Archaeology of Memory

Ever heard of that before?

Archaeology is the study of the past through material objects but it is also, as Ruth Van Dyke says, “memory all the way down” (2019 p. 209). Archaeologists identify collective memory through the materials and locations they study. Memory is how humans understand and perceive time and the events that took place throughout. Archaeologists of memory want to know not only about the past but how people of the past understood their own time. Archaeologists are tasked with heritage management, the recovery of lost objects, forensic studies, collaboration with living people, and oral traditions in order to illuminate the past (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). Memory is revealed through the work of archaeology and from studying it one can have a more holistic understanding of the past and today.

How does the archaeology of memory function and what implications does it have on societies past and present?

Memory Types

The archaeological record has different ways of representing memory. Inscribed memory is most explicit and refers to things like monuments, texts, and representations in oral or written form (Nowell 2019). Embodied memory requires more evidence and is embedded in rituals, feasting, ancestor worship, and mortuary practices (Nowell 2019). Either way, representations are used in both inscribed and embodied memory and encompass symbolic materials such as paintings, masks, figurines, and rock art (Nowell 2019).

In archaeology, the notion of ‘collective memory’ is split into four types.

Social memory is how groups construct identity. For example, the indigenous people of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of Australia associate 8000-year-old rock art with the memory of their ancestors. Although they did not meet the painters personally they use the art as a connection to the past, which is essential to their identity. Social memory can cause conflict among different groups as well as allow for a multiplicity of differing voices spanning all variations of gender, ethnicity, class, and religion (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003), which will be demonstrated later in this essay.

Public memory represents the opposite of what might be seen as ‘official’ memory. It often takes the form of rumour, conspiracy, or unoffical truth.

cultural memory and collective memory are types that often refer to specific notions of nationalism — who owns and or established what land. Thus, cultural and collective memory have strong ties to place and the attachments that people have to their homelands.

Despite the various and specific meanings of the terms above, ‘collective memory’ is a term often used interchangeably throughout the social sciences in reference to any type of group memory. Collective memory, as opposed to ‘collective notion,’ does not acknowledge individual beliefs but the broader or majority sense of memory among a group (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003).

There are also two memory types within the above distinctions: conscious and unconscious. Unconscious remembering is referred to as non-declarative and conscious as declarative (Lillios 2003), and this distinction is important because it concerns the agency of the people in question. Are the remains that archaeologists find the products of passive processes, or were they intentional representations? The difference between the two is decided on a case-by-case basis according to evidence in the archaeological record.

Today there is an obsession with memory amongst Westerners. Genealogy tests are what Van Dyke calls “Postmodern nostalgia” (2003). This recent obsession is an extension of the perennial trend of humanity to hang on to its past. Having memory of whatever length is a reassurance to the living that their place in society makes sense. Memories lend more weight to having a sense of the present and what is to come than anything else. For instance, Mecca, Islam’s most sacred shrine, is a place memorializing the birth of Muhammad and more. Journeys to Meccas promote an experience of pilgrimage. The tangibility of Mecca’s existence is a part of Islam’s lived religion in the here and now: pilgrimage allows the people of today to take part in a collective narrative that spans generations. Therefore, participants of the pilgrimage are actively pursuing, and able to make sense of, their duty today.

Collective memory acts to shape nationalism, social and political forces, and culture. As mentioned above, memories are more about “defining the present and managing the future” (Lillios 2003) than anything else. For example, a mountain in Victoria, British Columbia, currently referred to as Mount. Douglas is actually PKOLS which means ‘White Head’ in the SENĆOŦEN (Salish) or Lekwungen language of the Tsawout people. The name ‘White Head’ can be traced back to the last glacial recession. Place names for the Tsawout people have cultural and spiritual meaning embedded in them; “a place name is more than just a name of a place. A place name is very important in identifying with our homeland as each of those place names contains a history, an important meaning or a teaching” (Hilderbrand). PKOLS was used as a very important meeting place in pre-colonial times. PKOLS physically overlooked the surrounding land, so the neighbouring tribes met there to communicate about land use. It is also where Captain James Douglas signed a treaty with the W̱SÁNEĆ (Saanich) and SXIMEȽEȽ (Songhees and Esquimalt) nations (Hilderbrand). The treaty was then broken. The first nations communities have a collective memory of PKOLS as a significant meeting place and as a place of betrayal. Today, after much political action taken by the First Nations communities in Victoria, there is a sign that declares the name of the mountain PKOLS of its base. However, it is still often referred to as Mount. Douglas. This is an example of how conflicting memories and political agendas can collide to shape culture, nationalism, social movements and politics. It is also an example of how place has strong ties to collective memory. The name of PKOLS is not well known due to the colonial state of Victoria. This leads us to the implications of certain memories being ‘louder’ than others due to the power behind them.

