by Christopher Witmore
When presented with the question of
“why I became an archaeologist” I tend to cycle between 3 different
responses; responses all rooted in childhood experiences. Indeed, which
of these I dispense varies with whom I am speaking. My answers are:
1) I enjoyed both digging up and collecting bits and pieces of glass and metal on the family farm as a kid.
2) From age 10, when my mother purchased the subscription, I regularly
read about archaeology in National Geographic (this routine was tempered
by my love of fantasy world literatures).
3) Indiana Jones was one of my childhood heroes.
Now it should go without saying that none of these responses, when
taken on their own, even comes near to accounting for why I was drawn
down the long path (the length of which, of course, varies) to becoming
an archaeologist. Far beyond what may have been my other, and diverse,
childhood influences — films from Spartacus and Clash of the Titans to
Excalibur and Conan, a passing obsession with Dungeons and Dragons,
authors of fiction like J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis (Michael Shanks
once told me that almost half of the undergraduates at the University of
Wales Lampeter were drawn to archaeology because of the allure of the
fantastical realms created by Tolkien and Lewis), and, of course, the
associated backyard battles with my brothers clad in armor fashioned
from scraps of plywood, tin roofing and duck tape — one has to account
for the wider web of other influences, no matter how standout or subtle,
that impacted their formation along the circuitous course to an
advanced academic degree in archaeology and beyond. The distance between
now and then is tremendous. Still, childhood fascinations count for a
great deal — the past was a place of wonderment and imagination.
In retrospect, and given my rural roots in the North American
Southeast, the portrayal of the past (whether fact or fiction) and
archaeology on television, in magazines and novels had a profound
impact. And yet, surprisingly few have chosen to take these fields of
cultural production seriously (Finn 2004; Holtorf 2004 and 2007; Lucas
2004; Pearson and Shanks 2001; Shanks 1992; also refer to
Michael Shanks on the archaeological imagination).
In his latest book,
Archaeology is a Brand!, Cornelius
Holtorf asks his readers to hold the almost obligatory negative
responses so often tempered with ridicule and scorn by academic
archaeologists and to consider the topic of “archaeology in popular
culture” with an ‘open mind’ (also see Holtorf 2008). In this, he is
neither concerned with past-as-play videogames like
Praetorians,
the fascination with the fantasy worlds of Avalon and Middle Earth,
movies such as Alexander (Cherry 2009(in press)), nor the jousting
competition at
King Richard’s 16th-century faire.
Quite specifically, the book addresses the “meaning” of archaeology as
generated in television, movies, literature (both fictional and
nonfictional), newspapers, or even
National Geographic; all mass media which Holtorf takes to be “popular culture” (though he prefers the term
Alltagskultur
or “everyday culture” as enrolled by German folklorists (2004, 7-12)).
The argument, echoing the sentiments of Gavin Lucas, is that the major
allure of archaeology lies more in popular culture than in “any noble
vision of improving self –awareness through “historical perspectives””
(Holtorf 2004, 3 after Lucas 2004, 119). Moreover, this fascination, for
Holtorf is “rooted in a few key stereotypes and clichés” (2004, 130):
1) the archaeologist as adventurer (also refer to Holtorf's recent
Archaeolog entry:
Hero! Real archaeology and ”Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”);
2) the archaeologist as detective; 3) the archaeologist as infallible
producer of “profound revelations;” and 4) the archaeologist as heritage
steward.
Light-hearted and somewhat relaxed,
Holtorf’s style is buttressed by the mildly humorous cartoon
illustrations of Quentin Drew. These illustrations parody many
situations associated with the aforementioned stereotypes.
For example, the caption for the image included here reads:
“Professor, you stand accused of elitism and a disregard of popular
community interests. How do you plead?” We might hasten to add other
adjectives to describe these images and yet, however readers view the
cartoons, the almost exclusive use of this imagery reiterates the point:
loosen up and enjoy the past. And if this
message doesn’t ring loud and clear through the work of the
illustrations, then perhaps with the aid of the kineographs (flipbook
images) at the bottom corner of every page it will.
