 |
 |
Hi Cornelius and all, Archaeology in Popular Culture is a splendid and important topic, I think! Cornelius, you surely know the recent UK work in this area better than I do nowadays, and you have my dissertation on 'alternative' archaeology... I'm working on the 'popular archaeologies' topic again now and will of course send more later, but for the moment: here's some info on people studying popular archaeologies on this side of the Atlantic, for your files: In November 2000, Marcia-Anne Dobres (then Berkeley, now U Maine I think), Robin Sewell (then Berkeley, not sure where now), and Michael Dietler (Chicago) all did terrific papers relating to popular archaeologies at the AAAs, in Dobres and Sewell's session "Consuming Anthropology: Pop Culture's Love Affair with Simulacra and the Other". Dobres' paper concerned archaeology in the movies, Sewell's covered race and gender in images of ancient Egypt in soap ads (Palmolive), and Dietler did Celtic identity (upon which he has published a lot). The session abstract follows. Jean Auel herself was discussant, which was both fascinating and delightful. cheers, Kathryn "SEWELL, Robin Lisa (California-Berkeley) and DOBRES, Marcia-Anne (California-Berkeley) CONSUMING ANTHROPOLOGY: POP CULTURE'S LOVE AFFAIR WITH SIMULACRA AND THE OTHER The relationship between popular culture and anthropology is at least as old as the discipline itself. The public's overwhelming interest can be seen with the remarkable success of Clan of the Cave Bear and the peddling of everything from soap and luggage to beer and cigarettes through appeal to exotic Others, past and present. But it has been a stormy affair, with some anthropologists working with an oftentimes missionary zeal to teach the scientific principles of evolution as well as the wonders of cultural diversity, and others ridiculing the pilfering of culture theory, ethnographies, and archaeological research to suit the public's consumptive need for anything anthropological. What fuels the public's unwavering and seemingly uncritical consumption of anthropological knowledge? Why is popular culture willing to accept simulacra as "real" anthropology? What, if any, is our responsibility in this love affair? And if anthropological knowledge belongs to the public domain, do we then have the right to try and "control" its consumption by those outside the fold? As variously concocted by authors, advertisers, film directors and mainstream culture more generally, participants in this symposium consider the sex appeal of exotic cultures, the machismo of archaeology, and the scientism, racism, and sexism in evolution and culture difference as interpreted by popular culture. The goal of the session is not just to illustrate the many areas of tension between anthropology and popular culture. It also seeks to address issues of pedagogy, by exploring how anthropologists explicitly and implicitly participate in and exploit this fascination for their own agendas inside and outside the classroom. Of necessity, we will also debate whether such pedagogical exploitations are little more than complicity fueling the problem. Among the 11 topics included for discussion are: the selling of commercial products through the exoticism of anthropology's Others past and present; the trials and tribulations of being a (paid) authoritative consultant to Hollywood films about Africans and Native American Indians; the pro an con of hyping the "Indiana Jones" machismo of archaeology in college classrooms; the proactive use of the internet by Sri Lankan minority populations to create (and correct) anthropological and journalistic constructions, thereby challenging mainstream discourse about them as a muted "Other"; the appeal to ancient pasts as a way to construct contemporary Celtic identity; how anthropology must acknowledge its contribution to creating pop culture's use of Native American tribes as athletic "mascots" while simultaneously engaging in and forming new alliances with these communities; and how the lay and scientific communities use primatological research and evolutionary theory to explain the "natural" basis of everything from homosexuality to child abuse and rape." Sarah Cross wrote: > Dear Cornelius and All, > > certainly didn't want to shut down Cornelius' topic, in fact I went to the news > stories precisely because this is my main engagement with popular culture (sad > but true). I really appreciate being pointed at more in depth discussions of > the issue, because I think this is one of the problems for archaeology in its > image in popular culture. Discovery, news, snippets - the condensation of all > subtley and debate into a few sentences. Which is probably a problem for this > list as well - completely ignorant people (like myself) ask a question to which > the rest of the group can only legitmately answer - read the literature! (fair > enough) This high-speed problem is certainly what gets levelled at programs > like Time Team here in the UK, are there contrasting images in popular culture > which hit on the more cautious side of our work? > > Sarah > > >Hi all again > > > >before India's truthful history takes over, let me say to Ehren that, > >yes, I know Miles Russell's book and like it a lot -- thanks for > >recommending it anyway and now everybody may feel (rightly!) that they > >have to read it! > > > >And to Sarah: defining pop culture is indeed difficult. What I mean is > >the image of archaeology those people get who don't make any particular > >effort to find out but just live their lives and take in what they come > >across. So, yes, both TV and Agatha are a part of it, as is the way > >people perceive some major heritage sites like Stonehenge. I guess that > >is what you suspected anyway. I am not too sure if I want to get much > >further into these kind of definitional subtleties -- after all, much of > >popular culture itself is ill defined and without clear boundaries, and > >it may well be entirely inappropriate to impose any rigid scheme on my > >subject matter. So that is what I am interested in! > > > >Cornelius > > > > > > > >Cornelius Holtorf > >Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm > >http://members.chello.se/cornelius > > > >>>> [log in to unmask] 03-03-06 12:41 >>> > >Dear Cornelius, > > > >how are you defining popular culture? Does this mean representations > >that are > >not controlled by archaeologists, or simply representations that have a > >mass > >audience? Does Time team count? Does Agatha Christie? Is it something > >you see > >when you aren't lookijgn for archaeology (so as to discount heritage > >presentation > >which is meant to be popular culture? Not trying to be awkard (honest) > >just > >want to bend my mind around the things you are interested in. > > > >thanks > >Sarah > >ps - I found your site a bit slow to load, any chance you could > >resample the > >images a bit more? S > > > > > > *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** > Text NISSAN to 57502 for UR chance 2 Win a Brand New Nissan Micra. > Txt costs EUR2 (op charges may vary). > http://interactive.iol.ie/mymobile/html/competition/comp.html