mercoledì 21 dicembre 2011

L'ultimo libro di Glenn Cooper, l'archeologo romanziere



Glenn Cooper è cresciuto alla periferia di New York. Ha iniziato ad interessarsi di archeologia già al liceo e successivamente si è iscritto alla facoltà di Archeologia della Harvard University. Contemporaneamente sostenne anche il numero di esami in scienze richiesto per l'accesso a Medicina. Si è laureato, quindi, anche in Medicina, alla Tufts University School of Medicine. Nell'ambito archeologico ha partecipato a molti scavi, soprattutto in Inghilterra. A un certo punto la sua carriera nell'ambito medico prende una svolta quando inizia a lavorare per una società di biotecnologie del North Carolina, fino a diventare presidente e amministratore delegato di un'importante azienda farmacologica nel Massachussets. Inizia l'attività di scrittore nel 2009 con la pubblicazione del suo primo libro "La biblioteca dei morti" (Library of the Dead). Ha fondato una società di produzione cinematografica. Glenn Cooper è anche il Presidente Onorario dell'Associazione Culturale A.s.be.cu.so. (Associazione Salvaguardia Beni Culturali Solofra) della città di Solofra in provincia di Avellino.
Il 7 dicembre 2011 è uscito in Italia il suo nuovo libro, dal titolo "Il Marchio del Diavolo", già uscito in Gran Bretagna con il titolo "The Devil Will Come".
La trama del libro: la vicenda si svolge a Roma e si dipana attraverso tre piani temporali. Il primo piano temporale è il 1139 e mostra un uomo che giunge a Roma per assistere ad un allineamento astrale unico di 112 stelle e ad un'eclisse lunare. Le stelle simboleggiano 112 papi  che governeranno la Chiesa. Alla fine di questo ciclo sorgerà un nuovo mondo.
Il secondo piano temporale è il 2000: Elisabetta Celestino è una giovane archeologa che lavora agli scavi nelle catacombe di San Callisto ma viene accoltellata nello stesso istante in cui ha notato un dettaglio agghiacciante.Lei si salva ma il suo fidanzato Marco viene ucciso.
Il terzo piano temporale è quello attuale: la protagonista è ora Elisabetta che nel frattempo è diventata una suora. L'archeologa svelerà un mistero che ovviamente non è possibile rivelare in anteprima. Buona lettura agli amanti del genere con un nuovo libro di archeologia misteriosa!

martedì 20 dicembre 2011

'Superquark' compie 30 anni

Piero Angela (Adnkronos)   
Piero Angela (Adnkronos)
 
Roma - (Adnkronos) - Il primo dei tre speciali sarà una sorta di ''dietro le quinte'' del programma. Il secondo speciale è dedicato alla ''riscoperta'' della Terra e delle sue meraviglie. L'ultimo speciale sarà un viaggio in quattro continenti, alla scoperta di dieci grandi opere che hanno lasciato un segno nella storia dell'umanità
Quest'anno ''Quark'', lo storico programma di Piero Angela, compie trent'anni. Prendendo spunto da questo importante anniversario, il primo dei tre speciali (lunedì 19 dicembre) sarà una sorta di ''dietro le quinte'' del programma di scienze più popolare e longevo della televisione che è riuscito ad affrontare temi complessi con un linguaggio semplice, utilizzando animazioni, esperimenti, i cartoni di Bruno Bozzetto, ma anche fiction e candid camera.
Il riscontro del gradimento si traduce anche in termini di ascolto, visto che il programma, nella scorsa edizione, ha vinto 11 prime serate su 12 nel prime time di Rai1.
Il secondo speciale è dedicato alla ''riscoperta'' della Terra e delle sue meraviglie (martedì 27 dicembre). Negli ultimi decenni gli operatori naturalistici sono riusciti, con i loro filmati, a documentare ciò che non era stato mai mostrato raggiungendo ogni angolo inesplorato della Terra, grazie a elicotteri, deltaplani, mongolfiere e batiscafi: Quark ha raccolto il meglio dell'enorme massa di immagini girate, trasmettendo oltre 2 mila documentari.
L'ultimo speciale (martedì 3 gennaio) sarà un viaggio in quattro continenti, alla scoperta di dieci grandi opere che hanno lasciato un segno nella storia dell'umanità: regge, cattedrali, monumenti, palazzi, che rappresentano alcuni dei luoghi più alti nel cammino dell'umanità'.
 
