Mesa Verde, May 2011

Ancient Urban Planning at ASU: Yui Kamoda

Ok, this is just cool.  As some of you may know, I started off studying archaeology before I turned to the dark side and took up cultural anthropology.  I have to say that studies in archaeology have never completely left me.  In fact, I think that my predilections lie somewhere between the two fields, and I think that's a good thing.  For me, trying to look at contemporary places, spaces, and objects through an archaeological perspective is tremendously fascinating and useful.  Think about places like football stadiums--tons of interesting ways to look at the social, political, and spatial implications of such seemingly everyday structures. Anyway, I just came across a post over on Michael E. Smith's site "Wide Urban World" that's fantastic.  It's a guest post by one of his students, Yui Kamoda, that applies an archaeological urban planning analysis to the campus of ASU.  Check it out.  Great stuff.  When I see work like this it reaffirms my belief that cultural anthropology has a lot to gain from paying attention to archaeological perspectives (and the reverse is true as well, IMO).

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!

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.

Monte Alban, Oaxaca, 2007

And sometimes I ask myself...how did these people get here?

From my readings about different approaches to the study of tourism: "As Franklin...argues, tourism is no doubt a social activity, but it cannot be reduced to the social because it is relationally linked to a wide variety of objects, machines, texts, systems, non-humans, spaces and so on, without which it would not happen and could not become what it is: 'as an ordering it organizes a complex mesh of human and non-humans and creates ordering effects" (Rene van der Duim, 2007: "Tourism, Materiality and Space"). The photo above was taken at the archaeological site of Coba in 2008. What guidebooks, stories from friends, TV shows, airline offers, understandings of the world, educations, vacations, social networks, industries, chance occurrences, and other factors came together to bring these people to this place, at that time, atop some old pile of rocks? What motivated those people to go THERE, of all places? What beliefs? What economic factors? What matters of taste? What historical interests? What biases? What discourses have come together to create Coba as a desirable destination, as a place worthy of spending income on to visit? What happens when those discourses change--when Coba is no longer seen as a valuable place? Does it just become another old pile of rocks, as it was before being resurrected by the tourism industry (and archaeologists, of course)?

What you really DO NOT want to see while doing archaeological survey work

This one comes from a survey project that I worked on back in 2006. Good thing we figured out this was not live ordnance. Not the kind of thing that you really want to stumble across, period. I love surveys near firing ranges, especially when people gently warn you not to touch anything that looks "hazardous".

Recent traces of occupation

Sometimes it's interesting to look at contemporary thing from an archaeological perspective. Check out this photo that I took while I was down in Baja California this past summer--it's of the imprint left by my tent. I took this photo just after rolling it up in the morning, as I was getting ready to head out. Notice the smoother depression left by the tent, all of my footprints around the edges, and the small lines that the tent poles left as they as they dragged across the sand while I folded them up. Notice also that the sand where my tent was is just a bit drier because it was covered from the salt air. These kinds of short term traces disappear pretty quickly...and it would be interesting to see exactly how quickly. Archaeologists are dealing with similar kinds of material traces, but these kinds of subtle remnants are often long lost. Just interesting to think about.

Like a bunch of post-it notes

This post is more like a collage of information, along the lines of a Peter Beard diary or a book of stories by William T Vollmann. Sure, long, cohesive narrative posts are great. But this isn't one of them. There are just too many ideas floating around, and instead of forgetting them I am just going to jam a bunch all into one post. Why not?

Since I already mentioned Beard, here is a photograph of one of his diaries, which are jam-packed, nonlinear, and completely fascinating:

"Astrid Heeren and Veruschka, April 7-8" Peter Beard, 1988

Beard is a long way from the ordered world of Ansel Adams, that's for sure. I found the above image on this site (scroll down for the post on collages). I first encountered the work of Peter Beard at the Fahey Klein gallery in Los Angeles about 10 years ago, and he has been one of my favorite photographers ever since. There is something to be said for letting loose, and Beard is certainly bound by few conventions. Beard's website is here.

Glenn Beck and archaeology (or pseudoarchaeology to be more accurate). So, Beck went on his show and demonstrated his absolute lack of understanding when it comes to archaeology. I seem to be a couple of days behind the curve, but I first found out about this via Matt's post over at Savage Minds. Here's the video (be prepared for some really lame understandings of archaeology):

I was about to break out my history of archaeology books by Willey and Sabloff and Bruce Trigger and start writing my response to this, complete with a thorough discussion of 19th century archaeological hoaxes, but then I realized that A Hot Cup of Joe and Johan Normark over at Archaeological Haecceities already covered the issue quite well. A quote from A Hot Cup of Joe:

In the 19th century, there was a prevailing myth of a “Moundbuilder society” that somehow vanished. This often became twisted into the agendas of certain religious and political causes but the credit couldn’t possibly go to the Native Americans. To recognize these people as the rightful designers and builders of such magnificent and detailed constructions would mean admitting that the Native Americans were something more than the “savages” and “heathens” they were characterized and marginalized as. Such characterizations made it far easier to force them off their lands, displace them, and treat them as less than white.

Fortunately, such beliefs and agendas have been forced out of academia early on by the likes of Cyrus Thomas, who had a Federal Government budget to find out the truth of the Moundbuilder mystery. His work was empirical and it concluded that the mounds “were built by the Indians.” In addition, he had the occasion to debunk some of the “tablets” that were cropping up here and there, including the Davenport tablet to which he launched a full, empirical investigation that discovered that it had been planted recently (to 1894) in a mound in Davenport, Iowa.