The TV series Time Team and the work of Gisela Graichen, headlines in
Leipziger Volkszeitung (www.lvz-online.de) and the Boston Globe,
Holtorf argues the draw of archaeology in such mass media pertains more
to the celebration of archaeological work than to any educational value
generated with regard to long gone pasts (2007, 50). Given this
emphasis, archaeology enjoys an extremely positive image in ‘the public
domain.’ The discipline has what Holtorf calls “archaeo-appeal.” As
such, archaeology is a ‘successful brand’ and archaeologists are
encouraged to make the most of this. To what ends, I will raise shortly.
In Archaeology is a Brand! Holtorf asks some awkward
questions about the value of archaeology’s past production, academic
authority, and ‘social’ role. These questions are critical for goading
archaeologists to consider the powers of their work in light of the
contemporary climes we find ourselves in. I too am provoked. The reason
for this is not due to the potentially unsettling arguments present in
the book (v); indeed, anyone who has read his work before is familiar
with such colorful mainstays of Holtorf’s articles and books more
generally. To the contrary, I am provoked because of the book’s failure
to deliver on what is arguably its core proposition. Because this defect
detracts significantly from an otherwise important arena in need of
more scholarly attention I will dedicate most of this entry to the close
scrutiny of it.
To underline the core proposition, archaeologists need to understand
the desires of their mass audience because archaeology is ultimately in
service of society. If we are to understand our mass audience and their
desires, we need to come to terms with how our craft is portrayed in
‘popular culture;’ a popular culture associated with a leisure economy.
This is an admirable and legitimate goal. However, the path to attaining
it is set upon shaky ground beginning with the circumscribed rendering
of both ‘popular culture’ and ‘society.’
Readers are given little to work with regarding the term ‘popular culture’ in
Archaeology is a Brand!
— Holtorf works with no ‘rigid definition.’ So to get a better sense
of how he deploys the term we have to begin elsewhere. Somewhere between
Stonehenge and Las Vegas,
Holtorf states: “popular culture refers to how people choose to live
their own lives, how they perceive and shape their local environments
through their actions, and what they find appealing or interesting”
(2004: 8). Popular culture “expresses—and reproduces—our inner thoughts
and emotions, our (supposedly) secret fears and desires, and our
favorite habits and behaviors” (Ibid.). So here, while Holtorf
recognizes the diverse resonances associated with such a diffuse term
(amplified by being crafted out of two of the most disputed notions in
academic history: ‘popular’ and ‘culture’ (see for example Fiske 1989;
Jenks 2003; Kroeber and Kluckhohm 1952)), he nonetheless identifies
popular culture with personal as well as group preferences and the
articulation of our ‘inner’ emotions and thoughts. Importantly, Holtorf
places emphasis on how the notion is more about actively creating
‘culture’ rather than passively receiving it.
Likewise, in
Archaeology is a Brand ‘popular culture’ is
linked largely to TV programs and newspapers and according to Holtorf,
these “to a greater extent than any other media . . . are both
influencing and reflecting what people know and how they think” (2007,
29). And yet, elsewhere we are told “popular culture is however not
identical with people’s perceptions of beliefs” (51) in the context of
distancing the concerns of archaeology’s audience from the ‘popular
culture’ they consume. Such concerns seem incongruous. On the one hand,
popular culture is about what people find appealing or interesting,
about what they express and create. On the other hand, it really doesn’t
matter what people think as Holtorf “is not concerned with gauging
public support for archaeology or preservation, evaluating the accuracy
of popular beliefs about archaeology or heritage, or establishing basic
demographic facts about visitors and their knowledge” (60-61). In one
section ‘society’s’ perceptions count for everything, in another they
are irrelevant (unless we are to imagine a society composed only of the
few archaeologists, producers and journalists directly involved in the
generation of the mass media Holtorf deals with). Here, Holtorf explains
away what should have formed a significant portion of the study and it
is here that we fall into a rather large hole in the book; a hole so
large that it swallows up any space I might have reserved for a
discussion of the book’s merits (click here for the e-book version of
the contents:
http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/PopularArchaeology/Home).
