Blogging archaeology: Photographs, locations, politics

Colleen Morgan over at Middle Savagery has a great new project going (already mentioned a few times here) called Blogging Archaeology, which is in anticipation of an upcoming session at this year's SAA meetings.  The link above highlights some of the responses to the first week's question: "Question 1: The emergence of the short form, or blog entry, is becoming a popular way to transmit a wide range of archaeological knowledge. What is the place of this conversation within academic, professional, and public discourse? Simply put, what can the short form do for archaeology?"   Definitely take the time to read through these posts, since there are some excellent, thoughtful responses.

So here's the question for this week:

"Blogging archaeology is often fraught with tensions that are sometimes not immediately apparent. Beyond the general problems that come with performing as a public intellectual, what risks do archaeologists take when they make themselves available to the public via blogging? What (if any) are the unexpected consequences of blogging? How do you choose what to share?"

For my answer I am going to focus on some of the dilemmas with posting photographs that can potentially reveal sensitive information.  I think Colleen's question for this week applies to both archaeology and anthropology in general, since choosing what to put online is always a critical issue (for academic, political, and even personal reasons).  It is definitely important to think about what's being posted, how it can be used, and what some of the potential impacts could be.

Monte Alban, Oaxaca, 2008

The photograph above was taken at a high profile site in Oaxaca, so it wasn't really an issue for me: people already know about this site.  But problems can come up when dealing with sites that are not publicly known (and protected).  While blogging is good for bringing about wider public understanding and knowledge about archaeology, there is good reason to think carefully about what we post.  I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I think about these questions all the time in the context of my own research and some of my past experiences.  Anthropology and archaeology can take us to some pretty amazing places, and it's a good thing to share these experiences with wider audiences.  At the same time, it's a good idea to at least think about what kinds of things should not be posted.  But it's not as if there is some clear cut line that makes everything simple.  Of course not.  Nothing is ever easy, is it?

When it comes to photographs (and naming specific locations), well, these issues always seem to be pretty difficult.  At some point we want to be able to talk about actual locations, rather than just vague regions.  Sometimes when everything is hidden there isn't much of the story left to tell.  So keeping everything anonymous certainly has its drawbacks, but there are also issues with letting people know where particular research sites exist (political reasons, etc).  As a general rule, I tend to be pretty conservative about the photographs that I post, especially those that relate to archaeological sites.  I worked on field projects while I was at SDSU and Palomar College in San Marcos, CA, and also worked on numerous CRM (cultural resource management) projects between 2004 and 2008.  Some of the projects were pretty amazing, and I always had my camera with me, but I didn't post all that much online, for some very specific reasons.  It's a fine line between bringing attention to an issue and making the location of a specific site known to broader audiences.  There were several sites that I worked on that either had sensitive material (burials, rock art, rock rings) or were in politically sensitive places (ie private property and so on).  Sometimes I will post photographs that show a general location, and provide a sense of the environment, but that don't really tell people where sites are specifically located, like this:

Anza-Borrego State Park, 2006.  This is where I spent most of the summer of 2006 working on a pretty massive CRM project.  Since we were out there in July and August, it was pretty hot (understatement).

Overall, though, I try to keep locations pretty vague when it comes to these kinds of archaeological sites.  But I would be interested to hear how some other folks deal with these kinds of issues.  How do you decide what to post, and what to leave out?  What kinds of issues (names, locations, politics, type of site, etc) do you take into consideration?  What kinds of methods do you use to give a sense of a site while still obscuring the location (I try to show landscapes that do not have specific landmarks that make the location easy to determine...sometimes you can show what a site looks like by providing a mid range shot that doesn't have a horizon).  In the end, these kinds of issues aren't exactly cut and dry, and there is never going to be one answer that works for all cases.  So it's a process that will always require thought and critical reflection.  When it comes to publishing and disseminating information, there are always going to be some risks.  It definitely helps to think through the issues at stake before posting online, rather than after.  Again, I'd be really interested to hear what others have to say about this.  I don't have all the answers, but considering my constant use of photography, I wish I did!