Implications of Mutability

From being selective in what is contained in school textbooks, to building new structures on top of the old, or writing transcripts to counter other memories, memory is mutable. The remembrance and omission of events in collective memories affect how people live their lives and what values they hold. How people perceive their place in society in the present is the result of how they understand the memories that belong to their community. To determine why memories remain in existence or are forgotten, archaeologists have to consider the source of their information. “what really happened” is in fact defined by those in power (Alonso 2006). The ways that memory can be erased, forgotten or reinforced by those in power take two forms. Firstly, and more often than not, collective memory can be deliberately redefined by those in power, such as colonizers, kings, or education facilitators. Alternatively, memory can shift by accident.

I use the example of the best-selling book, Zen in the Art of Archery by Eugen Herrigel, and a counter essay that is not as popular, The Myth of Zen in the Art of Archery by Shoji Yamada, to show how memory is manipulated by the most powerful voices. Herrigel’s book is used as a tool for studying Japanese culture by Westerners and Japanese. However, Herrigel’s portrayal of Zen roots of Japanese archery is actually false (Yamada 2001). Yamada does not claim that the Japanese tradition of archery lacks Zen influences, but the ways Herrigel portrays the practice of Zen in archery is ill-informed.

Herrigel went to Japan to study Zen and the philosophy of muscle memory, motor learning and how these correlate to a notion of having an ‘inner child.’ To facilitate his study, he chose archery as his medium. Despite his book’s success, Herrigel’s philosophy is actually a result of a communication failure between Herrigel and his mentor Awa. Yamada argues that translating Awa’s “original Japanese words into German then [from] German back into Japanese, [has] altered Awa’s words to such an extent that it is impossible to ascertain his original expressions” (2001). In this case, a false memory has supplanted what actually happened. While the book Zen in the Art of Archery has power by virtue of being in the hands of so many and is a bestseller in the West and Japan contributing to the knowledge and memory of Zen, the true story is mostly forgotten or not considered. Thus, the collective memory about Zen in archery is considered ‘what really happened’ even though it is the product of an accidentally artificial notion.

In addition to the deliberate redefinition of, or accidental changes to, collective memory, mutability can be due to the purposeful exclusion of any form of remembrance. In other words, the complete lack of evidence for an event can erase the event from memory. For instance, the city of Manhattan gives no tangible recognition to the enslaved peoples that built the city, while there are symbols of many other groups who contributed to its construction, such as colonizers, presidents, or other white contributors. The mere exclusion of symbols that represented the enslaved people and their actions sequesters them from the collective memory of those living today. This is an example of how power correlates with place, race, and class to affect future collective memories about how a place came to be. This example does not suggest that slavery has left the memories of those in New York, but the lack of inscribed forms and representations to commemorate those events speaks to the intentions of the powerful at the time of the building of Manhatten.

Contemporary Archaeologies of Memory

The archeology of memory and studies of consciousness has grown since the days of Freud’s psychoanalysis. Today, archaeologists of memory are studying capitalism, making an effort to involve the communities surrounding their excavation, and taking an interest in the traumas of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

The archaeology of capitalism has been a growing branch of archaeology since the first Historical Archaeology of Capitalism was published in 1999 (Leone and Knauf 2015). It encompasses social class, identity and incorporates the archaeology of memory into its practice. In the second edition of Historical Archaeology of Capitalism, Leone and Knauf state that their focus of study is to understand which structural inequalities are created and produced through ideological narratives about the past (2015). The archaeology of memory’s theories and methods can be used to understand living people and how they cope with said inequalities.

