Public Group active 3 years, 2 months ago
ANTH 3420 Urban Archaeology OER
Archaeology is undoubtedly most famous for its exploration and discovery of “wonderful things” from the deep past in “exotic” places: Tutankhamun’s tomb! Lost Maya cities! Archaeologists are also keen sift through and ask questions of ancient garbage: What do these tools at Stonehenge suggest about Neolithic and Bronze Age social networks? These discoveries and questions are important for understanding where we came from. However, more and more archaeologists are turning their attention, their theory, and their methods to the recent past and contemporary worlds. This course explores a body of work that advances these efforts in American urban places and considers debates that make the more recent American urban world its object. The course then asks students to assess and evaluate various aspects of American urban life through exposure to a broad range of archaeological case studies.
Admins:
Week 2: Foundational Papers, Foundational Debates
-
The three articles for this week by Gonzalez-Ruibal, Harrison and Smith discuss urban and contemporary archaeology’s role in critiquing the present and changing the future through the analysis of the past through material culture and landscape studies. Discuss some of the ways the papers highlighted this important connection.
-
The three papers by Gonzalez-Ruibal, Harrison and Smith all articulate the same tone in different ways. They all write about how archaeology can be used to make sense of the present through proper documentation and analysis. Monica L. Smith’s view is that archaeologists can use the connections they find between the codependency between urban area and hinterlands to learn more about how urban areas operate in the present. One specific example she uses is that of population influxes. The data archaeologist collect on past populations allows archaeologists to find migration patterns according to Smith. Similar action can be taken to evaluate current population fluctuation and maybe even help predict future movement. This way of thinking about modern archaeology is similar to Alfredo Gonzalez-Ruibal. He writes about ways in which he thinks archaeologists should start conducting the way they collect data from the recent past. Gonalez-Ruibal talks a lot about “Supermodernity” which he describes as a way to characterize the advances of technology in the recent past. He wants archaeologists to serve as an “alternative narrative” for past events. Hopefully as a vice that is less bias than any public or political bodies. Combining the two ideas form Smith and Gonzalez-Ruibal they both are arguing in favor of seeing archaeologists using their findings to create a clearer narrative of the recent past through how they receive data and how that data is then used and documented.
The article by Rodney Harrison was a shade different than Smith and Gonzalez-Ruibal but it followed a similar tone. Harrison’s article focused on how Web 2.0 effects archaeology today. The first two mentioned articles were about how archaeology can be used differently to yield different or clearer data. This article is about how data on the internet cannot be an accepted substitute for data collected by archaeologists. Harrison commits that there is an “over reliance on mob thinking” and that archaeologist ought to start a movement towards a reliance on multiple explanations for past events. Harrison is of the opinion that Web 2.0 has created an atmosphere of single idea explanations and he believes that it is the job of the archaeologist to present new perspectives on past events. It is this idea that links these three articles, all three authors are trying to say that archaeologists need to provide many perspectives on what has happened in the recent past.
Matthew Wojcik
Urban Archeology
Archeology, like every area of study, neads to adapt to the society around it, because whatever is created by humans has been, and will always be, in a state of constant flux. For this article, I will talk about “Time to destroy. An archaeology of super modernity,” by Gonzalez-Ruibal; “Exorcising ‘the plague of fantasies’: mass media and archaeology’s role in the present, or why we need archeology of ‘now’,” by Rodney Harrison; and “The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes,” by Monica Smith. All of the aforementioned articles deal with archaeology’s role in contemporary society. And the role of this branch of anthropology is of course to keep everyone informed of the lives of people, past and present.
“Time to destroy. An archaeology of supermodernity,” by Gonzalez-Ruibal, brings up the notion of supermodernity, which as a concept states that society is in an age of hyper progression. Technology has made such leaps and bounds, that in only a lifetime from the Wright brothers’ first flight in Kitty Hawk, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Communication via devices was once a limited, now everyone has a phone. The Internet can provide countless of books worth of information in the palm of your hand. Whether the information is factual or not will be addressed later on. The role of archeology here to give voices to the voiceless, bring an understanding on the violent years of the recent past.
“Exorcising ‘the plague of fantasies’: mass media and archaeology’s role in the present, or why we need archeology of ‘now’,” by Rodney Harrison, aims to inform the reader on how the Internet can be a murky place. Wikipedia, while a source that provides easy to access information, can be subject to the whims of people. Concepts like viral marketing and the dark web have a lasting impact on us, since we are constantly bombarded with such information. Archaeology has to separate fact from fiction here. However the internet does provide an interesting life story of a person’s time on the web, which is increasing as the years progress.
