Archaeology, The Time and Writing of Hisoty
Dr. U.V Shakkeela
History is understood conventionally as interpretations on documentary sources. Though postmodernism widened the vista and scope of it into the more inclusive level of perceptions, the 'reality'/core remained undisclosed. To make it clearer, 'reality' scattered in perceptions, and sometimes, it reduced to perceptions only. History can bring together differences through perceptions. At the same time, perceptions undoubtedly strengthens the element of imagination in the construction of history. Moreover, everything that happens nowadays becomes archaeology. Time becomes a metaphor and a philosophy of history. This is the history that is made in the future. The article examines how 'archaeology' redefines history and makes the discipline positive.
Keywords: Archaeology, Perceptions, Time, Power, Ideology
History is a summary of what human beings have done on the trail of time. Though appears to be conventional by time, the definition, still sounds meaningful, but does not make sense in the post-truth phase of human life. The paper attempts to examine the discipline of history in the post-truth phase. Human life has become archaeological. Everything that happens before the next moment's completion becomes an antiquity. It is stored digitally away from the level of knowledge and experience of man. Man or his toil becomes an object or artifact. This could be due to speed and lack of human memory. Otherwise, human memory may not have the storage capacity it used to have. If not, it may be time to update. Anyway, human life is archaeology after all. Therefore, history does not need centuries of excavations to write history. Only perspectives are required, hence Philosophy becomes necessary. Otherwise writing remains as data only.
Does copying the remains of data constitute history? History - In the early days of writing, history was a collection of data. There was a need for it at that time, but at various stages it changed in the light of human consciousness and development of science. The rate of change also increased with the growth of various disciplines. History is not formed within its plan, but rather a plan of change. If one looks at the research done in history, one can easily be convinced. It is now the case that historical constructions cannot be moved on without the combination of logic, science and humanities. But these are concentrated in moments of archaeology. It’s there in the nature of Archaeology and data. How should a historical researcher approach archaeology? How to approach its data? Between these stand the people, engaged in the making of history. Meanwhile, will the people who construct history became artefacts?
The subject is not history that has been made up so far. It is about moving forward from that structure. What are the methods used, the perspectives used, and the data examined? Who is it related to? When examined in such a way, it can be said that they are related to human development, but are they not related to any ideology? These ideologies are about power and for power. When it comes to that, is it not related to the establishment of power that history is made? In fact, history itself is the foundation for the construction of power.1 There is no denying the fact that artefacts and data are tools for power construction. If those who make it are advocates of any ideology, religion or caste, all this will turn out to be their turn. Therefore, history making or writing forgets the "reality".
Contemporary archaeology also has historical constructions that forget reality. Historians extract what they need from it. Today it is only for apparent survival. Data in archaeology is used to validate an event. Don't even think about what problems it has caused in the past. They don't even look at how they examined the contexts. Even the ones taken from archaeology are turned into quotations without understanding what is up-to-date. Due to this, realities became non-realities. And they lost the importance they should have. Society is facing such tragedies today. Hence the facts of archaeology become forgetting the facts in the flow of time.
Perspectives on history are similarly changing. Because there was time to assume it earlier on it. So time changes before assuming it now. Facts are changing. What happened becomes equivalent to the concept it conceived. The archaeology of what happened disappears in time. Now the event itself defeats the reality. Memory meets fiction. A person is transformed into vividity from his narration. The individual is collected as an entity or as data. That is why what the person writes about an occasion or event transforms into many things. Or the perspective has changed. This change has rejected the position of history. Historians have become prisoners of the archaeology of time.
This happens because of the old content of history. Old content means old methodology also needs to be addressed. Poverty of thought, imprisonment of ideology, primacy of historiography, lack of sense of observation, lack of pedagogical approach, lack of knowledge on various subjects and lack of up-to-date content are the main reasons for many. But it is usually considered to be their sense of history. Thus, archaeology becomes non-existent and has to live in the enigma of time.