Sara Perry on blogging, media, archeaology, and communication

Sara Perry has a great new post about blogging, media, and communication on her site, which is part of the "Blogging Archaeology" discussion that is going on at Middle Savagery.  Here's my favorite part:

In the interests of brevity, I won’t add to these comments beyond saying that I think we have a responsibility to remember that blogging is simply one form of media, and whilst people (especially academics) like to pick on it as an especially dangerous and uncontrollable communicative device, I think this is misconstrued and blinding.  Blogs and social media have advantages and disadvantages—like every other type of communicative tool.  By focusing on them alone (as is common in academia), I’m concerned that we are all-too-conveniently avoiding discussion of the limitations and, indeed, prejudices of other modes of publication (e.g., the academic journal or text or edited volume).  These modes are often exclusive, insular, and inaccessible (both physically, linguistically and intellectually).  They offer limited opportunities to respond.  They can become canonised and cemented as truth and, in so doing, serve to perpetuate the status quo.

Read the rest here.

Collaboration Abounds: Savage Minds - Neuroanthropology - Middle Savagery

There's a lot of good stuff to check out lately in anthro/archaeo blogging world, that's for sure. The first stems from the idea that Rex at Savage Minds came up with a few weeks back: love letters to anthropology. Various people responded to this collaborative call--including Rex himself--and Daniel Lende put several of these together at Neuroanthropology. Definitely worth taking some time to read through...and think about how and why we're all doing this anthropology thing.

Next, Colleen Morgan posted a roundup of her "Blogging Archaeology" carnival, which is in anticipation of a session on blogging and archaeology at the 2011 SAA meetings in Sacramento (some of my friends are going to the SAAs this year, and they better go to this panel and tell me how things went). There are all kinds of reactions and opinions about the potentialities and drawbacks of using blogs as a communicative tool--or even a research tool. Some folks are more optimistic than others...but that the whole point. It's about discussion, connections, chucking ideas out there and seeing what happens.

Anyway, what I like best about this is that there are groups of people putting ideas together and making projects like this. These discussions take a form that is quite different from the presentation style of the usual "debate" in an academic journal (or even conference), in that they are bit looser, more informal, maybe a little less refined. I like these open conversations, since they show some of the process at work. Sometimes, when we're looking at finished ethnographies or archaeological monographs, it's not easy to see how the project went from the madness of fieldwork and research to the final version (which is cleaned up, edited, and presented in a very neat manner). Grace Krause from the MSU Campus Archaeology Program sums this up pretty nicely:

Much of the information and opinion expressed on blogs is transient and will never be formally published, but this does not mean there is no value in fast-paced reporting. Rather, blogging represents a missing link in the academic thought process that was rarely seen before the rising popularity of digital media. This is what is happening, this is what we’re thinking about right now as opposed to waiting months or years for an official publication, if it ever comes. Blog entries are Polaroid pictures of archaeological ideas, instant and unpolished, but nevertheless the perfect way to watch those ideas germinate and develop over time.

Maybe, after all, some of these types of discussions will make us all start rethinking the FINAL PRODUCTS as well. Who knows? What I like best of all is that I can wake up on a Sunday morning and check out what all of these people are thinking, writing, and exploring about anthropology and archaeology while I'm eating my cereal. Super cool.

Anthropological Sundays #2: From Pith Helmets to Blogs

For many people, the word "anthropologist" conjures up wonderfully arcane and colonialist images of some guy wandering around among "native" people, maybe wearing a pith helmet, and sipping some tea inside a canvas tent. Taking notes. Making deep observations about cultures, rituals, and other neat stuff. Something like that. Hey, I have no idea how anthropology became associated with the pith helmet wearing colonialist type (scroll down to the part on social and cultural anthropology). Anyway, what can you do? Some stereotypes have tremendous resiliency...I guess when some of the most famous 20th century practitioners actually did dress the part these images tend to stick. So it goes. These days, things are a bit different. You're just as likely to meet an anthropologist who works in Baluchistan as you are one who studies the social meanings and experiences of Second Life. Ya, times change.

