|
ROMANCING THE PUBLIC
Jean M. Auel ©
In
looking over the schedule, this meeting of the Society for American Archaeology
promises to be informative, exciting, provocative, perhaps controversial,
and stimulating. All the elements, in fact, for a good work of fiction, except the stories that will be told here are true -- or at least as close to truth as anyone can come when dealing with information derived from artifacts and sites of ancient times. I am the writer of fiction here, though some of the newest information emerging from the study of prehistory truly verifies the old saying that "truth can be stranger than fiction." The current work being done by researchers working in the field and in laboratories is truly amazing! New revelations are following so closely on the heels of new discoveries, it's hard to keep up. One of the important issues to be raised during this conference is the question of preserving the archaeological record. Talking to this group about the importance of preserving archaeological sites is indeed a case of preaching to the converted. Archaeologist know the fascinating and important knowledge to be gained from a site that is undisturbed. The question is, why aren't people interested in preserving archaeological sites and artifacts? How do you overcome public apathy toward learning about prehistory? Part of the problem is that many people don't identify the sites or artifacts with anything important to themselves. In this country, some think, it's just a bunch of old Indian stuff; who cares about Indian history? For others, the problem is just the opposite. Many people like to collect fossils and artifacts, not only because of the lure of selling them for easy profits, but to put on their own shelves, if only to collect dust. After all, someone is buying the illegally sold artifacts. The interest is there, many people simply don't know the importance of undisturbed sites, or even of archaeology itself. There is still a tendency for people to look upon hunting and gathering peoples, whether modern or prehistoric, as savages. A view expounded, often very colorfully and imaginatively, in earlier days by Victorian Antiquarians, though modern anthropologists have been trying to overcome it for many years. In a recent issue of Current Anthropology, in an article entitled "Hunter-Gatherers and Their Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present," Thomas Headland and Lawrence Reid point out that "Ethnocentric and racist statements...still appear in print, and the prejudice they reflect continued to be widely held." They maintain that while few anthropologists today would accept any part of the 19th century evolutionary theories, many lay people continue to believe in the fiction that human peoples evolve culturally from savagery to barbarism to civilized status. "Implausible as this viewpoint is in the light of new archaeological, linguistic, archival, and ethnographic data, it continues to overshadow recent scientifically sound analyses..." But the authors also criticize some anthropologists for reinforcing the view by presenting them as "primitive," "the Savage Other," rather than as fully modern human beings, and for failing to recognize the extent of their associations and accomplishments. No one has more respect and admiration for scientists and researchers than I do. It is their dedication that enables all of us to know about our ancestors -- and therefore ourselves. In fact, I'm sort of an "archaeology groupie." I enjoy talking to the professionals, but more than that, I have a vested interest in archaeologist -- and archaeology. You, as archaeologist, make your living by "mining" the sites for information, then adding your own skills, knowledge, insights and interpretations. The result is increased information, knowledge, and insights about who we are, where we came from, and where we may be going -- and on the practical side, you get to keep on doing what you are doing: earning a living at something you enjoy.
I earn my living by "mining" your results -- your reports and papers, and conversations -- then adding my interpretations, insights, imagination and skills. The result is increased knowledge and insights, and stories grounded in a solid core of scientific information that, among other things, helps people understand more about prehistory and the people we were and are, in a human and entertaining way. On the practical side, I get to keep on doing, earning a living at something I enjoy. I also must "dig" for my information, though not in the dirt. Let me give you an example of the kind of digging I do. I read a small item about musical instruments made out of mammoth bones found in Eastern Europe and dating to the Upper Paleolithic, but I could not find any in-depth information about them. Finally, I made a research trip to Europe which included the Soviet Union, the Ukraine, and managed to find a copy of Bibikov's book describing his research that led to the discovery that the decorated mammoth bones were musical instruments. Unfortunately, the book was written in Russian. I bought it, along with a record of a jam session by Russian musicians played on those old mammoth bones. When I returned, I paid for a complete translation of the book. It was a fascinating piece of archaeological detective work, and I included much of that information in the third book, The Mammoth Hunters. (The Mammoth Hunters was published five years ago, and I have been trying ever since to give that translation away to some university or academic press to publish so the information would be available to researchers here. It would require obtaining permissions, I believe, and copies of the many photographs, but I am still willing to donate the translation.) In a recently released publication, Save the Past for the Future: Actions for the '90s, which is the Final Report from the Taos Working Conference on Preventing Archaeological Looting and Vandalism, published by the Society for American Archaeology (1990), in the Summary of Major Findings, it was stated: "American need -- indeed, deserve -- to know about their heritage and the history and prehistory of the nation. Professional archaeologists in government, private practice and academia must be more accessible and forthcoming to the public (see Lerner, Milanich, and Bense this volume for discussions of archaeology and public education). Archaeologists must explain clearly and concisely (1) why archaeology is important, (2) what public benefit is derived from archaeological activities and (3) how looting and vandalism damage that public benefit. These messages must be expressed with a unified voice and articulated in a compelling manner to all Americans." It is a vested interest of the archeologist to have the cooperation of the public -- your jobs may depend on it -- and at least for as long as I choose to write fiction about prehistory, so does mine. Therefore, I'd like to tell you a little about some of the difficulties I had finding archaeological information -- besides having to go to Russia....before glasnost! -- to give you some insight into what it is like to come to this subject cold, without the usual university background. Some archaeologist/scientific specialists make information very difficult for the ordinary intelligent person to understand. If the scientist wants the cooperation of the public, it is the responsibility of the scientist to communicate, in ways that are understandable. They must not only express their wishes and needs clearly to obtain funding, but to gain enthusiastic support they need to convey the fascination, the excitement, the pure fun of discovery. They need to involve adult members of the general public in putting together the pieces of the puzzle of who our ancestors were and how they lived, and they need to encourage children so they will grow up wanting to know more. Archaeologist and anthropologists who work in this country need to make it clear that it is not just Indian history. It is all of humanity's history (see Knudson this volume for a discussion of archaeology and the public trust). People of European heritage, for example, tend to forget that their ancestors didn't spring full blown from agricultural or urban cultures, complete with writing and monumental architecture. Their ancestors also spent their first several million years as foragers, gatherers and hunters. Studying about the lives of any ancient people gives insight into understanding ourselves better. But that requires helping people to understand that ancient people who lived in what is today Russia, or France, or Israel, or Africa, or Asia, or America were the same as we are. They had hopes and dreams, they loved and hated, knew compassion and jealousy, bravery and fear, ambition and loss of hope. They were brave and daring and very human. I've tried to do it by telling stories, the way people have been doing since the beginning of time to remember and understand the legends, oral histories, and necessary lessons of survival. Though that isn't quite how I started. I began with an idea for a short story about a young woman living in prehistoric times, but when I tried to write it, I discovered I didn't know what I was writing about. I thought I would do a little research, and discovered an exciting world full of real people that I hadn't known existed, and that no one else seemed to know about either. It made me a little angry. Why didn't I know it? Why don't most people know it? It was all there, in the non-fiction scientific material. Then I realized why. It was not written in a way that was accessible to people, and that was when I decided I was going to tell it in a way that was. In a story, but for all my enthusiasm, it was not easy to research. I started with Encyclopedia Britannica, and went from there to the library. What I found was scientific jargon: Pebble culture Mousterian, Aurignacian, Clovis, microblade, burin, in situ, Rangifer tarandus, Chenopodium albus, Betula nana, Salix, Picea, Pinus, Pleistocene, Paleolithic. I know what those mean now because I was determined to learn, but when I started, I didn't understand a word. I still don't know if I pronounce them correctly, because in many cases, I have not heard the words spoken, I have only read them. I had to expand my vocabulary a great deal, in effect, learn a whole new language, your language, before I could make sense out of the information in libraries and journals so I could write my stories. Should that be necessary to find out something about prehistory? Probably yes, in my case, because I needed to know as much as possible in order to create an entire prehistoric world for my fictional characters to inhabit. But I don't think it should be true for most people if all they want is a little more understanding. How many textbooks giving an overview of history begin by condensing "prehistory," -- the five billion years from the Big Bang to the discovery of writing -- into the first one or two chapters, with a page or two on the Ice Age, and the remainder of the book devoted to the five thousand years since then? No wonder the Creationist's claims about six thousand years being the total length of time from the beginning, when God created everything, until now are believed by so many people. We have learned that fully modern humans have been around for at least a hundred thousand years, but the last five thousand are given the most attention. Part of the problem is the result of the very dedication and years of study that are necessary to become a trained archeologist. In the closed environment of speaking about archaeology only to teachers, colleagues, and students, it becomes easy to forget that not every one understands the specialized language that invariably becomes a part of any field of study. It is true that scientific words may be more precise, but only when talking with a peer; only if the meaning is clearly understood by both the one who is speaking, and the ones being addressed. In science, there is a tendency for many to speak in long-winded specialized words when addressing the public. And in the written material, it is almost as though there is a competition to see who can write the longest sentences and use the longest words. I recall hearing a young man speaking about "mastication of deciduous dentition." It took me a few moments before I realized that what he meant was "chewing with baby teeth." I sometimes think scientists are required to take a class entitled "Obfuscating English." Unfortunately, the media doesn't help the situation. Few reporters take the time to decipher the language of science, and many are scientifically illiterate. And with electronic media, they want "news bites" of exciting events. For example, they prefer to publicize something like the macho "first of the big game hunters" theory to account for the extinction of Ice Age animals because it sounds more exciting, more bloody and terrible, more newsy, and it's a simplistic definition. It conveys another message. It says, in effect, not only "we're so bad," but it implies, "we're so powerful." It's easier than explaining alternative theories that are more complex but more logical. The question is, how do you make the more interesting complex information more clear? An how do you communicate the excitement of science and the scientific process? In addition, for some scientists the idea of communicating to the public carries with it a stigma. They are afraid of incurring the dreaded "carlsaganism", a disease to be avoided like the plague. Unfortunately, as long as that view prevails, scientists may well defeat themselves. Yes, he may have been a little overly dramatic on occasion, but he communicated, and performed a worthwhile service. In researching for my stories, I have been most excited and moved to learn about the humanity of ancient peoples, and to understand that savagery and violence are not what define us, or what make us human. A careful study of the archaeological record shows that humanity is defined by compassion, curiosity and by art and invention. It wasn't just being able to survive, because our early ancestors did more than that. They flourished. They obtained knowledge from their environment, and had the intelligence to apply it. Since my stories were set in the Ice Age, I had to ask what that environment was like? Was it harsh and miserable, forcing a bare hand-to-mouth, hard scrabble existence as so many believe? But then why did people come north in the first place? Humans are tropical animals, not naturally adapted to living in a cold land; why didn't they stay south where it was warm? Were they driven out by competition of fellow human beings? Or were they intelligent and adaptive, curious explorers by nature? I think they were curious. Curiosity is a strong survival trait that makes intelligent humans want to learn about their environment, and the world around them. We still are. That leads me to the thought I'd like to leave with you: Romance the public. Let them know that what you are doing is not only important, but fun, exciting, fascinating. Get them involved. Show them how sharp a stone tool is -- nothing turned my thinking around so dramatically as the first time I made a blade out of obsidian and cut a piece of leather with it. Write at least some of your reports in clear, understandable language. It doesn't have to be fancy, but don't leave it to the media to misinterpret your findings. Get down to the level of a kid -- which may be higher than some adults -- and get them involved early. Imagine a Saturday morning cartoon with accurate information! Yes, it will take your time, but it's essential that people get their information from the best source. Romance the public. They'll love you for it.
Return to the Table of Contents Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article
|