Hmmm. Why do we need some sort of public outreach in anthropology and archaeology? Well, Glenn Beck and his myopic, nationalistic uses of archaeology are Exhibit A. This kind of reminds me of an article written by Bettina Arnold about the nationalistic and political misuses of archaeology during the 20th century. The main point here is that archaeology has been manipulated for political purposes many times in the past, so it's not like Beck is inventing a new genre here.

Elizabeth Edwards on photography and anthropology:

"An anthropological photograph is any photograph from which an anthropologist could gain useful, meaningful visual information"

-from the 1992 publication Anthropology and Photography

Skaters and anthropologists. Check out this clip from a 1980s Bones Brigade skate video. It's humorous and right on the mark at the same time:

The "anthropologist" in the video is great. His words definitely seem to have a strong resemblance to the writings of Craig Stecyk:

"Two hundred years of American technology has unwittingly created a massive cement playground of unlimited potential. But it was the minds of 11 year olds that could see that potential."

-CR Stecyk III, from his Facebook Page.

If you don't know about Stecyk or what he is known for, there is a fairly recent documentary called Dogtown and Z-Boys that will fill you in. The original Dogtown articles by Stecyk are archived here, and are well worth reading, especially for anyone interested in the history and culture of skateboarding and surfing in Southern California (and anywhere, really). Stecyk's writings, to me, are decidedly sociological and anthropological in some senses--and that's why the bookish anthropologist in the above video is both plausible and hilarious at the same time. It's strange when an "anti-establishement", counter-culture subgroup like skaters starts getting anthropologized. But that's exactly what's happening. Stecyk is a good writer, and his work is definitely an inspiring example for anyone who is interested in looking at current subcultures anthropologically. It's important to look at social groups like this, but it's also important to try to find ways of writing and talking about these groups in creative ways. Work like this gives me all kinds of ideas about how I want to approach ethnography.

Somewhat related, Emily Chivers Yochim has published new book out about Skateboarders. I haven't read it yet, so I can't really make any comments yet. I'm interested to see how she approaches the subject. But the coolest part is that the book is available online to read. Check it out here. Mimi Ito discusses this book and the larger project that it is part of, here.

Barbara Miller over at anthropologyworks has a great post about "Paul Farmer in the news." What I like about Miller's site is that she is always tracking when and where anthropology is mentioned in the media. This is a good antidote for some of my complaints about the relative obscurity of the discipline--I think it makes sense to go out and see who is talking about anthropology, what people are doing with anthropology, and how people are in fact engaging with the discipline. Related: check out this post from the AAA blog.

Since Walker Evans is probably my favorite photographer of all time, I decided that I should probably read the famous book that he made in collaboration with the writer James Agee, Let US Now Praise Famous Men. I have read parts, but never the whole book all the way through. Well, now that I am getting ready to start framing my own fieldwork (which will include a photographic component), it's time to read this classic text. It's another example of the kind of work that I find really appealing and inspiring. Just for fun, here's an Evans photo:

Garage, by Walker Evans. Atlanta, GA, 1936.

I also finally bought the book Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes, because I have seen it cited so many times that I decided I need to read it. It goes up on the shelf next to books by Susan Sontag, David Levi Strauss, Elizabeth Edwards, John Berger, and others.

I found out about the 17 Magazine project from this post on Sociological Images. Yet another fascinating (and entertaining) project. This was conceived by 18 year old high school senior Jamie Keiles. Keiles has a new project and blog called Teenagerie, which is witty and critical look at adolescent life.

Here is the last note. I am reading David H. Price's book "Anthropological Intelligence," which is yet another book that I have wanted to read so far. I am on the fourth chapter now, and this book is definitely a good read for anyone who is interested in looking further into the relationship between anthropology, nation-states, and war. Some folks dismiss the concerns of contemporary anthropologists who are critical and resistant to programs like the Human Terrain Systems project, and Price's book provides some reasons to at least think twice about these issues.

Thanks for putting up with this. I will attempt to return to more cohesive posting in the near future. No guarantees though...

Archaeological/Ethnographic borders

Where do ethnography and archaeology collide? Where do they overlap? How can ethnographic information and practice inform archaeological projects? How can archaeological insights and theories give us different ways of thinking about contemporary lived environments?

Sometimes disciplinary boundaries seem pretty arbitrary. When do we call material artifacts "archaeological," and when do we place them under the ethnographic umbrella? What's the use of this separation?

I am fascinated with the idea of an "archaeological site" as something that is defined by a series of social, political, and academic criteria. In some cases, a particular site becomes archaeological when it is 45 years old or more. So day by day new archaeological sites are showing up. At least rhetorically.

So, is a 45 year old Boy Scout campfire site just as archaeological as a 6,000 year old hearth? Why or why not? Where and why do we decide to place value upon the past? Who decides?

I like the idea of mixing ethnography and archaeology up and seeing what happens. How can an archaeological mindset be useful in ethnography? How might it be interesting to look at contemporary photographs from a particular standpoint? Or what about a set of objects in a kitchen? What about the use of domestic space?

This is the kind of stuff that I think about when I am supposed to be writing seminar papers. Creative distraction or procrastination or both?

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.