If you ask the majority of citizens in the United States about their opinion on the validity of geography-based cultural heritage claims, chances are they will either look at you like you are crazy or dive into an explanation about the most recent show they saw on the history channel about the repatriation of the Kennewick Man. Like any other topic, a person’s scope of knowledge in regards to archaeology is limited to the material that they have been exposed to. In today’s society, the majority of this information is gleaned from popular media sources such as National Geographic, the History Channel, Wikipedia, and other mainstream “educational” resources. Although very popular, these resources often offer interpretations that sensationalize and misrepresent archaeological data. The media is the main conduit of educational information and therefore, has a societal obligation to accurately portray archaeological findings and data.
References to archaeology have become increasing common in popular culture. Images of cultural icons, themes, and artifacts are found in a wide range of media formats. Some movies, such as Indiana Jones, National Treasure, and Tomb Raider do not claim to have an educational significance whereas other films, such as Breaking the Maya Code and The Bible’s Buried Secrets are presented as non-fiction works. The latter films claim to have an educational intention, and should further public knowledge by clarifying and interpreting archaeological that portrays education issues should contribute to the clarifying and interpreting data. This same principle applies to other forms of media such as magazines, journals, websites, and television shows that infer educational value on the viewer. (Clarke 3)
Accord...
... middle of paper ...
... to archaeology, media not only facilitates an archive of past events, it actively creates the present by expounding on past events. Even more credit is giving to television programs, movies, articles, and journals that assert an “educational value” upon the viewer. An audience’s scope of knowledge is limited to the information they receive; this becomes problematic when the media only depicts one side of an issue to create a cohesive narrative. Value-based conclusions are drawn from the information that is being presented to the audience which can have lasting impacts. Media that claims to be “educational” should take archaeologists’ input into account and shift the focus form ratings to accuracy. By holding the mass media to a higher standard of presentation, we can ensure that value-based opinions will be a result of empirical data, not sensationalized fallacy.
Not only educational shows accomplish these goals, but fictional television programs can often incorporate information that requires viewers to grapple with a topic using logical reasoning and a global consciousness. In addition, not to diminish the importance of reading, television reaches those who may never pick up a book or who might struggle with reading problems, enabling a broader spectrum of people to interact with cognitive topics. Veith has committed the error of making generalizations about two forms of media when, in truth, the situation varies depending on quality and content. However, what follows these statements is not just fallacious, but
The Royal Alberta Museum holds a sacred object of the First Nations groups of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Manitou Stone. This sacred object has a vast history to the Aboriginals but also has much controversy that surrounds it. Hundreds of years ago the object was removed from its original spot and was moved back and forth across the Canada, eventually ending up in Edmonton at the Royal Alberta Museum. This sacred object was said to have many powers for the First Nations people and when it was taken it brought great hardship to the First Nations groups that believed in the power of the Manitou Stone. This is only the beginning of the issues that surround this sacred object. Many different Aboriginal groups claim to own the piece but no decision has been made as to where the object should be placed. With the Manitou Stone now in the Royal Alberta Museum issues arise about the proper housing of the item and whether or not it should be retained in a museum or if it should be on First Nations land. Where the Manitou Stone is placed brings many complications and struggles for the Aboriginal people that claim ownership of the sacred object. When researching this object I was initially unaware of the significance that a museum could have to groups of people and the struggles that this could bring to these groups. This paper will explore the significance of the stone, the various viewpoints on why the object was moved originally from Iron Creek, who claims ownership to the object, and whether or not a museum is the proper place for sacred objects like the Manitou Stone to be kept.
“Skeletons in the Closet”, written by Clara Spotted Elk, is a well-built argument, but it can be enhanced to become immensely effective. Firstly, Elk’s position is effective in obtaining her purpose and connecting her audience to it, because she includes a broad scope and background of the problem in the first few paragraphs. She describes the amount of Indian skeletons preserved and contained by American museums, through the use of data and statistics. For instance, Elk states: “we found that 18,500 Indian remains…are unceremoniously stored in the Smithsonian’s nooks and crannies” (13-15). By using this data, the background of the argument is illustrated to assist the audience in understanding her argument. Now, by knowing this statistic, readers can connect with Elk and her assertion, since we realize that there are plenty of skeletons that
On July 26, 1996 two individuals were walking along the bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, did not expect to find one of the oldest complete skeletal remains in the world. While, Kennewick man has gained considerable notoriety, debates have grown over the application of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and whether the Native Americans or Archaeologists have the rights to the body. As soon as the body was found it was studied by anthropologist James Chatters and he discovered “that the skull had characteristics unlike those of modern Native Americans” (Native Americans and Archeologists). As a result, it did not qualify under the NAGPRA rules. However, conflict arose because the Department of Interior and many Native American tribes are contesting that evidence found by the archaeologists. But, while it goes against Native American beliefs to inspect the bodies of their ancestors, any evidence that was gathered during the trial, in regards to the origin of Kennewick man, was necessary in order to find out to whom he belongs. Now, the skeleton is currently being kept at the Burke Museum in Washington State, where it is not on display. I believe that is where he should stay until more information about him is found. Finally, in regards to the presentations, I will be taking about who cares about the Kennewick Man, Lise Anderson and Jen Gray will be tackling the topic of opinions, Matt Ruffcorn will do the basic information about the Kennewick Man, Austin Eibel will talk about the conflict affected and finally, Matt Hellinghouse will talk about the research from an archaeological perspective.
