bits of information about the course from the syllabus:

This course (and its sequel Anthropology 136j which will be taught in Fall 2006) focuses on the use of digital media to create narratives about the practice and the products of archaeology.

The ultimate aim of the course is to enable students to create their own digital narratives from their own research.

The aim of Anthro 136i is to focus on the history, current state and theory behind the use of digital media to express archaeological narratives. Digital media (including film/video, websites, and 3D games) and presentation/communication (TV, Internet) about the topic are explored and critically evaluated and compared to non-digital sources.

I have no idea how common courses like this one are and I don’t have time to look into it more right now.  For now I’m just taking casual notice.  In an article from June of this year in the Guardian Lucy Worsley suggests that archaeologists consider turning to Hollywood for help with storytelling requirements.  The article is titled, “Judicious razzle-dazzle can bring dry bones to life:  Many in my profession may sneer, but viewing history like Hollywood helps conjure up vivid explanations of the past.”  Worsley writes about encountering the dull and then the delightful:

This morning I was sitting in the curators’ apartment at Hampton Court Palace, reading a report that contained the not-so-gripping words “the stone artefact assemblage contains two whetstones, two slate pencil tips, several fragments of roof slates and some river pebbles”.

On Wednesday we learned from a team of Italian archaeologists who had analysed his bones that Caravaggio – sensational, unstable, the most rock’n’roll of 17th-century artists – may have suffered from lead poisoning from his own paints.

The Caravaggio story read like a treatment for Discovery Channel – and so did this week’s other archaeological news, that a German team have identified the bones of Eadgyth (“Edith”), King Alfred’s granddaughter, in Magdeburg Cathedral. Thrillingly, her teeth have revealed that she came from chalky Wessex, and her bones show she may have suffered from an eating disorder.

I took note of Worsley saying the one story read like “a treatment for the Discover Channel.”  Before coming across her article I came across a page at Discovery Education with a lesson plan for teaching students in grades 6-8 about “Archeology and Storytelling.” ( I noted that the page goes back and forth on the spelling of “archaeology”  sometimes including the “a” and other times not.)  The lesson plan says students should learn that “Not all archaeological finds readily reveal their history to archeologists, ” and goes on to suggest one way that archaeologists fill in the gaps:  “They examine old structures and piece together bones and artifacts and also piece together fragments of oral stories to try to understand what happened in a place a long time ago.”  The emphasis is on oral history as opposed to other storytelling/creating methods that archaeologists may use.

So there you have the fruits of wondering the net for a couple hours.  I didn’t necessarily find what I wanted.  I saw enough to make me want to look more, but I must get back to my regularly scheduled reading.  Perhaps I will take this topic up again in a later post.

« Previous Page