Archaeology Final Exam

Nazi Germany and archaeology main idea

how archaeology can be used for political ends

manipulation of the past to satify a certain ideology

Before WWII Germany Archaeology

wan’t very prioratized in Germany

Nazi Germany Archaeology

propaganda to push ideology

archaeology was heavily funded around 1933-1935

• more open air museums, archaeological films, journals

• unprecedent for the time

interested in cultural acheivements of northern Germanic ancestors - used to create national pride

Germanic culture in northern Europe responsible for all achievements in western world

How did Nazi Germany try to prove their superior culture/existence

Journals/articles would have maps showing Germanic culturue bringing civilization to all these different places

The language of artifacts changed to be Germanic artifacts

• mapped artifacts and claimed them to be German that came from ancient German territory

• Bronze age → early germanic period

• roman iron age → alimax german period

• classic greek civilization result of germanic migration

result of german mapping archaeological itmes in other places

non-german countries/people/etnic groups sitting in “German” land in 1930s, supported by maps (that weren’t accurate)

• used to justify German expansion into Poland

United States archaeological denial of civilization

Cahokia - near East St. Louis

Cahokia characteristics

monumental architecture comparable to Pyramids of Giza

40,000 people, a city, a metropolis

hundreds of thousands of artifacts - we therefore know a lot about them

politically a hierarchy - The Great sun in charge of everyone

supported by agriculture - corn, beans, squash

Monks mound

country’s most significant and large monumental architecture

• made of earth (soil) that were temple-topped

sourrounded by smaller mounds that held burials of elite, part of political apperatus

Can see St. Louis from top, and on the othe side you can see the Mississippi which had the same function as the Nile

Why was Cahokia denied civilization

hard to legitimize usurpation of real civilization if that’s what you call it

Thomas Jefferson Excavation of mound

excavated it properly, challenged myth of mound builders

myth of mound builders

people believed that the mounds weren’t created by the native peoples but that an ancient race of white people built them and the reason why colombus didn’t see them when he came to America is because all the native people killed them

therefore everything on that side of the Mississippi belongs rightfully to white people

• myth went away after people settled there because they didn’t need it anymore

Great Zimbabwe amin point

was told to be the creation of ancient white civilization when it was actually built by Africans

great Zimbabwe characteristics

18,000 acres, largest stone constructions south of the Sahara

no mortar, free standing, no mapped out design plan

European way of thinking about Zimbabwe

• biblical origins - Solomon’s temple and Queen of Sheba

• Capital of ancient Phonesian sites - thought by Rhodes

Archaeologists abuse of Great Zimbabwe

• under guuse of archaeology, excavated site even tho told not to - stripped ruins of African artifacts

• site destroyed in many parts

Guide book for tourists to not have any mention of african creation

Archaeologists revealing true builders of Great Zimbabwe

when they found the evidence of African creation, it was covered up

Gertrude Caton Thompson confirmed African creation

After civil war Great Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe became independet and renamed country Zimbabwe to reclaim their past

most pressing issue in achaeology today

the relationship between the discipline and the people they study/the people they are making public knowledge about

Chip Colwell main points - article about relationship between discipline and public

he talks about colonial control, resistance, participation, collaboration, and indigenous control

Early history of archaeology collaboration

had no collaboration with the people they were making claims about, archaeoloists had all the control

• goals set by archaeologists only, information was extracted from community - profit from the people they are studying and never communicate with indigenous peoples

how descendants were involced in early archaeology

they could be involved with the work, but not to the extent of the actual archaeologists

• they may have just been there for free labor to dig up sites, not for equal collaboration

descendatns weren’t consults, needs to researchers were optimized

indigenous control and what that looks like

goals set by the tribe, welcome help on things they prioritize, but the information they find belongs to the tribe not the researcher

• tribe consent, needs to indidgenous peoples is prioritized

Ozette site on Makah reservation

partnership of archaeologists and indigenous peoples

How archaeologists and indigenous peopls work together in Ozette site

arhcaeologists asked descendants what they thought artifacts meant