A prolegomenon to Jungian archaeology: conclusion

Academic archaeology's condescending attitude to the public places the latter in the role of an audience, but its inability to properly communicate any personal experience of archaeology, believing that objectivity is not only paramount but exclusive, places more distance between it and its audience. Accordingly, what in nature would result in extinction because of an organisms inability to adapt to changing conditions is averted by other groups using archaeology to their own, and very different ends. We can find no end of analogies to this situation in the natural world: the "ranching" of aphids by ants for their honeydew not only feeds the ants but protects the aphids. Archaeology crowd-based funding and data sourcing is one hive method that is advantageous to archaeology.

But archaeology also takes on the role of the aphid for other groups such as those with political motives who use nationalism in order to obtain a subservient population and to provide troops whenever needed; and through political/economic shenanigans such  with the structure of the US memoranda of understanding on "heritage" issues whereby protection is granted through the offering of secret "perks" to the applying country. These perks are kept secret because they often consist of deals that would not be supported by the majority of the public were they to know all of the details. An illusion of public support is created through panels and public input, but not only are any recommendations ignored by the government whenever is to their advantage, but as both sides of any deal are not revealed, the public has no opportunity to make an informed choice. Governmental transparency runs as a parallel PR motive to provide a defence against any criticisms in the same way that large corporations use the promotion of ethics or public support to act as a cover for the opposite behaviour. The use of various minority groups are especially sought out as these never have enough power to overcome any injustices while at the same time provide good PR for the government that uses them to reach its own ends that have nothing at all to do with the advertised motives.

Universities also use archaeology as a way of generating income, often based on current trends in public indoctrination, such as with creating courses on art crime where, if such courses were genuine, would probably require previous accreditations in international law, criminology and at least a strong working familiarity with the international art market. Such courses act a bit like a Ponzi scheme where the subterfuge is only realized when the graduates find it impossible to get jobs and the word gets out.
Because academia cannot support itself very well within a closed system, and the number of people in its classes far outweigh any foreseeable employment, associate professorships are created along with greatly reduced salaries and hours so that the  surplus will eventually wander off to become taxi-drivers or office workers and thus gain a living income. As this is a voluntary reaction, no responsibility need be assumed

Some of the above are scavenger activities as impending extinction from the lack of adaptability creates the weakened food source for the scavenger, and when one food source vanishes they will adapt by finding another.

Prior to the last decades of the nineteenth century, archaeology was predominately an amateur occupation taken up by the public at various levels of society. The most innovative applications came from people who had sources of income from business or family wealth. John Evans, for example, had a thriving paper business and he was greatly influenced by Darwin  (who was well-off) and the methods of geology. He came about his interest, originally through being a coin collector and numismatic methods, too, were incorporated into his vision of archaeology. Archaeology did not need to provide a source of income, and there was enough leisure time available to create the innovation fired by genuine personal interest.

The academic/nationalist ghettoizing of archaeology also created a new environment with its own evolutionary adaptations which became more and more idiosyncratic as it gradually parted with real public involvement in the discovery of the past: the public wanted to discover for themselves and not be taught. These idiosyncrasies evolved into unreadable academic papers mostly now seen in academic postmodern writing; extremely high prices for archaeological literature which would be needed by students but not attractive to the public; and the correspondingly high prices charged for necessary photographic data publication rights which are often waived for higher-status members of the academy.  The ability to discover for oneself is essential for evolutionary adaptation and the real result is an increase in intelligence coupled with the evolutionary reward of pleasure. The earlier decades of the nineteenth century had been a Renaissance of discovery in all areas of study and endeavour. Ghettozing could only survive if the independence that preceded it was suppressed.

The reasons for the decline in the rate of discovery and innovation, and some suggestions for ways to lessen this within academia are discussed in Aaron Lynch, in his last version of Units, events, and dynamics in the evolutionary epidemiology of ideas, 2001.Another direction to counter the lack of evolutionary adaptability is taken by transdisciplinarity.

Jungian archaeology would encompass all that I have introduced in this series and perhaps more. It would expand archaeology from just what is studied, to the psychology behind methods; the psychology of archaeologists and how the subject can be widened to provide real and useful public involvement beyond education and volunteerism. Various series about aspects of this subject could appear on this blog in the future.

On Monday, I will start with a serial presentation of my forthcoming ebook novel War in an Age of Innocence which is a Jungian/mythological coming of age story set at the transition of the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The time I will save with this serial presentation will allow me to focus on the last part of the research for a series about T. E. Lawrence staring with the publication, here, of a newly discovered document written by one of his friends. Have an adaptable weekend!


John's Coydog Community page