Fonte: adnkronos

venerdì 16 dicembre 2011

XXIII edizione della Rassegna Internazionale del Cinema Archeologico



Il Museo Civico di Rovereto, in collaborazione con la rivista "Archeologia Viva", organizza la XXIII edizione della Rassegna Internazionale del Cinema Archeologico, che avrà luogo a Rovereto dal 1° al 6 ottobre 2012.
La partecipazione alla Rassegna è aperta a tutte le produzioni nel settore della ricerca archeologica, storica, paletnologica, antropologica e comunque aventi come scopo la tutela e la valorizzazione dei beni culturali.
Tutti i film inviati verranno catalogati e inseriti nella banca dati del Museo Civico di Rovereto, che insieme alla rivista "Archeologia Viva" svolge un'importante attività di valorizzazione e promozione dei documentari attraverso manifestazioni a carattere culturale, scientifico e didattico. Tutti i film selezionati per la XXIII Rassegna Internazionale del Cinema Archeologico concorreranno al Premio "Città di Rovereto-Archeologia Viva" attribuito dal pubblico attraverso la compilazione di una scheda consegnata nel corso delle proiezioni, ad esclusione di quelli che, scelti per il particolare interesse dei contenuti, verranno proiettati nel corso della giornata finale.
Tema della prossima edizione sarà: "Cinema e archeologia: la cinepresa alla scoperta del passato".
Per chiunque lo desideri offriamo la possibilità di proiettare la propria opera cinematografica sul nuovo canale televisivo web dedicato all'archeologia: www.archeologiaviva.tv. Questa possibilità è soggetta naturalmente ad una autorizzazione specifica delle case di produzione interessate e non potrà avvenire comunque prima dello svolgimento della XXIII edizione della Rassegna.
Termine ultimo per l'iscrizione: 16 APRILE 2012

The Civic Museum of Rovereto, in conjunction with the magazine "Archeologia Viva", is organizing the XXIII International Festival of Archaeological Film, taking place in Rovereto from 1st to 6th October 2012.
The Festival is open to any film in the fields of archaeological, historical, palethnological and anthropological research and to any documentary aimed at preserving and valuing the cultural heritage.
All the works will be listed in the Town Museum of Rovereto's data-base. Our Festival, in conjunction with the magazine "Archeologia Viva", promotes and values the documentaries through a variety of cultural, scientific and educational events. All films selected for our Festival can receive the "Città di Rovereto-Archeologia Viva" Prize given by the public to the most appreciated film. The films out of competitions, chosen for their peculiar subjects, will be presented in the last day.
The subject of the XXIII edition will be: " Cinema and archaeology: the camera in search of the Past".
For those who wish it, we offer the possibility of showing their work on the new web television channel dedicated to archaeology: www.archeologiaviva.tv. This possibility is obviously subject to your specific authorization you have to send us; anyway it can not happen before the XXIII Festival.
Deadline for the inscription: 16th APRIL 2012


sabato 10 dicembre 2011

Archaeology and the Information Age: A Global Perspective (One World Archaeology) by Paul Reilly, Sebastian Rahtz

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 041507858X, Hardcover)

Traditional methods of making archaeological data available are becoming increasingly inadequate. Thanks to improved techniques for examining data from multiple viewpoints, archaeologists are now in a position to record different kinds of data, and to explore that data more fully than ever before. The growing availablility of computer networks and other technologies means that communication should become increasingly available to international archaeologists. Will this result in the democratisation of archaeological knowledge on a global basis? Contributors from Western and Eastern Europe, the Far East, Africa and the Americas seek to answer this and other questions about the way in which modern technology is revolutionising archaeological knowledge.
(retrieved from Amazon Sat, 28 May 2011 20:09:18 -0400)