The enigma of time is the enigma of tragedy. That is not the puzzle of archaeology. It is a sign of turning away from the archaeology of knowledge. The multiplicity of events cannot be derived from that indication. It can only produce inadequacies of wisdom. What can be seen now are becoming its victims. When history is replaced by a space for employment opportunities and monetary exchange opportunities for industries, the visionary becomes capital. This has to be part of some overt social order or overt politics. Hence the growing inhuman imaginations or ideologies have to be treated as humane. Although there is imagination in history, the emptiness of imagination is not the recognition of history. It is genocide or denial of reality. It is also a degradation of that discipline. That is why history resides in primitive caves in Kerala itself. There is no need to operate the archaeology of wisdom there. A comparison of the shape and the belief that the shape is achieved is sufficient. Is it possible to produce a "large glass" in history in this way?
At this point it would be good to think about French painter du Champ's painting "Large Glass" (1915-1923). Duchamp is of the opinion that the painting cannot be completed permanently.2 This painting depicts the sexuality and gender differences of the time. Its peculiarity is that it changes forever through its variations. Another one has the original and two copies made by the painter himself. It is also the artist's definition of the world of reproduction as seen by Walter Benjamin.3 In the archaeology of history there is both origin and reproduction. That's for differences. And not a copy of "copies". But the copy itself can also be the original. That is where the archaeology of those who engage in and write historical constructions must work. Time is a Borgessian library4. Its utopia is about changing history and about change.
Fiction can be a model of either history or philosophy, but history cannot stand without assimilating them. It means that history has the metaphor of imagination. History is, in other words, Duchamp's "large glass". But if you ask if it is a large glass, three copies of Duchamp will come out. This painting "Large Glass" is a "broad summary" of the possibility of one in many. This is archaeology. Time is a close enigma. Ideology here is not to be compared. That is the tip of the large Glass painting when it fell. History has a revolutionary tunning fork of thought. It needs to be found in structures or writing. But is discovery possible? That's where we have to know the chronology of the human machine and organize the data in archaeology.
What is happening in the present is becoming archaeology. Those involved need to have the speed to examine that archaeology. Otherwise thoughts will become empty. This can be understood if one examines the historiography that has taken place in Kerala in connection with recent events. It can be seen that the topic turns to either party politics or caste politics. They cannot look at it in history or examine what they are doing in contemporary history. Most of what they do is repetition. Their belief is that if they repeat it, it will change. But they cannot make the difference in the copies of "large glass". This is what happens to those who get stuck in definitions of facts. The facts are all around them, not within them. It is this archaeology that is needed today, because time is enigmatic, because archaeology within it. History is not happening apparently. Change is not ideological either. Ideology has different stages. It needs to be completed. Today we need to see the plant and the flower in the seed itself. Time does not travel with Oedipus and does not necessarily recognize Jacosta.
Our archaeology is not that old. It is about conceiving our thoughts and turning our thoughts into cherished thoughts. Archaeology is not a collection of artefacts. It is the sum of our thoughts, our resources, our imaginations and our wisdom. The point here is how to use those groups to deconstruct perspectives (not just meaning). Acting on the general vision means making a strategy. History does not work in class-castes perspectives and its survival. Differences in history are also identified. Time is not a marker of the past here. Recognizing Hitler in the present and eliminating Auschwitz. But Hitler and Auschwitz are being built together.
If the old history is remaining with us as an artefact it’s because both are the interest of the future. Eliminate that archetype with a democracy of ideas. Develop into a hysteriocracy. Archaeology and time make thought trips. If there are no roads, make thoughts roads. Let time guide the means.
2. Marcel Duchamp. Appearance Stripped Bare. New York. 1990. P.73.
3. Walter Benjamin.The work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility and other Writings on Media. London, 2008. P.21
4. An allusion to Borgess’s Story. The library of Babel .