The Society for American Archaeology meetings will be held the end of this month in Sacramento, California. One session of particular interest will be Blogging Archaeology, organized by Colleen Morgan (UC Berkeley and Middle Savagery). To get things kicked off, Colleen is holding a Blog Carnival, in which questions are posed to the panelists and any others who want to participate.
Blogging Archaeology. Image by Colleen Morgan
Colleen's first question, "The emergence of the short form, or blog entry, is becoming a popular way to transmit a wide range of archaeological knowledge. What is the place of this conversation within academic, professional, and public discourse? Simply put, what can the short form do for archaeology?" produced a prolific number of comments and blog posts from students and established faculty, and a fascinating range of responses, which you can read here:
Colleen's second question is (in part) "Blogging archaeology is often fraught with tensions that are sometimes not immediately apparent. Beyond the general problems that come with performing as a public intellectual, what risks do archaeologists take when they make themselves available to the public via blogging? What (if any) are the unexpected consequences of blogging? How do you choose what to share?"
To participate, simply post a blog on the topic, and send a pingback or a note to Colleen. Interesting discussion. Thanks, Colleen!
Is Blogging Dangerous?
To answer Colleen's question, I would say that writing for the public, in this most public of media, is a most dangerous activity. No matter how much research I do about a topic I choose to write on, even if I achieve direct correspondence with the research team, there's always the danger that I'll get it wrong. I'll interpret the evidence incorrectly or restate a problem in a way that mangles the scholars' own interpretations. If there's an opposing scientifically-based viewpoint (and in archaeology, there's always an opposing viewpoint), it needs to be given space. Uncountable times, I've offended someone through my particular point of view. And if I don't like a book or video that I've reviewed, there's always the danger that I will never see another book or video from that publisher.
I have to be honest, no matter what it costs in terms of readership or hate mail, in terms of relationships with scholars and with publishers. Fortunately, the Internet is both forever and mutable at the same time: opinions that I expressed in 1997 sometimes come back to haunt me, but I can always admit my mistakes and correct and update entries.
The main danger is finding the happy middle ground between taking myself too seriously, and taking the power that my words have not seriously enough.
Comments
Ever since you graciously allowed me access to ‘About Archaeology’, I frequently experience intense feelings of awe. One need only gaze at a clear, night sky to get the same sensation. But here you are, you and many other folks who want to know the how, why, where, and when that Power of the Universe gathered a group of elements (think of Periodic Table) and with slight changes in formulations created a vast array of living creatures as well as an even vaster amount of inanimate ‘things’ all over this grand planet named, Earth. On walks, I’ve often seen something that causes me to look and look and look at it. If it appears delicate, I just look. If it looks handleable, I try to learn something but invariable replace it where I found it.
But I am disturbed to read that you receive hate mail. This is preposterous! No wonder the Earth rocks with explosions, murders, and general mayhem. May I say thank you! Thank you! thank you! for you’ve opened a fascinating part of life that I’ve always found interesting, and now you share great discoveries that allow me to appreciate life more fully. Too many thoughts and words pile up in my mind right now so I will close. But first – another Thank you!