Adventures in archaeology

From Mike Pitts – Digging Deeper - thinking about archaeology


The new British Archaeology features Professor Munakata’s British Museum Adventure, a wonderful manga-style story that the BM is publishing in October. It’s written and drawn by Hoshino Yukinobu, and was originally serialised in comic form in Japan last year by Shogakukan Inc. Now it has been translated into English and brought together into a single book, and exclusive extracts in the magazine include drawings of Stonehenge, Woodhenge and some Japanese megaliths – revealing which of the two most publicised Stonehenge theories is adopted by the fictional archaeologist-cum-ethnographer (look for the magazine!).
The adventure combines artwork and narrative that remind me of my old favourites Look & Learn, Eagle and Tintin (though without the latter’s humour), with a glorioulsy high-minded approach to culture and history. We are frequently reminded that Munakata’s roots are Asian. On being told his planned trip to Wiltshire has been postponed because of police roadblocks, he comments, “They warned me to expect anything in England”. He discovers tagged tea bags, and English apples (“delicious”). But Munakata takes a strong view against repatriation. He praises the BM’s history of collecting, and fostering public access. “I am one of many Japanese scholars”, he says, “who have benefited from that generosity”. Museums are spaces where, “symbolically, fundamental truths can be displayed for all people in the world”. Wonderful! I had a little piece about this in yesterday’s Guardian.
The rest of the magazine is about real archaeology – iron age metalled roads, a newly identified dark age power base in Scotland, Jim Leary and Dave Field on the association between neolithic monuments and water, a new gold lunula find from Scotland (the first in over a century), and so on. There are some very interesting readers’ letters, Mick Aston writes about his old friend the late Philip Rahtz, and I interviewed the archaeologist and Times correspondent Norman Hammond.

giovedì 8 dicembre 2011

Archeo Gossip

Reperti archeologici in vetrina

di Caterina Pisu 


E' notizia di questi giorni che a Roma, nelle boutique di piazza Stefano Jacini, a Vigna Clara, sarà possibile ammirare, tra vestiti, scarpe e accessori vari, anche veri reperti archeologici! Il sindaco di Roma, Gianni Alemanno, presente all'inaugurazione dell'evento, ha espresso il suo compiacimento. Perché lasciare i reperti archeologici nei magazzini anziché mostrarli al pubblico, magari nella vetrina di un negozio?  Eh, sì! I nostri musei sono troppo noiosi, poco attraenti. E allora che cosa c'è di meglio che far uscire i visitatori dai musei e portarli nei negozi? Così tra un acquisto e l'altro, magari si fanno anche una cultura. 

D'altronde sarebbe stato impensabile ricorrere alle competenze dei nostri studiosi e dei giovani laureati che hanno speso anni di studio in università polverose e in biblioteche e musei altrettanto polverosi e ammuffiti per far studiare loro i reperti abbandonati nei magazzini e per progettare nuovi allestimenti nei musei, utilizzando proprio quei reperti che ora sono stati allegramente esposti nei negozi, fuori da ogni logico contesto storico-scientifico.

 "È la prima volta che sperimentiamo un' iniziativa del genere" ha affermato Alemanno. Speriamo che sia anche l'ultima.

martedì 6 dicembre 2011

A theoretical and political critique of Cornelius Holtorf ’s vision of archaeology and the reply of Cornelius

Should archaeology be in the service of 'popular culture'?