The funny thing is that while anthropologists are famous for venturing into remote places to study supposedly distant and unknown people (even if that wasn't really always the case), and even though they like to tell stories about all of the strange foods and behaviors that have been privy to, they can be a pretty conservative bunch when to comes to exploring certain "new" horizons. So what am I talking about? I'm talking about that exotic territory known as the Internet. For some reason, anthropologists have been a bit slow to find their way into the vastness that is the internet. For the most part, as I talked about last week, anthropologists tend to stick to good old fashioned journal articles, books, and academic conferences when it comes to talking about what it is they actually do these days. No wonder so many people don't really know what they're up to. Fortunately, a good number of anthropologists are stepping outside of the usual boundaries, and I think this is a good move. This post is about some of my favorite anthropologists and anthropology-related online "places."

The first one, and probably one of the most well known (at least among other anthros) is Savage Minds. It's also one of the older and more established anthropological group blogs out there. The site is run by collection of anthro profs and some grad students, and it's been around for several years now. SM is a good combination of posts that are geared toward a wider audiences and others that speak to more academic concerns. There are posts that cover everything from the recent events in Wisconsin to the "intersection of anthropology and comic books, graphic novels, comic strips, animation, and other manner of popular drawn art."

Neuroanthropology, which is run by Daniel Lende and Greg Downey, is another favorite site. Here is the site's bio:

Neuroanthropology. Sometimes it’s straight-up neuroscience, sometimes it’s all anthropology, most of the time it’s somewhere in the middle. Greg is the cultural guy, now interested in bio stuff. Daniel is the bio guy, now interested in cultural stuff. Or, to say it differently, Greg does capoiera and mixed martial arts and other sports. Daniel does alcohol and drugs. Two very different styles of recreation.

What impresses me most about Neuroanthropology is the sheer amount of work these guys do--they are always posting all kinds of good stuff. They write about a fascinating part of anthropology, which explores the boundaries between culture and neurobiology. They also write a lot about public anthropology, publishing, and finding ways to rethink how anthropologists communicate with wider audiences. Another excellent part of this site is the weekly roundups that Lende puts together (every Wednesday--here's the latest).

Zero Anthropology, headed up by Max Forte, is where you can go for some politically-charged anthropology. The writers of this site, Forte included, aren't shy about expressing their take on numerous geopolitical events. This is not a version of anthropology that pretends to hide behind an illusion of "objectivity," that's for sure. For some, this might be a bit uncomfortable, while for others this is exactly what is in order. If anything, Zero Anthropology goes to show that there are certainly competing claims about what it is that anthropology is, and should be, all about. The last several years the site has focused heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, with the assistance of writers like John Stanton, the debates and politics of social scientists' involvement in the Human Terrain Systems project. If you were wondering where the political legacy of Eric Wolf landed, it might be here. For those of you who have never heard of this site, here is a nice little post that can catch you up on the entire year of 2010. That was easy.

Then there are my favorite archaeological blogs/sites. Colleen Morgan runs Middle Savagery, which is a fantastic site. She is always up to something fascinating, is a great photographer, and has a pretty unique way of presenting her work and ideas. Morgan's posts cover a lot of ground, that's for sure, and I never get tired of reading her work. In fact, every time I check out her site I get far too many inspirations and ideas...especially when I am supposed to be keeping myself focused on graduate school. If I had to pick one site that points the way for the ways in which blogs and other online media can be used to communicate and explore anthropology/archaeology, I think Colleen's site would be numero uno. Ya, that's how anthropology should look today. A long way from my intro to anthropology textbook, which cost me about 55 bucks and wasn't even in color. Another favorite archaeological blog is Johan Normark's Archaeological Haecceities, where you can get a good dose of theoretical archaeology AND 2012 debunking. Oh, and don't forget to check out the work of one of my all time favorite archaeologists, Michael Shanks. Take some time to look around his site...Shanks does some pretty cool work (not the standard archaeological fare by any means).

Ok, one last site before this post gets waaaaay too long: John Postill's media/anthropology. As someone who started as a photographer before going back to school to study anthropology, I have always been really interested in the borders between anthropology and media. There's certainly a lot of common ground between the two--and the histories go way back. As soon as cameras were invented, anthropologists and archaeologists were using them in fieldwork. Postill's site is one of my new favorites, precisely because of the ways in which he explores media through an anthropological lends. Check out his post "Why twitter is not to be ridiculed," or this one about social media and the uprisings in Egypt. This is just the kind of anthropology that I want to see more of.