In fact, this hole is centered upon Chapter 4, “What people are
thinking about archaeology.” The shortest chapter in the book, this
chapter actually tells readers very little about ‘what people are
thinking’ (Holtorf admits he would have loved to have found out more
about what how people ‘perceived’ archaeologists and archaeology but he
was unsuccessful with obtaining the necessary funding). Instead, the
chapter is a synthesis of other published surveys, surveys conducted to
different ends, which tell us that the single most important source of
information about archaeology is TV (51-54). The Internet figures very
little in these surveys and this renders portions of the study, if not
out-of-date, incongruent with our times (refer to
Archaeology: A stratigraphic profile by Google).
Ultimately, for Holtorf, “the most important question that
archaeologists in public contexts need to ask their audiences is not
“How can I best persuade you about the merits of my project or
discipline?” but “What does what I am doing mean to you?” (2007, 139).
Should you choose to search for the answer to this very question, you
will not find it in the book.
How are we to understand the society we are in service of? How do we
gauge peoples’ desires in relation to the portrayals of archaeology in
mass media? Could I say that a landowner’s anger and frustration with
archaeologists of the local service in Nafplion, Greece for barring him
from building an addition on his house in the A zone of an
archaeological site is offset by the positive image of the adventurer
Indiana Jones playing in the former Mosque-turned-cinema across the
square from the very offices of the archaeological service he spent
several hours in that morning? Yes? No? Maybe? In all likelihood, I can
say that whatever meanings associated with archaeology that were
‘reflected’ in and ‘derived’ from popular culture have been modified by
an exchange with what he has come to regard as a rather ‘un-popular
culture.’ Of course, no one could be sure one way or the other without
putting in the many painstaking hours necessary for tracking down the
heterogeneous relations which give rise to one’s idiosyncratic, even
conflicting associations, desires, emotions, meanings, whatever.
For Holtorf, archaeologists have a professional duty to fulfill “a
social role that is widely appreciated in society” (141). But of what
society does he speak? What public? Developers in East Crete? Tourists
at Stonehenge? Asparagus farmers in Braunschweig? Toltec shamans at
Teotihuacán? I am sure they all have different appreciations — even in
relation to fellow group members — and one cannot say for sure how
‘popular culture’ figures into the meaning they associate with
archaeology. One cannot even say in advance whether ‘popular culture’
speaks for, reflects, arises out of, or enacts popular sentiment. We
cannot say in advance because these very relationships are what need to
be established on the ground. The almost-complete lack of any attempt to
hit the pavement with the actual people who populate this so-called
public in specific locales betrays the limited scope which Holtorf
grants to the ‘society’ archaeologists are supposed to be in service of.
To be fair, 5 days of a fact-finding mission to the UK translated into
the narrative of a travelogue in Chapter 1 is a start. Here, while
Holtorf engages issues of where people along his path come into contact
with archaeology on a daily basis, he only speaks with professional
archaeologists and heritage workers. Aside from this, the study does not
benefit from the rewards of an anthropological approach; an approach
which Holtorf claimed to have employed when forced to assert his
academic authority (Holtorf 2008); an approach which Holtorf is quite
clearly adept at deploying (2002). We might compare, for example,
Barbara Bender’s efforts to document contemporary relations with
Stonehenge (1998) or Timothy Webmoor’s study of resident, employee and
visitor relations at Teotihuacán based on dozens of interviews and 471
seven-page questionnaires (2007). Holtorf has not put in the many hours
of meticulous research that are necessary to flush out the web of
connections between mass media and the masses it purports to represent.
Never mind the lessons of critical theory (Adorno 1991; Leone, Potter
and Shackel 1987; Shanks and Tilley 1992).
In the end, Holtorf cannot argue for ‘people’ in society; he cannot
suggest we practitioners question the audience of archaeology as
portrayed in popular culture; he cannot do so because he has not engaged
them. For Holtorf to argue on behalf of 'society' without conspiring
with all of its diverse constituents is itself a form of
misrepresentation. Unfortunately, readers are left with missing masses.
Without the substantive research deployed to add weight to the core
thesis, readers are presented with a study that comes up short. Holtorf
doesn’t practice what he preaches and Archaeology is a Brand doesn’t make the point it purports to make; it does not deliver on what is arguably its core message — know the desires of ‘society.’
