The term "MacGuffin" was first used by the famous film Director Alfred Hitchcock to refer to a particular type of plot devise often found in thrillers. The MacGuffin is usually something everyone wants, desires, or searches for in a film. In order to obtain the MacGuffin, characters are usually willing to make sacrifices, place themselves in harms way, or do almost anything to get it. While the MacGuffin might be an actual "thing" such as the necklace in a crook film, or a briefcase filled with top secret papers in a spy film, it can also be undefined or left open to interpretation. Examples of these types of MacGuffins include money, victory, glory, survival, or a source of power. Some famous examples of MacGuffins in films include: the ark of the covenant (Raiders of the Lost Ark; the plans for the Death Star (Star Wars); the one ring (Lord of the Rings) and Rosbud (Citizen Kane).
If, as people say, Life Imitates Art, then can the concept of a MacGuffin be applied to a discipline like archaeology? In other worlds, to what degree to you think the search for particular objects or things has influenced the development of archaeology as a discipline?
Take Heinrich Schliemann's search for the ancient city of Troy for example... To Schliemann, the search for historic sites mentioned in Homer's epic narrative works was a complete obsession. At the tender age of 8 he announced to his family that he would discover the location of Troy. To this end, he searched the texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey for clues as to where the site might be located. Using simple hypotheses developed from his readings, he was able to systematically dismiss locations that had been suggested by others, and eventually deduced that the ancient city of Troy was actually Hisarlik - a location in Turkey that matched Homer's description perfectly. One might argue that the search for this particular MacGuffin influenced the use of deductive reasoning in archaeology - something that would become a hallmark of the processual period.
Can you think of any examples of other MacGuffins in archaeology?
What a coincidence that I was just reading about the Staffordshire Hoard. It was found on Fred Johnson’s farm in Staffordshire England. Johnson reports that for years people had been asking him if they could search his farm for the objects. In the end more than 3500 gold, silver and garnet objects of military use were found. It would seem then in this case that the MacGuffin paid off.
ReplyDeleteI do think that every find advances archaeology, whether a person was obsessed with finding it, or if it was found by chance. It does however seem that some obsessions just fuel the conspiracy theories and not archaeology or historical research. To take one of your examples, the Arc of the Covenant has many stories floating around it that are just simple conjecture. I do think that these searches keep archaeology in the public eye which helps to bridge the stewardship gap. Large finds like the Staffordshire Hoard help keep funding coming for projects that may not be so valuable.
I think archaeology is one of the most romanticized disciplines in academia. The desire for discovery and treasure-filled adventures is one of the main reasons people are drawn to it. Perhaps this mindset is outdated and no longer realistic, but I think it was the foundation for why there have been so many MacGuffins throughout the history of archaeology. This is why so many people have travelled through the thick jungles of the Amazon, searched through tons of sand in Egypt to find lost tombs, and sought after other ruins of lost civilizations.
ReplyDeleteMacGuffins are a dying breed in archaeology however. People still have them, and sacrifice a lot in order to find or obtain them, but they tend to be of a much more subdued significance to many modern archaeologists. This is because as technology and systematic methodologies have advanced, much more information can be gained from relatively smaller and less romantic artifacts. Archaeologists aren’t looking for the same things today as they were when the discipline was first forming. Regardless, I think this idealistic view of MacGuffins is what brings the most passion to archaeology.
Although a MacGuffin is certainly of use for driving individuals to probe for answers, problems might occur when those strong desires have a destructive affect on the results of the inquiry. Taking Schliemann's 'discovery' of Troy for example, the reliability of his assertion that the city he excavated was indeed Troy is highly debatable. There are a number of fundamental issues when applying information garnered from ancient texts to archaeological contexts. The first being high subjectivity of the translator's interpretations, the problem of forcing the materials to relate to the texts, and the issue concerning the reliability of ancient texts and the biases of the authors. More importantly to this issue, the destruction of the upper strata carried out by Schliemann by his passion to discover the mythical Troy ruined large portions of the site forever. Overall, when the methods used to acquire the MacGuffins are reasonable and scientifically motivated, they can be of great benefit to the discipline, particularly today. Cultural MacGuffins were however the primary focus of the antiquarian days of archaeology.
There have been many MacGuffins that I have heard of in archaeology. Such examples I have came across are Noah's arch which is said to be on mount Ararat, the lost city/continent of atlantis, El Darado, the Garden of Eden as well as many other biblical artifacts I am presuming. Some of these have just been undertaken for decades with little success and a lot of speculation and little information to go on. In the case of Atlantis many people have found the supposed location even though in some cases the evidence is contradicting to the story. As I have learned in one of my other Archaeology classes the city Of El Darado is belived to have existed but was wiped out by European disease and thus disappeared. In the search of this particular MacGuffin many other civilizations were discovered such as the Maya temples as well as Inca sites.
