Archaeologies of Memory: Presence of the Past

Chorus discussants: Gillian Lang, Elise Nuding, Alex Gilbert-Bono, Kit Elsworth

elise: I have been thinking about the role of materiality in creating and constituting memory, and what this means for us archaeologists who study these material remains. How do we approach objects/architecture as vehicles of memory when, as both Alcock (p.28) and Meskell (p.223) point out, the memories/significance attached to objects/architecture change when they themselves remain unchanged over time? Forty's analysis of objects standing for memory is referenced in several of the readings, and I think one of the most interesting takes on his theory is Susanne Kuchler's, quoted by Meskell. If objects do not "embody" (definition: to give a concrete form to what is abstract or ideal- OED) memory, but signify "the spaces in-between states of being, present and past" (Meskell, p. 222), what does this mean for the archaeologist trying to unpack the relevence of these objects for a civilisation's social memory?

Gillian: These readings bring up the question once more of how "masters of memory"(AOM 17) are chosen. When there are multiple versions of the past how are they reconciled? How is the past used as a tool of power?What is the merit of the Borges' story "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", Where objects exist only as in so far as they are used or imagined"(Schnapp 28)? Is memory "tougher then marble"( Schnapp 24), or is it as Halbwachs says "The memory of groups contains many truths, notions, ideas, and general propositions...But if a truth is to be settled in the memory of a group it needs to be presented in the concrete form of and event, of a personality, or of a locality" (Alcock 25). Another question that arose for me in my reading was the idea of the "dystopian landscape"(Meskell 215), and whether they are, as Meskell points out, largely unaddressed in archaeology, or whether Alcock's theory saying"more rarely do happy moments appear the focus for the collective remembrance" actually seem more probable? IS the human mind more drawn to remember the good or the bad when it comes to "sites of memory"? Has this changed over time? Are we truly moire fragmented now, and does that change the way we remember things?

Posted at Feb 18/2009 08:05PM:
Alex: As the title of this week suggests, the overarching theme of the readings is the influence of the past—how it is incorporated, and reworked into the present and the fabrication of the future. The authors referenced antiquity, and cultures saturated with history. Although, I couldn’t help but to think how all this applies to the young, American nation. America is not grounded in years of traditions, rituals, and memories as the Greeks’. Meskell briefly touches upon this point, stating “the linage between memory, identity, and landscape may seem quite innovative in a North American context” (217). Is America trying to create its own past? If so, who is helping to generate this memory. Alcock states that the “ruler or ruling elites” (17) decipher what is a “worthy memory” (18). America is based on a classless system, thus who is the authority of memories? Perhaps then could America rely on history more than on memories? How much does America borrow from other cultures? All these questions play a provocative role in the understand of how the past plays into the present.

keffie: You all bring up central (and fantastic) points to today's conversation: What stake does material have on the creation and sustenance of memory? With memory so fluid and material more static, how does that have a bearing on our approach to the past? What is the nature of memory itself and what types of events/things are memorialized? How does calling upon memory and/or history have an impact on the way in which the United States presents it's heritage?

Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology