C H A P T E R 2 3 Archaeology and Society Gillian Wallace Although the official rite of passage for many middle- to upper-class white men of colonizing coun- archaeologists is an advanced university degree, the tries or, in the case of the United States, a country unofficial test is fielding questions or comments re- with colonizing tendencies of Manifest Destiny. The garding dinosaurs. The adventures of Indiana Jones predictable result was an imperialistic interpretation also crop up, and some want to hear about Lara Croft of archaeological data. One exception was John Lloyd the Tomb Raider. These cinema images portray ar- Stephens, who recognized the indigenous achievements chaeology as a romantic quest for goodies. Recording of the Mound Builders in North America and the Maya contexts or analyzing data do not figure into these in Central America (Fagan 1996). Stephens was a U.S. popular portrayals. A study of public perception re- citizen, lawyer, and diplomat (Renfrew and Bahn 1996), garding archaeology in the United States showed that a firm part of the upper middle class. Based scientific 85 percent of the respondents connected archaeology observation, his de facto support of indigenous cultures with, among other things, dinosaurs (Ramos and Du- ran against the ideology surrounding Manifest Destiny. ganne 2000). Both the dinosaur question and adven- This was exceptional; archaeologists during this time turer images are troubling because they reflect a level rarely broke rank with their class of society, which of societal ignorance about archaeology—a deficit meant attributing indigenous achievements to exog- stance (MacDonald 2002). Grahame Clark wrote that enous cultures (Ucko 1990; Fagan 1996; Hall 1995). archaeology “enables us to view history in broader Across the Atlantic, shortly after Stephens’s work, perspective” (1957:264). While today most would English General Augustus Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers made agree that archaeology does a lot of other things in ad- revolutionary inroads into systematic excavation dition to this, even Clark’s definition has not seemed methods. Sir William Flinders Petrie advanced the to stick in the minds of many. Where did the dinosaurs collection and publication of all data from his excava- and other archaeological myths originate? Why have tions in Egypt and Palestine, rather than merely the ar- they not been slain? In the past, societies have formed tifacts valued by his society (Renfrew and Bahn 1996). certain expectations of archaeology, which still linger Pitt-Rivers, like Sir Mortimer Wheeler after him, had today. Museums, local archaeology, and general out- experience in the British army and this, in addition to reach programs demonstrate the degree to which these their class and rank, may have influenced their rather historical expectations have been more recently modi- detached presentation of archaeology, which is still fied. Also, there are some themes within contemporary popular in some museums (see below). archaeology that society does not yet know to expect. While imperialistic interpretations remained, the ro- We can begin by looking at the historical aspect. manticism of the antiquarian era slowly dissipated in the nineteenth century. One notable exception to this trend THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETAL EXPECTATIONS was Heinrich Schliemann’s identification of Troy in the IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY 1870s and 1880s (Renfrew and Bahn 1996). Schliemann Public knowledge and mythical perceptions of archae- was a wealthy banker who financed his own excava- ology originate largely from the way archaeology has tions. His flashy lifestyle, combined with the discovery evolved as a discipline (see Webster, chapter 2) and the of the hitherto mythical Troy, created an alluring vision part of society engaged with the field. Antiquarians, of archaeology and archaeologists. With its many good- most of whom stemmed from the educated middle or ies (seen widely in Sophia Schliemann’s photo wearing upper classes in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early Priam’s Treasure) (Daniel 1981), Troy added significant nineteenth centuries, planted the seeds for archaeology material for public mythmaking about archaeology: to develop (Trigger 1989). As the discipline evolved in archaeologists are wealthy, acquisitive, globe-trotting the nineteenth century, influential archaeologists were people. In this sense, Lara Croft’s video game character 395 is the modern PC (in both the political and technologi- founder of modern archaeology in Iraq (Fagan 1996), cal sense) version of the Schliemann mythos. most of the archaeologists into the twentieth century Schliemann was not the only nineteenth-century credited with work were men. This to a