by Kristian Kristiansen∗

In two recent books, From Stonehenge to Las Vegas – Archaeology as popular culture (AltaMira 2005) and Archaeology is a brand! The meaning of archaeology in popular culture (Archaeopress 2007), Cornelius Holtorf wants us to readdress the focus of archaeology from being predominantly a study of the past to becoming a study of its use in popular culture in the present. While I am in general sympathy with the attempt to analyse the role of archaeology in modern popular culture – and his 2007 book especially provides some good examples of that – I am deeply sceptical of Holtorf ’s theoretical and political programme for archaeology. It represents a dangerous attempt to deconstruct archaeology as a historical discipline in order to allow modern market forces to take over the archaeological heritage and the consumption of the past as popular culture. Cornelius Holtorf presents his destructive ultra-liberal, and deeply conservative ideology quite openly: in one of the first paragraphs in his 2005, he declares (p. 6): ‘As far as I am concerned the practices of archaeology in the present are far more important and also more interesting than what currently accepted scientific methods can teach us about a time long past. Much of what actually happened hundreds or thousands of years ago is either scientifically inaccessible in its most significant dimensions, inconclusive in its relevance, or simply irrelevant to the world in which we are living now . . . . Importantly, I am not denying the relevance of the past to the present categorically; I merely question the significance of accurately knowing the past in the present’ (see also chapter 8). And on p. 12 he adds: ‘A second aim of this book is to suggest a new understanding of professional archaeology itself, shifting the emphasis from archaeology as a way of learning about the past to archaeology as a set of relations in the present.’ Consequently there is no need of academic archaeologists, as we do not need to know about the past as past, only as popular culture in the present. Holtorf goes on (p. 14): ‘I wish to challenge the dominant view by undermining its very foundation . . . I suggest an alternative categorization of archaeology: from archaeology as science and scholarship to archaeology as popular culture.’ According to Holtorf this is because the ultimate reason and justification for archaeology, and why it exists, is as popular culture. Not the democratic-political framework of legislation and academia, which has no place in Holtorf ’s world of free market consumption of the past, but as popular demand. 
 To achieve this agenda Holtorf sets out to deconstruct some of the foundations of archaeological heritage: the notions of authenticity (chapter 7) and of preservation (chapter 8). While I welcome a theoretical discussion of the various approaches to authenticity in modern society, Holtorf ’s goal becomes obvious when you read the next chapter. By declaring that perceived ‘pastness’ is more important than real past it becomes easier to defend his attack on archaeological preservation in chapter 8. This chapter is full of misunderstandings and Holtorf is ignorant of the most basic information about archaeological preservation, some of which I have pointed out earlier in print and verbally to Cornelius Holtorf, but apparently to no effect (Holtorf 1999; Kristiansen 1999). This may come as no surprise as academic expertise is superfluous in his brave new archaeological world. Consequently there is no need to preserve archaeological sites, there are already too many, and Holtorf believes (wrongly) that sites under protection gradually decay and disappear in the end. He rather prefers what he calls ‘constructive destruction’ where every community and society is allowed to treat archaeological sites as they see fit. Since history and the past is rewritten or renegotiated in every generation, there are no universal values, everything is in flux, and protective legislation is consequently unwarranted. Holtorf concludes about the role of the heritage sector: ‘Instead of preserving too much in situ and endlessly accumulating finds and data for an unspecified future, it is more than appropriate to take seriously the challenge of providing experiences of the past that are actually best for our own society now.’ (2005: 148). What is considered ‘best’ is determined by popular demand. So here we are at the ultimate goal for Holtorf: a deconstructed archaeology in the service of popular culture stripped of its academic and political-democratic foundations, at the mercy of the free market and its forces. It is of course blatantly obvious thatHoltorf ’s perception of archaeological practice reflects his own intellectual and professional interests and constraints, which he wishes to transfer to all of archaeology. It is only human, if not terribly scientific, to mistake one’s own academic limitations for the limitations of the discipline. However, I believe it is necessary to take a critical analytical grip on the methodological and theoretical shortcomings of his two books. Holtorf has been ideologically consumed by the popular culture he set out to analyse, perhaps because he is an amateur in the field, and therefore lacks the critical and methodological distance that another sociologist would have possessed. Without critical distance, and without any sense of social and academic responsibility, he acts as a spokesman for his subject, which is ultimately an ultra-liberal market ideology freed from political regulation and academic critique (as there is no need for academic expertise, according to Holtorf ). In this archaeological ‘neverland’ of ‘archaeo-appeal’, as is the title of chapter 9 (in his 2005), archaeology is taken over by event-makers, who respond to the popular demand ofmass-consumption as part of popular culture. This consumption is never critically analysed, and there is no mentioning of the political abuse of the popular past by political extremists, nor is their any reference to competing claims and uses of the past. Politics are absent from Holtorf ’s version of popular culture. But since everyone is free to desire and create his or her vision of the past, there are no ethical limits in Holtorf ’s world of ‘archeo-appeal’. The whole framework for archaeology’s position as a ‘brand’, and the high popular regard of archaeologists, which Holtorf stresses over and again, is based upon the maintenance Academic critique and the need for an open mind of certain core values (as every brand analyser knows). But Holtorf makes no attempt to identify these core values, except in popular culture, where they have become mythical or stereotypical. Several chapters in both books deal with the adventurous and mythical properties of discovery and fieldwork, with no reference to the real world of professional experience and hardship. It seems as if Holtorf believes these popular myths can be maintained by an ever increasing group of archaeological entertainers.However, it seems that these entertainers need make no reference to the academic discourse of scientific authenticity and knowledge about a real past from which they originate, even though they are rooted in a century-old tradition of museum presentations and popular books, television programmes. Most of this is ignored in Holtorf ’s analysis, including the whole discourse of museums and heritage, which must have done a good job in the past to account for archaeology’s popularity (as is evident from his 2007a). BecauseHoltorf perceives the connection between academia and popular culture from only one side – that of popular culture – he comes to the conclusion that academia is redundant. Paradoxically, therefore, he wants to undermine the very foundation of archaeology’s popularity in popular culture – archaeology itself. I can see many interesting results evolving from a proper and critical analysis of archaeology’s role in popular culture in modern society. Such analyses represent a welcome expansion of the theoretical and analytical repertoire of modern archaeology that balances the study of the past with its use in the present. It is this very dialectic that makes archaeology more fascinating than most other disciplines, and which ultimately demands a critical understanding of archaeology’s ideological and political role as well. It raises some fundamental questions as to the political responsibility of archaeological practice and presentations, a perspective strangely absent from Holtorf ’s books. While he is inspired by especially Michael Shanks’ work (Shanks 1992), he lacks Shanks’ understanding of the politics of the past, and the notion of archaeology as a specialised craft (Shanks 1992: 162ff; 2004). Therefore Holtorf ’s two books become uninterestingly one-dimensional and fail in
what they want to achieve, except possibly in raising debate. I doubt if Cornelius Holtorf will create a following among archaeologists, when they read his conclusion as to their future on the last page of his 2005: ‘If archaeology is popular culture, then we are all archaeologists.
That does not allow us to claim extra wages’ (2005: 160). Holtorf then invites all of us to jointly enjoy the magic of archaeology. I am not tempted, and I wonder whether Holtorf still considers himself an archaeologist – or something else? 


