Clearly there is no reason why fiction should not be used as a starting
point for discussions of archaeology or anything else. What irritated me
about this particular discussion was the inappropriateness of its timing and
the generally trivial level (as I see it) of the responses to Ms. Brandt's
original comment. I was also (and remain) surprised and disconcerted that,
given the extensive recent discussion of issues of ethnicity and nationalism
in Europe and the current events in the Balkans, this is not judged a
significant enough issue to be aired on arch-theory (I may , of course have
missed a number of excellent discussions which might have taken place prior
to my joining the discussion group), while mention of a television soap
opera is apparently accorded a high priority.
Until 1992 I worked extensively in a number of (mainly central) European
countries and found that the prevailing theoretical position was a
culture-historical one, with few people questioning the links between
material culture and ethnicity. I have no reason to believe that this
position has changed significantly, although I acknowledge that there are a
number of people who do not take this view and who are questioning the
established orthodoxy. In view of this, and of the fact that such a
theoretical position has been, and remains, one of the philosophical
underpinnings of nationalist and sectarian rhetoric (in the U.K. as much as
anywhere else), it seems to me that its dissection and critical evaluation
should be a high priority for archaeologists working in areas where it is of
central concern. At present, in a European context, it seems highly
relevant to raise these issues. It is unlikely to have any effect on
current events, but we should, I feel, be challenging recieved orthodoxies
in an effort to pull the carpet from under the feet of those who routinely
abuse historical and archaeological data in order to substantiate their own
positions. Perhaps this is overly naive of me, but nevertheless it seems a
point worth making.
The leap from reading a question about 'Star Trek' to sending an
irritable message concerning the Balkans may seem like a non-sequitur -
indeed, I admit that it is something of a non-sequitur, but my original
impulse it sprang from a sense of disbelief that the recitation of plot
summaries and character sketches could be considered a significant
contribution to archaeological debate. If this position is too radical for
Arch-Theory (as Louise Hitchcock implies), then theoretical archaeology has
become considerably tamer than it was when I was a post-graduate student in
the 1980s. This, in my opinion, is to be regretted. I am not trying to
suggest that watching television is a bad thing, even if its fatuities do
not appeal to me, but let's get a grip ...
Chris Cumberpatch
-----Original Message-----
From: Helga Brandt <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Soap operas and real life
>Chris Cumberpatch wrote:
>>
>> Given the central place of culture-historical archaeology and history
>> in myths of nationalism and consequent conflicts and the events
>> currently being enacted in the Balkans, isn't a discussion of the
>> depiction of archaeology in a soap opera more than a little obscene?
>> Don't we have some responsibility to address slightly wider issues?
>> Perhaps I should have stuck to academic archaeology - it must be nice
>> to spend all day with your head in the sand ... or somewhere else.
>>
>> Chris Cumberpatch
>> Archaeological Consultant
>> Sheffield. U.K.
>>
>>
>
>Dear Chris,
>Thanks for your critical comments which I expected as well when I
>started my request...
>I just don't think you can compare the abuse of archaeology in myths of
>nationalism respectively the current events concerning the Kosovo with
>this little discussion going on about Star Trek and archaeology. I think
>no one participating in this list will deny the importance of the issues
>you mentioned - otherwise people would not be part of a mailing-list
>discussing "arch-theory", would they? So why don't you start a
>discussion on these issues from your point of view? Like Louise
>Hitchcock wrote, "there are many of us who would be interested to read
>what [you have] to say and to perhaps even participate".
>Besides, in my opinion discussing the relevance of archaeology in a
>highly popular "soap opera" like Star Trek does not at all mean
>disinterest in politically more relevant issues...
>
>Greetings,
>
>Helga
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|