Ok, I need to wrap this up, because I am still two chapters away from finishing a book that needs to be done ASAP (it's a good one though: Greg Grandin's The Last Colonial Massacre. Yet another book about Latin American history that makes it all too clear that the US never really learned too many lessons about supporting autocratic, repressive regimes...but that's for another time). If you've made it this far, you might be close to a codeine-esque stupor,* so I'll call it quits.

*Yes, I stole that from William T. Vollmann's intro to The Atlas. I steal all the time, and you can't stop me.

PS: A modified version of this post (with a poll) is cross-posted here.

On Trash

Check out this post over at Middle Savagery. Colleen Morgan talks about the prevalence of TRASH in the Middle East, and asks, "Why do people litter?" Here is a small slice of the discussion:

It’s hard to escape it in the Middle East–loads of garbage lining the streets, blowing across the desert, and covering the beaches. I was surprised at how shocked and outraged I was the first time I saw people casually throwing large bags and empty bottles out their car windows–we are fairly well-indoctrinated in the States against that sort of behavior, outside of smokers who still toss their butts on the ground. I try to carry a plastic bag with me to the archaeological sites I visit so that I can pick up at least some of the trash, but it feels pretty futile.

In the comments section of Colleen's post, archaeologist Mike Smith brings up Mexico as another example of a place where trash is often strewn about. He writes,

There is clearly regional variation in Mexico – Cuernavaca, a tourist town that used to be our base, is much cleaner than Toluca , an industrial town with few tourists where we work now. We have noticed this in terms of street trash, graffiti, and dead dogs along the highways.

I think I gave up puzzling over Mexican trash years ago. It’s just part of life in Mexico. I don’t have any answers, but I do like the different perspectives you suggest, and I’d be interested in finding a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon, in Mexico and elsewhere.

I usually think of this issue in infrastructural terms, but it's also important to remember that sometimes notions of cleanliness can come down to personal predilections. I have wandered through pretty small pueblos where some houses and surrounding yards are incredibly neat, while others have cars, bottles, and all kinds of other "trash" cast about. This kinda reminds me of the neighborhood where I grew up in southern California; some people had impeccable golf course grade lawns, while others had junked cars piled everywhere. This isn't really an issue that simply pertains to any one particular country--at least not according to my experience. There are plenty of places in the US that have their issues with waste and trash management.

I just came back from a short three week trip down to Baja California Sur, a place where it's pretty easy to see some extremely different social and economic conditions within minutes. As for the trash issue, yes, there are places that have their share of destroyed cars and bottles and all sorts of discarded things. Places like Cabo San Lucas--especially in the more exclusive neighborhoods--certainly don't have this trash problem. Somehow, despite the fact that these homeowners definitely consume their fair share of disposable items, their neighborhoods are stripped clean of any traces of these products. Yet the surrounding colonias--where many of the laborers live--are plagued not only by sanitation problems, but also by a severe lack of power and water. Is this a political issue, or a "cultural" one? It's important to consider factors beyond mere cultural aesthetics.

So why do people litter in the US, Mexico, and the Middle East? Why do people litter anywhere in the world? Do they cast things aside because they're lazy, because they don't care about the environment, or because there is no other place to put things? Do they ditch their cans and bottles alongside the road out of habit? In the US and many other parts of the "west," where most trash is shipped to large landfills, are these societies "cleaner," or do they have the funds, equipment, and infrastructure to take our waste and hide it away out of sight? Just some things to think about. Ultimately there is no single answer...but I have a difficult time accepting the idea that littering can only be understood in "cultural" terms. For a nice coda, have a look at this photo:

Spy Hill Landfill. Photo by D'Arcy Norman.

Middle Savagery and "Archaeological Deposits"

Colleen Morgan over at Middle Savagery has a great post about contemporary material remains. Read it! For me, this brings up a really important discussion about interpretation--what can we learn from material remains? What is impossible to know? Looking at contemporary material remains--whether the contents of your kitchen or a massive junkyard--can be really informative and fascinating. That's why I think an archaeological approach is not only relevant when it comes to the past, but also the present. We are all surrounded by material objects (cars, clothes, silverware, Christmas cards, airports, computers, photographs, toothpicks, handguns, etc), and we invest meaning in these objects. At the same time, some might argue, those very objects invest meaning in us.