I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences. And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war.
Barack H. Obama
The quote above is from the lecture given by Barack Obama in Oslo, 10 December 2009, as he received the Nobel Peace Prize. The reason why I include the quote is the telling part where Obama professes a conviction that war is part of human nature, and that civilization is how we try to get that destructive force under control. President Obama is certainly not alone in this view of humanity's propensity for strife – it is a commonly held belief, supported by renowned philosophers such as Hobbes.
That this is more than a mere throwaway phrasing is evident in the in-depth article by Michael Lewis in the October 2012 Vanity fair. Lewis had been given extensive access to Obama and devotes a considerable portion to how the US president dealt with the unexpected prize, made even more complicated by the fact that the USA was then involved in war efforts in the Middle East. Obama wrote the speech mostly by himself while travelling to Norway, after he had discarded an earlier draft by his speech-writers that he felt did not convey his sentiments on the subject of war and peace.
Why war? What for many national leaders would be more of an intellectual exercise is for the US commander-in-chief a very real issue that has led to decades of complicated global politics affecting us all. The question about the nature of war is a question about the nature of humanity, and our view about human nature can have a profound impact on real politics. Because from the question of the nature of war springs the question ‘How do we achieve peace?’: by brute force, by imposing ‘civilization’ (however that is defined), by supporting grass-roots democratic movements, by levelling economic inequality, by securing international economic growth, by minding one's own business?
Ever since the Stone Age . . .
The question about the root and cause of war/peace is also a question that affects archaeology as the answers tend to draw upon prehistory and the origins of mankind. Explanations of human behaviour, gender roles, society, economy and identity are put forward by research disciplines ranging from neuroscience and microbiology to philosophy, but many of them rest parts of their reasoning on ideas about prehistoric humans. This is only to be expected, but the problem is that these views about prehistory, the Palaeolithic especially, tend to rest on old, outdated or overly simplistic models. That is why, when neuroscientists claim that they find a gendered differentiation of preference for red and blue, they explain this difference as a result of a hunting and gathering past, where these tasks were supposedly gender-specific (Hurlbert and Ling Reference Hurlbert and Ling2007). The merits of the science behind the study can be criticized in themselves, as it seems to gloss over the apparent cultural differences also present, which appear to suggest that colour preference may have more to do with upbringing than with gender. But what I find especially telling is how this is but one of many examples where natural scientists ‘explain’ their results, and thereby validate them, by using arguments drawn from archaeology/anthropology.
What tends to be common is that this final chain in the line of reasoning does not undergo the same scrutiny or high demand of proof as the technical side of the study. This is even more bizarre as most natural scientists tend to point out in every other forum that the humanities and social sciences are not ‘real’ sciences, in that their theories and concepts cannot be tested and replicated. But when the need arises to explain various behavioural and biological specifics of humanity, we often see how popularized or controversial concepts of archaeology and anthropology are used without any hesitation or source criticism.
If we won't, others will
When Science published an article on results of DNA analysis on Neolithic human bones from Sweden, it was the method of extracting and analysing ancient DNA that gave the study its scientific bona fides (Skoglund et al. Reference Skoglund, Malmström, Raghavan, Storå, Hall, Willerslev, Thomas, Gilbert, Götherström and Jakobsson2012), but what was specifically highlighted in both title and press releases was what this supposedly told us about the spread of agriculture to this region. The peer review of the archaeological conclusions, however, hardly went through the same rigorous peer review as the scientific method. Science correspondent Michael Balter (Reference Balter2012) actually pointed out in a separate piece that the archaeological conclusions were based on pretty slim evidence (not a single individual tested actually dated to the early Neolithic) and that there was not enough evidence yet to support the suggested model. This did not stop Science either from publishing it, or from launching a pretty intense media campaign to draw attention to this specific article and its ‘evidence’ for population migration as a cause for the spread of agriculture to Scandinavia.
This should concern us beyond intra-discipline debate, as the discussion also hinges upon how we define present-day Swedes. Different cultures in the Stone Age are portrayed as ancestral or non-ancestral to the modern population. It did not take long for this to find its way onto various Internet forums where members of the public are discussing genetics, populations, immigration and ancestry. Scientific articles should be allowed to study difficult and sensitive subjects; however, doing so demands a high level of understanding about the complexity of the terms used to draw conclusions. More to the point, although many archaeologists understand this and stay clear of public discourse on the matter, it will not stop others from making use of these subjects. And unless we take part, they will do so unopposed.