certain extent archaeologist to capture public imagination. Giuseppti continues today within the profession, where women Fiorelli excavated Pompeii in 1860 and progressively are more likely than men to be behind the scenes as favored context over art, emphasizing that all artifacts data crunchers (see Hays-Gilpin, chapter 20). (not just the goodies) were important to understand- Along with gender, social class and ethnicity are ing the city’s past life (Daniel 1981). On the Continent, the other imbalances in archaeology. Garrod, Bell, and readers of German were enthralled by the excavations other women on the early excavations were from the of Iron Age Europe led by Colonel Schwab at La Téne upper or middle classes. The contributions of non- and Georg Ramsauer at Hallstatt. In the Americas, white archaeologists, whose relations with the white John Lloyd Stephens wrote best-sellers about his ex- expedition leaders were often good and whose work plorations of the Mayan sites in 1841 and 1843 (Daniel was a critical part of the practice, has rarely been ac- 1981). Excavating in the Near East, Austen Henry La- knowledged (Fagan 1996), creating mainstream public yard published reports on Nimrud and Nineveh that images of white people making all the discoveries. The were widely read. However, while these sites are still practice continues occasionally today where outside icons of archaeology to the public eye, it is Schliemann researchers rely on local laborers and academics to who remains a household name in conjunction with conduct field projects, yet remain the only ones men- his site (Silverberg 1985). tioned or pictured in the publicity of the site. With Schliemann having enlivened the public’s im- Owing to their traditionally high education level, age of archaeologists, Howard Carter discovered the which was a product of their social class, a misplaced tomb of King Tutankhamun in 1922 and made ar- ideal of objectivity grew among early archaeologists, fu- chaeology even flashier. The artifacts and stories from eled by the politics of the mid-twentieth century. By the this dig still engage international audiences today (e.g., end of World War II, the National Science Foundation the curse of Tutankhamen) (Silverberg 1985). Roving in the United States had laid its roots firmly in the realm museum exhibits convey the excitement of this site of physics, and researchers desirous of funding had to but also reinforce the misconception that the purpose comply with the resulting positivist philosophy, one of archaeology is to find monetarily precious things. of building scientific laws through hypothesis testing That King Tut was a relatively inconsequential ruler in (Kehoe 1998; Trigger 1986). So while New Archaeology Egypt shows that sites which get into the public eye are declared it was part of anthropology (Binford 1962), not always the most important ones to the discipline. and anthropology declared that it discovered universal Most of the myths center around the practice of laws (Kehoe 1998), researchers began communicating field archaeology, even in academia, where the most to the public in the same a positivistic, empirical way. successful, well-known archaeologists are often those As positivism often maintains the status quo (Ke- who have led excavations (Gero 1994; Wright 2003). hoe 1998:135), its empirical research framework and Addressing big questions such as origins (Conkey and language limit the participation of people who do not Spector 1984) earns recognition and funding today, think along the same lines, and is a far cry from the just as it did in archaeological history. current ideals of employing archaeologists of different The achievements of the people behind the scenes, ethnicities, genders, and educational backgrounds . especially the women who accompanied their hus- Both theoretical stances have implications that go be- bands to the field as practitioners in nineteenth- and yond the boundaries of academic discourse and tread early-twentieth-century archaeology, are still unrecog- firmly into the public arena. nized by the public. Matilda Coxe Stevenson was the ethnographer on her husband’s pueblo expeditions WHAT SOCIETY EXPECTS FROM (Reyman 1994). Tessa Wheeler’s work supervising her ARCHAEOLOGY TODAY husband’s excavations at Verulamium and Maiden Castle was so critical that Sir Mortimer did not con- Museums as Reflections of Society tinue to excavate new sites after her death (Hudson The power, prestige, and privilege of the white male ar- 1981). Yet with the notable exceptions of Dorothy chaeologists who dominated the discipline in the past Garrod, discoverer of the Natufian culture (Davies and bore heavily on interpretations, public presentation, Charles 1999), and to a lesser extent Gertrude Bell, a and affirmation of power. V. Gordon Childe (1933) 396