Moshenska’s 2007 excavation of a World War II Blitz attack site in East London combined traditional archaeological methods and the oral histories of local people. The excavation was of four terraced houses with gardens, which served as residences in the 1800s. Now just ruins, and flattened by topsoil, the site is now Shorditch Park. In Moshenska’s article Oral History in Historical Archaeology: Excavating sites of memory, he describes the willingness of interviewees who lived in the area to describe their experiences of the Blitz attack as children. He claimed that excavation can served as a catalyst for memories for those who experienced the attack, demonstrating that the synthesis of traditional archaeology and oral history is “undoubtedly rewarding” (Moshenska 2007).

The work of Moshenska is an example of the exploration of memories attached to one of the many traumas of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Contemporary events, such as 9/11 or the destruction of archaeological artifacts by ISIS, make us reflect on how we want to remember things and why. The decision to commemorate 9/11 by a statue of the first responders that risked their lives when they entered the Twin Towers, rather than a statue of a woman falling (a statue that did not stay downtown for long), demonstrates the public desire to remember the courage and sacrifice of those involved rather than the vulnerability and tragedy of the event (Nowell 2019). The memory of tragedy is not lost merely because there is no explicit symbol of such. It is assumed that the memory of the tragedy will not be lost in the near future because of the event’s prominence, and therefore a statue symbolizing tragedy is not desirable for those in New York. After almost two decades, 9/11 is still represented in ways that portray courage and respect. Although videos and images of the actual attack by Al Qaeda are available to the public, the image that usually commemorates the attack is of the Twin Towers standing. The decision to commemorate the event with the Twin Towers intact shows that what actually happened is not represented in its entirety, and what is preferred to be remembered is half the story.

So, Memory is how the living understand and perceive time leading up to the present, which influences how they think of the future. Archaeologists of memory have taken an interest in how memory defines the political, social and cultural circumstances of the present as well as how the people of the past perceived their own time. Collective memory serves a vital function in society today. It offers an explanation and a larger purpose to the living, which gives a sense of peace. It also shapes nationalism, social and political forces, and culture. Collective memory is the fuel of social movements and a motive force behind ethical mores, yet memories are vulnerable to being lost (Lillios 2003). This shapes the way people perceive the past and the present: memories are changed or erased by the powerful through purposeful exclusion and redirection of attention, or by a random series of events.

The growth of archaeologies of memory has made the discipline holistic in contemporary times. The archaeology of memory has combined with the archaeologies of capitalism, place, and oral histories, resulting in a holistic approach to excavations and examination of the politics and traumas of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The expansion of the study of memory into the diversity of studies archaeologists perform helps archaeology analyze the values and circumstances of people past and present.

References

Alonso, Ana. 2006. “The Effects Of Truth: Re-Presentations Of The Past And The Imagining Of Community”. Journal Of Historical Sociology 1 (1): 33–57.

Hilderbrand A History Of PKOLS (Mount Douglas) | Victoria And Region Community GreenMap”.2019.Crdgreenmap.Geog.Uvic.Ca.http://crdgreenmap.geog.uvic.ca/story/history-pkols-mount-douglas.

Herrigel, Eugen. 1988 . Zen In The Art Of Archery. 1st ed. London: Penguin Books. — (first published 1953)

Leone, Mark, and Jocelyn Knauf. 2015. Historical Archaeologies Of Capitalism. 2nd ed. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Lillios, Katina. 2003. “Creating Memory In Pre-History: The Engraved Slate Plaques Of Southwest Iberia”. In Archaeologies Of Memories, 129–147. Blackwell Publishing.

Moshenska, Gabriel. 2007. “Oral History In Archaeology: Excavating Sites Of Memory”. Public History, 91–97.

Nowell, April. “African Burial Ground” Lecture Event, University of Victoria, 2019.

Nowell, April. “Archaeology of memory and Nationalism” Lecture Event, University of Victoria, 2019.

Van Dyke, Ruth. 2019. “Archaeology And Social Memory”. Annual Review Of Anthropology, 207–225.

Van Dyke, Ruth, and Susan Alcock. 2003. Archaeologies Of Memory. Blackwell Publishers.

Wollentz, Gustav. 2018. “Excavating Memory: Sites of Remembering and Forgetting”. European Journal of Archaeology. 21. 125–129.

Yamada, Shoji. 2001. “The Myth Of Zen In The Art Of Archery”. Japanese Journal Of Religious Studies. doi:10.18874/jjrs.28.1–2.2001.1–30.