Given the prevailing interest in what makes us human, one would expect that archaeologists hold a strong position as experts and public intellectuals. As we all know, the reality is the opposite. Only rarely do we see an archaeologist in the media discussing anything other than an interesting artefact or a particular excavation. It is apparent that different disciplines have different cultures when it comes to interaction in the public sphere, and archaeology in general seems to suffer from a deeply ingrained inferiority complex. There are many and complex reasons for this, and it is not the aim of this paper to unravel the roads that have led us here. It is an aim, however, to question the validity of this standpoint and to make a case for the need for more of us to take an active part in the public discourse, whether in the media, with local people, with politicians or at university. For the truth of the matter is that these issues will be discussed with or without us – and, more to the point, our own field of research will be used by others trying to make their case. Or alternatively, politicians and other decision makers will draw upon their own barely conscious understanding about the past to make assumptions about the present and the future that will affect us all.
So it is not as simple as locking the door to the ivory tower in order to protect the admittedly fallible understanding we have of human prehistory from being used and abused. On the contrary, the less we make ourselves and our field open to debates and scrutiny, the easier it will be to abuse. It should also be pointed out that we live and work in a time where higher education is experiencing much economic cutback and scepticism. What ‘use’ does society have for people digging up pottery sherds and bricks anyway? And do we really need to spend that much money digging up more sherds and bricks? Aren't our museums overflowing with that stuff already? If archaeology does not contribute to a deeper understanding of humanity, why should any money be diverted to it? Would not the things we already have be better served by being packaged and presented by entertainment experts in a suitably exciting atmosphere?
Archaeologists know how much our field does contribute to our understanding of human history, and how necessary continued excavation is as there is still so much in our material that is fragmentary and poorly understood. However, our reluctance to participate in discussing these issues outside our own seminars and conferences is hurting us and harming our subject. Hence the title of this article – we need to participate or we will perish. That is not to say that every archaeologist should claim a soap box and start handing out pamphlets. Within every subject there are those researchers who are more at ease with and interested in taking a public role. However, it is naive to suppose that structure does not play a part in this. Undergraduate and even graduate courses generally do not include any discussion or encouragement of public participation. Students rarely, if ever, get to meet or read public intellectuals who are archaeologists – unlike students of sociology, psychology, philosophy, history or literature. There is still a stigma in archaeology about popularizing the subject, and junior researchers are understandably hesitant about putting themselves on display.
Where to start?
If we truly wish to transform archaeology into a subject that participates more actively with the public outside the museum, there are structural changes that need to be made. These are not specific to archaeology, but relate to any research discipline, whether in the humanities, the social sciences or the natural sciences. Starting with undergraduate courses, but especially at graduate levels, students should be encouraged to read and discuss current topics and practice writing about and debating these. While many archaeology graduates will not end up doing research, most will find themselves in careers where their knowledge can bring another dimension or a deeper level of complexity to a topic. Public discourse is not the aim and focus of archaeology, but it won't hurt to have our practitioners a bit better prepared when put in such a situation. The best possible outcome would be if we had enough archaeologists acting as public intellectuals for the many different aspects and theoretical standpoints of our field to become visible. The idea is not to present a united front; on the contrary, we would be better served if there were less chance of one or two charismatic individuals presenting as gospel their take on archaeology.