There has been a lot of controversy regarding human remains and the field of archaeology for some time. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect the Native American’s rights over their human remains and cultural items. Proposed by the Morris Udall, former Congress Member for Arizona second District, NAGPRA was passed by the Congress in November 1990. The congress’ intention was to facilitate the repatriation of the Native Americans skeleton and cultural remains that were held in museums and federal agencies. In compliance with the Act, anthropologists returned several skeletal remains that were conserved in their study laboratories and museums to the respective Native tribes. In 1998, for example, the University of Nebraska repatriated over 1702 cultural artifacts to the affiliated Native Americans (Niesel 1). This was a significant blow to the scientific and anthropology studies as it marked the loss of necessary resources in unraveling the development of the human being.
One of the most recognizable sources of the fueling of a homogenous subjective thought is the media. Academic institutions are often overlooked as there is the assumption that they plant only righteous thoughts and pure information; however, with the growing privatization of museums society should grow wary of lower censors...
The “Myth of the Moundbuilders” Explored, Again Several theories surround the “myth of the Moundbuilders” despite the data and evidence that exists about who built the mounds and when. Archaeologists debunked this “myth” nearly a century ago and concluded that Native Americans did in fact build the mounds. Yet, there is still speculation surrounding the Moundbuilders due to inquiries about the influences of outside cultures and their effect on the Moundbuilders’ society, as well as, where exactly the ancestors of the Moundbuilders came from. In the film The Lost Civilization of North America an overview of the myriad of myths still surrounding the Moundbuilders are presented for debate between archaeologists and other “experts” over the validity
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act established Indian nations as the owners of Native American cultural objects, including human remains, which were found on Federal land. It requires that the American Indians provide substantial amounts of information to validate their claims. However, only federally recognized tribes are recognized under this act, so if you are an unrecognized tribe good luck claiming anything that belongs to you. After this, the existing anthropological literature will be consulted. In some instances, Indians will disagree with the literature and take steps to correct it. Indians are also likely to provide additional information that had not yet been documented. The interpretations will be written from the perspective of the claiming tribe, how they view the world, and their perception of significance of objects in religious ceremonial rites. While some might raise the question of scientific objectivity, no one will deny that this perspective had often been lacking in the literature. These interpretations are bound to bring about new insights which will challenge earlier assumptions (5).
The elements of popular culture discussed above, were mainly produced for mass exposure, profit and entertainment. Products depicting archaeology relies on fantasy, imagination, myths and legends that were visualised and weaved into reality. The depiction of archaeology and archaeologists in popular culture, betray archaeology and send wrong messages that distorts the noble purpose of archaeology. Popular culture depicts archaeology as an adventure and a profession that will endure wealth and fame for its achievers. In films depicting archaeology, the general public is misinformed of who archaeologists are, and how they make their living and organize their work, as they were shown as freelance individuals who did not affiliate with any university or institution, except the character of Indiana Jones who was an archaeologist and an academic.
2003Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Pp 2-32. Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Twelfth Annual Meeting.
Often times, myths regarding the past were believed since the average lay person did not have the right education to lead them to the real answers. This leads into the one thing that surprised me the most: how easily some people will exploit (clueless) others for financial gain. For example, the Cardiff Giant. A couple of men had found an easy way to hustle money off of people who were willing to believe anything that supported the word of the Bible. From the creation of the fraudulent Giant, to turning it into a lucrative tourist attraction (and swindling people out of their money), to making experts analyze (and debunk) the Giant, to finally Hull’s confession, Newell and Hull were able to collect an obscene amount of money off of a lie. Even after the Giant was labeled a fake, people still pay money to glimpse the “greatest hoax” (Feder). I find that fact even more amazing than Newell and Hull’s ability to dupe the American public. Honestly, the moral of this story: education is key- if the public were better educated in the field of archeology (and history, for that matter), perhaps they would not have fallen for this “get rich” trick. I suppose it might be harder for me to say if that were indeed true, however, considering I’m viewing the event through hindsight. Still, I believe educating people on the difference between fact and myth could be more beneficial in the long
Imagine that one piece of history that is taken from a town. This piece of history tells l people how this town was built and all the important people that were apart of the community. “Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” by Joyce Mortimer can many people about how objects are getting taken from Museums. They should be returned immediately. There are so many artifacts out there that could be so important to people, and if someone can just imagine what it would feel to have one of the most important object taken from a museum and to be never returned again. Many people enjoy seeing these objects so why are they being taken?
Prehistoric sites display its historic beauty by the visualization of artifacts found or by its historical landmarks. These characteristics enable archaeologists to trace the evolution of societal influences among various geographic areas. Artifacts and pieces of historical land display a vast array of social, economic and religious entities that give insight to the cultural practices performed during a certain time period. A site that displays significant historical information is seen within the Cahokia Mounds in Collinsville, Illinois. Native American Indians play an important role in contributing to our historical events dating back thousands of years ago. Family ties to the Native American tribes enables family members to see first hand how the prehistoric cultural, social and religious practices performed evolved into a new set of practices in our society today.
The Oriental Institute featured an exhibit focused on the development of ancient Middle East Pioneers to the Past: American Archaeologists in the Middle East 1919–20 January 12 - August 29, 2010. And this was the exhibit I found most intriguing and most i...
Every day people who have a desire to interact with the past purchase ancient artifacts through the antiquities market, a system that has existed for many generations. However, the antiquities market is a system that has always been met with resistance, especially among those within the scholarly community of archaeologists. Many archaeologists and scholars have argued against this market, stating that it turns antiques into a commodity, encourages looting and is therefore a detriment to archaeology. On the other side, those in favor of this market have the antiquities market provides people with a great deal of exposure to the past. Both sides have their merit in regards to this controversial issue. However, when looking at the antiquities