Where the book does succeed is in amplifying archaeology’s narcissism
by telling us — as members of this 'popular culture' — what we already
knew. What it does deliver is a different message: archaeology needs to
be in service of mass media — as popular culture is conflated with mass
media (movies, TV programs, advertising, toys, fictional and
non-fictional literature, museums, etc.) and society’s appreciation is
conflated with what is ‘reflected’ in that mass media (also refer to
Kristiansen 2008). To get at the resources necessary for understanding
what society appreciates about archaeology we need not leave the
comforts of our very own couch!
Shall we (de)limit the archaeological imagination on the basis of
public opinion mass media? I hope not. Of course, I don’t think Holtorf
would claim this outright, but the composition of the study, I suggest,
does his agenda a major disservice.
I will conclude with a few more observations.
Holtorf suggests archaeology may have little more to offer society
than temporary escapes from the ‘real’ world (145). Again, we must take
this as an incitement to contemplate other archaeological benefits for
‘society’ and that includes not only reconsidering the composition of
society but also the relations between past and present. As Holtorf
perhaps less than amicably suggests, we need not only consider questions
of the past in the past (the ‘past as it was’ is always the outcome of
our practices) but also how the past is mixed up in the polychonic
ensemble of the present. In this, ‘popular culture’ is perhaps only a
subset of the bewildering varieties of relations out there. Nonetheless,
archaeology must do a better job of demonstrating why the things ‘of
the past’ are much more interesting and lively than any of our
representations, popular or professional, have allowed (Gonzalez-Ruibal
2008).
It is unfortunate that this commentary has taken on too many
characteristics of a diatribe. It is unfortunate because Holtorf and I
share a number of common concerns. I too believe it is time to reassess
some of archaeology’s core ingredients from the ground up. I too hold
that we need to readdress questions of direction and purpose. There are
many others who also hold these concerns, to be sure. It is because of
this that I plead for more careful and substantive labor in backing up
such challenging propositions. We have to do a better job of supporting
our arguments through richer empirical accounts. If we choose the paths
of least resistance, if we take shortcuts, then such otherwise bold work
will be full of defects, defects for which consumers in the leisure
economy have the right to demand the implementation of quality controls
and to recommend a recall by the publisher/producers of such work.
References
Adorno, T.W. 1991: The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.
Bender, B. 1998: Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg.
Cherry, J.F. 2009(in press) ‘Blockbuster! Museum Responses to Alexander the Great’ in P. Cartledge and F. Greenland (eds.), Responses to Alexander: Film, History and Culture Studies after Oliver Stone's 'Alexander'. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Finn, C. 2004: Past Poetic: Archaeology and the Poetry of W.B. Yeats and Seamus Heaney. Duckworth Publishers.
Fiske, J. 1989: Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge.
González-Ruibal, A. 2008: Time to destroy: An archaeology of supermodernity. Current Anthropology 49(2), 247-79.
Holtorf, C. 2002. Notes on the life history of a pot shard. Journal of Material Culture 7 (1): 49–71.
Holtorf, C. 2005: From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Holtorf, C. 2007: Archaeology is a Brand! Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Holtorf, C. 2008: Academic critique and a need for an open mind (a response to Kristiansen) Antiquity 82, 490-92.
Jenks, C. 2002: Culture: Critical Concepts in Sociology. London: Routledge.
Kristiansen, K. 2008: Sould archaeology be in service of ‘popular
culture’? A theoretical and political critique of Cornelius Holtorf’s
vision of archaeology. Antiquity 82, 488-92.
Leone, M., P.B. Potter, and P.A. Shackel, 1987. Towards a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3), 283-302.
Lucas, G. 2004: Modern Disturbances: On the Ambiguities of Archaeology. Modernism/Modernity. 11(1), 109-120.
Kroeber, A.L. and C. Kluckhohm, 1952: Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers 47.
Pearson, M. and M. Shanks, 2001: Theatre/Archaeology. New York: Routledge.
Shanks, M. and C. Tilley, 1992. Reconstructing Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Webmoor, T. 2007: Reconfiguring the Archaeological Sensibility: mediating heritage at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Stanford University.