Think global, act local
This is all fine and well, some of you may think, but journalists, reporters and politicians aren't exactly knocking down my door to get a quote. How do we even get a foot in the door? The best advice I can give is to start by learning how to walk before you try to run. In fact, the most effective way to make an impact is by starting locally, by writing in the local paper where it is usually easier to get accepted. This is also the place where many issues of a principal nature become visible in specific cases, such as ethical considerations about excavating burials, economic questions regarding the cost of archaeology, the way heritage sites may hinder development or help tourism, etc. All these issues are of great importance to local people, and they are also very much on the agenda of local politicians. A balanced and well-formulated opinion piece by an archaeologist can do a lot to sway public opinion and also help overcome suspicion and misunderstanding. The scepticism and outright hostility that many people can feel toward not just archaeology, but researchers in general, is far better dealt with by interacting on this level than in an ever-so-cleverly written article in a national newspaper. Starting locally also means ample opportunity for practice. This should not be underestimated. It is a skill to write shortly and poignantly about difficult questions without becoming bogged down in minutiae and alienating readers. It is also good practice to get responses and feedback which will help you hone your skills of debate. Having established a good base locally, and generated interest and respect from journalists, other offers to weigh in on a greater stage tend to appear. Journalists don't like to go hunting for reclusive researchers who may be brilliant but will turn out to be unintelligible in a studio or while being interviewed. They want professional people who have shown not just a genuine interest in debate, but also a definite skill in that area.
Go online
Another stage that archaeologists should make better use of is the Internet. Especially with the explosive development of social media the opportunity to break free of the constraints of the physical space you inhabit is too good to ignore. The Web allows for researchers to create and develop their own networks, pretty much independent of the personal introduction needed IRL (‘in real life’). Whereas most researchers’ experience is that their networks tend to narrow down to a more and more specialized sub-segment of archaeology (e.g. Bronze Age, gender, pottery, phenomenology, etc.), online there can be a meeting of similar interests across both nationalities and disciplines. Questions regarding identity, religion, craft, learning, agriculture, kinship, dominance, change and so on appear across a multitude of disciplines and there is much we can learn from each other. There is much that archaeology can bring to the table.
Research blogs have taken off enormously in the last decade. There is everything from researchers’ own personal blogs to more or less professional research bloggers hosted by publishers. The social aspect inherent in blogging, where comments are encouraged and links between blog posts help generate more readers, have resulted in many bloggers forming vast networks across national borders and disciplines. Despite the fact that the humanities should be a haven for those who wish to express themselves in text, it is the science bloggers who have really taken the tool to heart. This is in part because their subjects are less specific to time and place. Still, there is a vibrant and growing community of archaeology bloggers who share information and discuss general themes. Blogs are also an excellent way to practise both at writing fairly short and interesting texts, and in how to interact with comments and responses. A blog is also a bit of digital real estate that establishes your interest in dialogue and possibly debate. Unlike an opinion piece in a newspaper, the blogger is the editor and has full control over what is written and published, and freedom to follow up or continue as he or she pleases. A blog gives you the opportunity to weigh in on newspaper articles quickly and without editorial censure. Since many, if not most, articles today are published online, linking to an article is easy and will show up in search engines. Being interviewed you are always dependent on a journalist to present your sentiments to the public; in a blog, you can take back some power over the word.
Again, while many who start to blog feel a need to do so in English to reach a big audience, I would recommend perhaps starting in your native language if that is not English. That way the blog can start to build a readership by taking part in more local or national discussions, whereas on the global stage it is easy to become drowned under the torrent of blogs and online media outlets. Microblogs like Twitter are also a good complement to blogs, or just interesting social media in themselves. These are more of a flow of news, links and consciousness, but they are a quick and easy way to connect both with other researchers and with journalists. The one thing that is absolutely essential for any kind of social media usage is the intent to be social. Blogs, forums and microblogs are not about monologues or one-way communication. Nor are they to be confused with publishing. You must be interested in what goes on around you, what other people are talking about and sharing. You must be prepared to interact civilly and genuinely in dialogues on your own blog and preferably on other blogs, by commenting on their posts.
The best way to carve out a position as a public intellectual, or at least as a publicly minded researcher, is by being open, interactive and curious. This is also the best way to make other people interested in what you bring to the discussion. From my standpoint, taking part in a wider forum than my own narrow field has expanded my horizons and helped renew my commitment to archaeology. It is not always easy to remember the passion that brought us to this subject to begin with, and I have found that few things help more than meeting others who are genuinely interested in prehistory. As for the need for participation in current affairs, I would recommend noting in articles, on television and on the radio every time someone draws a conclusion or bases an argument on a notion of prehistory and human nature. It can be anything from what our kids should wear to the roots and causes of war. And then ask yourself if you have something to add to that. Then find a way to do so.