“The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes,” by Monica Smith creates a contrast between urban and nonurban (hinterland) areas. The two are innately linked, since non urban areas tend to provide labor for urban areas. This became increasingly true during the age of colonialism. “The flag follows trade” is a phrase that offers insight on the mechanics of colonialism. Slums in urban areas often provided the bulk of labor, via sweatshops and factories. We have access to such amenities like iphones and designer clothing, most of which was made in modern day sweatshops. To understand the urban setting is to understand the factors that fuel it.The three articles by Harrison, Smith, and González-Ruibal each discuss a possible ideal future for archaeology concerning both method and theory. The authors recognize the political and social effects archaeology can have on historical narratives and futures. Harrison’s article, “Exorcising the ‘Plague of Fantasies…,'” focused on what he calls the “Web 2.0,” a current version of the Internet where histories are written communally, resulting in dominant versions being uplifted and alternative versions suppressed (328). I was most interested by this article’s premise of approaching digital data with an archaeological mindset in order to expose erased histories and the systems of power that structure the Internet. By acknowledging the immense potentialities the distortion of history can have on the future, Harrison makes clear the need to take traditional archaeological methods, such as confusing dominant narratives, and apply them to data, sifting out the lost or buried artifacts – which in this case are remainders of Internet edits.
All three articles stress the importance of using technological advancements in the discipline of archaeology for various ends. Smith, in “The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes,” focuses on how studying past urban centers and their outskirts can provide information for dealing with inevitable changes and declines of cities. Like Harrison, Smith mentions the imperative of applying classic methods (landscape archaeology) to modern issues (urban centers). Through this, the various social and political boundaries that characterize cities and their surroundings are laid bare in the area’s landscape.
According to González-Ruibal and Harrison, the contemporary world (supermodernity as referred to by González-Ruibal, is characterized by many barriers that have affected archaeology as a discipline. While adopting a symmetrical method, González-Ruibal, identifies four issues that concern the modern archaeology: materiality, mediation, place and memory, and politics. On the other hand, Harrison, describes how the contemporary technology, i.e., the Web 2.0 and its dependence on “mob thinking and wiki-histories” have dominated all facets of “contemporary reportage and history-making” and have extensively erased alternative accounts and non-dominant views. This situation warrants the urgent development of archaeology of the contemporary past according to both authors to define a specifically archaeological approach to the recent history and to generate a more critical perspective of the modernity’s destructiveness while utilizing archaeological evidence. The archaeology of the contemporary past wheels what is generally understood as a technique for scrutinizing the distant past onto the present. In doing so, it discloses various ways of looking both at the modern society and human nature as well as the archaeology as a discipline. Harrison, agrees with González-Ruibal, that in approaching the present from an archaeological view there is a need to rethink the modernist temporalities and develop archaeology of the contemporary past to uncover the things which have been overwritten or hidden, or even made obscure.
Smith, has made a significant attempt towards reconstructing archaeological approaches to urban settings. According to Smith, both inner and outer landscapes at urban centers reflects ceremonial behavior that is sponsored by the political power, elites, and economic privileges and also permits a diversity of interactions chartered in people’s daily experiences such as pedestrian streets and staged events.In the three documents by Alfredo González‐Ruibal, Rodney Harrison, and Monica L. Smith, they discuss the complicated history of archaeology and the methods they have plowed in the past. The purpose of archaeology is to preserve and understand the remnants of the past. Ruibal’s article Time to Destroy an Archaeology of Supermodernity discusses the rapid advance of technology, the concept of super modernity and how it affects how information is inscribed today. Harrison’s Exorcising the ‘Plague of Fantasies’: Mass Media and Archaeology’s Role in the Present; or, Why we Need an Archaeology of ‘Now article describes how the internet and modern technology have affected how people get their information, due to the bombardment of various information, some of which can be incorrect or could have biased or racist intent. Smith’s The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes discusses the relationship between urban areas and other areas, and how modern urban areas can become more independent economically and not have to solely rely on outside aid.
These three articles consider that archaeology may have to adapt and change in a technological dependent age in terms of determining and spreading information. Harrison points this out, focuses that in an internet dependent world, it creates “a challenge for archaeologists to develop a new series of methodologies for interrogating virtual technologies and excavating online data sources.” (Harrison, Rodney 335) The internet has a large influence on today’s society, and archaeologists must maneuver into the internet so that the proper and unbiased information can get published and be properly viewed by the masses.
Nice points, just be sure to post thoughts BEFORE class for next readings.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