∗ Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden (Email: k.kristiansen@archaeology.gu.se) 

Academic critique and the need for an open mind (a response to Kristiansen) 

by Cornelius Holtorf∗

Given that my explicit position is the precise opposite, Kristian Kristiansen’s claim that I was lacking ‘any sense of social and academic responsibility’, that ‘politics are absent’ from my work, and that I was proposing a vision in which ‘there are no ethical limits’ verges on the defamatory. Should I have written that there is a political dimension to everything discussed in my books? That nothing I said should hold professional archaeologists and others back from problematising and critiquing the stories and themes that are associated with the subject of archaeology in popular culture? That a critical assessment of the audiences’ interpretations and possible implications and consequences of particular meanings of archaeology are a social duty of archaeologists and that this is the one reservation without which archaeological stories, however popular, should never be told? All these statements are from one of the books Kristiansen disagrees with so strongly (Holtorf 2007a: 145-6). I very much agree about the need for academic critique regarding all instances in which archaeology or the past occur in the present – which is why I have referred more than once to Kristiansen’s brilliant, classic article about the past and its great might (Kristiansen 1993). Contrary to what he claims, my books do not only contain critical discussions of the popular consumption of archaeology and the past but also unambiguous acknowledgments of their problematic political and ideological applications (e.g. Holtorf 2005: 50-3, 139-40; 2007a: 65-6, 83-4, 124-6, 146-7). Competing meanings, claims and uses of archaeological monuments are the subject of two full chapters (Holtorf 2005: chapters 5 and 6). Kristiansen appears to confuse the necessary critical distance in any study of popular culture with the expectation of a negative judgment about it. It is very worrying if studies that do not condemn popular culture and their commercial applications are by default described as ‘deeply conservative’ and accused of advocating ‘an ultra-liberal market ideology freed from political regulation and academic critique’ leaving people ‘at the mercy of the free market and its forces’. In fact, although the term occurs in some quotations and there is talk of fleamarkets, Viking markets, market shares concerning TV audiences and segmented markets in relation to theme parks, I neither explicitly discussed economic ‘markets’ in my books nor is there a single reference to the question of whether any market should be ‘free’ or not (but see Holtorf 2006a: 25). It is not my position that archaeology should depend entirely on an unregulated commercial market. Kristiansen’s kneejerk reaction, which rests on simplistic dichotomies (as discussed in Holtorf 2007a: 113), reflects largely his own preconceived judgments.
Given my own occupation as an academic archaeologist, it would be bizarre if I did not consider myself as an archaeologist, if I argued that ‘there is no need of academic archaeologists’, or if I denied the significance of academic expertise in general. All this, too, is Kristiansen’s own fiction. As an academic researcher I adopted an anthropological approach and an ethnographical methodology in the research underlying my books (Holtorf 2005: 9; 2007a: 13). I was well qualified for such an analysis given that Ethnologie (the German equivalent to social anthropology) was one of two subsidiary subjects in my initial Magister exam based on five years of study. Parts of historic preservation and heritage management depend on theoretical foundations that need rethinking, and the problem will not go away by attempting to undermine the expertise of those trying to discuss – and unravel – some of the emerging knots (see also Holtorf 2006b; 2007b; Holtorf & Ortman 2008; Lowenthal 2005). Kristiansen does not say what I have been misunderstanding and in what way I have been ‘ignorant about archaeological preservation’. Certainly the points he raised nearly a decade ago I answered then (Holtorf 1999). Instead of introducing new arguments he attacks positions I do not hold. What has gone wrong? I cannot account for Kristiansen’s behaviour, but I suspect that some academics, as they get older, find it frustrating to see familiar positions being challenged and discourses changing in unforeseen ways. Does Kristiansen’s comment thus reflect his own academic limitations? But all is not lost. Kristiansen argues that archaeology’s popularity originated in knowledge of the ‘real’ past supplied by scientific archaeology. According to an alternative view, however, it was rather the other way around, with the growth and establishment of academic archaeology owing much to a long-standing popular fascination with archaeological themes (Holtorf 2005: 12). Rather than indulging in academic pie-throwing, we should be studying such important issues together and with entirely open minds.

* School of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden (Email: cornelius.holtorf@hik.se)

References
Holtorf, C. 1999. Defining the real issues – a short response to Kristian Kristiansen. Arkeologen 5(1): 9-12. 
–2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas – Archaeology as popular culture. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira.
–2006a. Getting to the bottom of things: a reply to Mads Dengsø Jessen. Arkæologisk Forum 15: 24-6.
–2006b. Can less be more? Heritage in the age of terrorism. Public Archaeology 5: 101-9.
–2007a. Archaeology is a brand! The meaning of archaeology in popular culture. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
–2007b. What does not move any hearts – why should it be saved? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany. International Journal of Cultural Property 14(1): 33-55.
Holtorf, C. & O. Ortman. 2008. Endangerment and conservation ethos in natural and cultural heritage: the case of zoos and archaeological sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies 14(1): 74-90.
Kristiansen, K. 1993. The past and its great might: an essay on the use of the past. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 3-32.
–1999. The consumer’s past? – A critique of ‘The past as a renewable resource.’ Arkeologen 5(1): 4-8.
Lowenthal, D. 2005. Why sanctions seldom work: reflections on cultural property internationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:393-423.
Shanks, M. 1992. Experiencing the past: on the character of archaeology. London: Routledge.
–2004. Archaeology and politics, in J. Bintliff (ed.) A Companion to archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.

