Archaeologies of Memory: Presence of the Past

Discussion questions

Posted at Oct 05/2011 06:45PM:
Madison Utendahl:

After having read the Van Dyke and Alcock's article I began to think about the concept of memory as a construction of our reality. Do we formulate our memories in order to construct specific idealizations of the past? I cannot help but think of certain moments in my life personally where my memory of a specific event is blurred, I am curious if/how does this fall into the points that Van Dyke and Alcock explore? In relation to architecture, is it important that we view structures/events as apart of social or individual memory?

On another note - In relation to the World Trade Center and class last week - the towers are often are discussed under the terms of memory as an event. However is the monumental piece of architecture that The World Trade Center was, equally memorialized?

I am interested in discussing the Archeologies of Memory article and Alcock's question:

"Do people forget or remember the past according to the needs of the present?"

Posted at Oct 05/2011 10:56PM:
Peter Johnson:

This weeks readings, particularly Van Dyke & Alcock and Schnapp, got me thinking about collective memory and the roles it plays politically and in developing societies. As Alcock states, “Social Memory is often used to naturalize or legitimate authority” (3).

This quote reminded me of Thutmose IV and his erection of the Dream Stele at the Sphinx in New Kingdom Egypt. Thutmose IV, in an act to legitimize himself as the heir to Egypt’s throne, excavated and restored the decayed sphinx, thus resurrecting it as a national symbol of Egypt. He then erected a stele describing his reasoning, a dream in which the God, Horemakhet-Khepri-Ra-Atum, tells him that with restoring the sphinx he will become king. This stele and his acts can obviously be viewed as propagandistic.

In which ways is collective memory being used to this function today, if at all? Are our monuments, like the 9/11 Memorial in NYC, built to imbue a particular feeling? Also, how are new monuments (or older ones unearthed/reappropriated) being used to write a new societal narrative?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 11:18PM:
tucker: Tucker HalpernReferring mostly to Myers concentration camp reading, of course Archeology of the past is better than only using the written texts as evidence to learn about the concentration camps, why is this viewed as an innovative way to find out about history? Shouldn't historians and archeologists have been working together to piece together the past using all the evidence? Not only written evidence from the higher-classes who survived and recorded their stories and views?

And in relation to Alcock's question: "do people forget or remember the past according to the needs of the present?" Do you think that people use this strategy when reflecting on something as powerful and significant as the holocaust? Is it healthy and 'right?' or just a coping mechanism that helps us move on.

Posted at Oct 05/2011 11:19PM:
Seekay: Mills & Walker call attention to the fact that "memory is an important part of every day life." I find this to be a fascinating concept. Some questions: Do you agree that memory is an important part of daily life? What kinds of things do people remember on a daily basis? How are these memories different from collective memory? Are these memories socially/culturally important and how? Are these memories more/less/equally important as collective memories?

Mills & Walker also claim that "memory is ... a process that is continually changed through the active engagement of people in remembering." If this is so, where does the idea of 'authentic memory' fit in? Or does it fit in at all? Is it even important for authentic memory to exist or is it better to accept a memory that has evolved/ will keep evolving?

Posted at Oct 06/2011 01:41AM:
Camila Pacheco-Fores: In relation to the Myers article: If "concentration camps cannot be viewed as a phenomenon of the 30s and 40s," but rather very much intertwined with our present, when can we say difinitively that the past is truly the past? How can this question relate to other cases like the Athenian Acropolis? Are "active" ruins--like the Parthenon on the Arcopolis, which was reappropriated as a Byzantine cathedral, later an Ottoman mosque, and now restored to its idealized Classical image-- ever a part of the past, seeing as we continue to interact and evolve with them over time?

Also, looking at the archaeology of waste in the concentration camps in comparison to the Ground Zero remains at Fresh Kills landfill-- when does human waste become an archaeological artifact to be interpreted and analyzed rather than thrown away and forgotten?

Posted at Oct 06/2011 08:43AM:
omur: Excellent questions all around. I am also curious to get your thoughts on Alain Schnapp's opening question for his chapter: "By what authority does archaeology exist, and how is it justified?" This question especially strikes me as an ethical one: thinking of NAGPRA, for example. Can archaeology be considered as one of those memory practices that engages with the past through the material world (albeit an academic and highbrow one)?