‘Popular culture’ and the archaeological imagination: A commentary on Cornelius Holtorf’s Archaeology is a Brand! (2007)


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).

Holtorf1.jpg

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. 

Holtorf2.jpg

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. 
 
From: Archaeolog

domenica 4 dicembre 2011

IRRATIONALITY AND POPULAR ARCHAEOLOGY



di Kenneth L. Feder
 
An important aspect of archaeology is communicating the significance of data and research results to a fascinated, although often uninformed public. However, on the basis of book sales, newspaper coverage, television programming, and film presentations, it would seem that the public is inordinately fascinated by the more extreme, speculative, and often pseudoscientific claims made by those purporting to use archaeological data. Through questionnaires distributed to undergraduate students and to professional, teaching archaeologists, I made an attempt to comprehend the nature of the public's appetite for pseudoscientific archaeological claims. The role of education in refuting or perpetuating pseudoscience in archaeology was then assessed.

Un aspetto importante dell'archeologia è comunicare il significato dei dati e i risultati della ricerca ad un affascinato, anche se spesso non informato, pubblico. Tuttavia, sulla base delle vendite di libri, della distribuzione di giornali, della diffusione di programmi televisivi e film, sembrerebbe che il pubblico sia eccessivamente affascinato dalle più estreme, speculative e spesso pseudoscientifiche supposizioni da parte di coloro che usano in modo improprio i dati archeologici. Attraverso questionari distribuiti agli studenti universitari e agli archeologi professionisti, ho fatto un tentativo di comprendere la natura dell'interesse del pubblico per le teorie pseudo-archeologiche. Il ruolo dell'educazione nel confutare o accettare la pseudoscienza in campo archeologico, è stata poi valutata.
 

sabato 3 dicembre 2011

Archeo gossip

L'allegra compagnia degli archeologi



di Caterina Pisu


Su Facebook è stato istituito un gruppo intitolato "L'ALLEGRA COMPAGNIA DEGLI ARCHEOLOGI: ANCHE L'ARCHEOLOGIA E' DIVERTIMENTO!" che - è scritto testualmente - è "aperto a tutti gli archeologi e ai veri appassionati di archeologia che desiderano vivere e condividere la loro passione anche attraverso l'aspetto ludico, presente e spontaneo in tutti gli scavi del mondo. Mirato anche a ricreare un immaginario collettivo spesso influenzato negativamente dall'aspetto troppo serio se non addirittura serioso del mondo accademico archeologico. LO SCOPO E' QUELLO DI CREARE QUELLO SPIRITO DI CORPO CHE E' ASSENTE NELLA NOSTRA CATEGORIA (ANZI, MANCA PROPRIO LA CATEGORIA....), COME LO FU A SUO TEMPO L'ALLEGRA COMPAGNIA DEI DOTTORI, DI MATRICE LIVORNESE. Tutti i partecipanti potranno presentare, oltre a foto, filmati, ecc. di loro allegre esperienze, anche proposte ritenute valide, novità e curiosità incontrate durante le loro ricerche, purchè non in contrasto con le leggi vigenti sul patrimonio storico-archeologico".
Ho cercato sul web "L'allegra compagnia degli architetti", ma non l'ho trovata, "L'allegra compagnia degli psicologi", idem, "L'allegra compagnia  degli avvocati", e non c'è nemmeno quella. Non c'è nemmeno "L'allegra compagnia dei clown"!!!  
Sto cercando di pensare a qualche "allegra esperienza" nella mia vita di archeologa, ma sinceramente non me ne viene in mente nessuna. Sarò troppo "seriosa"?