ReplyDeleteI think that these MacGuffins are useful in archaeology because they provide a goal for archaeologists, such as how hypotheses help guide most archaeological studies of our time. They can also lead to discoveries of new sites. In some cases they could shed light onto the imaginative power of the people of the past and their abilities to create stories with seemingly real locations and artifacts.
Plus you've gotta admit... They make for some pretty fantastic movies.
I’ve read that Humans are neophiliacs, which means we’re obsessed with originality or novelty. I think this applies to explorer’s searching for their MacGuffin because we’re all searching for something that no body else has discovered. Besides the immediate film references I recall real life examples of this. The most immediate being Hiram Bingham’s obsession with the lost Inca Cities of the Peruvian Amazon. Once specific example is his discovery of Machu Pichu, which would still be hibernating within the jungle without being discovered by Bingham.
ReplyDeleteOther glaring examples are of course Columbus, Pizarro, Franklin, Darwin and on… All similar in their search of something just beyond their grasp. I would wager that without these individual obsessions to drive these priceless discoveries, Humanity may still be in the dark ages.
I definitely think that without these MacGuffins archaeology would not be in the same position as it is today. How many expeditions would not have been funded without the promise or at least hope of a 'treasure' to show off at the end? And think about how much publicity these items have generated for the field.
ReplyDeleteAnd even today, I would like to think that these MacGuffins are still at least somewhat around. The pursuit of knowledge of past populations is a lofty goal, and while it might not be a specific item that one can hold and exhibit on a shelf or in a museum, it still gives a lot of information: a different 'treasure'. And if this was not something we cared about and wanted, then why are we in this field?
A "MacGuffin" sounds like the motivating factor behind our actions. I remember finding my first a) artifact - a piece of calcified bone (which I thought was a piece of styrofoam) to b) finding my first projectile point in the field. I have to say the thrill of the hunt is still alive and well within me. The nonmaterial MacGuffin in archaeology is research, the stumbling upon the one idea that will cement your argument, the creative research which will take you a new direction that leads to probably more questions but will eventually lead to a richer answer.
ReplyDeleteI think as long as curiosity is the backbone of any kind of adventure - be it scientific or not - MacGuffin's will exist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMacGuffins in archaeology, I think, are inescapable. We all need motivation to search and to question and to focus on. In a way, its our MacGuffins that made us enroll in archaeology instead of taking oil and gas, or law or medicine. While all good options, they are not what we are interested in, the people who are interested in these topics are searching for something else. A MacGuffin is necessary and highly individual. While a MacGuffin to one person may be discovering Troy, to another it may be analyzing diet from dental isotopes. They motivate us, increase our thirst for knowledge and really advance our understanding and knowledge in regards to archaeology.
ReplyDeleteMacGuffins can also have a negative effect, especially when taken to a level of fanaticism. Well everything else is forsaken for our search or desire for something. In archaeology, it can blind us to alternative explanations of finds, it can block us from looking into other questions, or from accepting outside option or help. Its at this point that our MacGuffin actually hinders, rather than aids us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI first became interested in arky because of my desire to find things, call them MacGuffins if you want. Treasure, lost cities, shipwrecks, Atlantis... and I know I'm not the only one. If we didn't have things we wanted to find then we wouldn't be looking for them. And if we weren't looking for particular things we wouldn't have the interpretations for archaeological finds that we do. The want, or perhaps even the need, to be searching for something, be it material goods or answers, is inextricable from the very discipline of archaeology.
ReplyDeleteAs noted by Jocelyne above, the desire to find particular 'lost' cultures/artifacts etc. can quickly turn to obsession. This is dangerous to the integrity of the discipline in two ways. Firstly, if excavations are carried out more like raids and less like excavations this is a problem (though it certainly makes for much more exciting novels and movies). Secondly, obsession can lead to reading data how one desires it to be read, and not necessarily for what it actually says.
That that is why we, as students, are here. We're studying the proper methods to go out and continue the hunt for our MacGuffins in the most systematic, ethical manner possible. But there is a part of me that believes that an aspect of what makes a MacGuffin a MacGuffin and not just something we desire because we expect it, is that it's something we desperately want to be more than we expect. And so we're always searching for more.
I agree with most people who believe MacGuffins could also somewhat harm and defeat the purpose of archaeological research. It is obviously passion and the need for explenations that drive archaeologists to conduct research, but an "obsession" may drive scholars to underestimate other archaeological studies and place greater importance on what is thought as relating to this obsession. On the other hand, In Heinrich Schliemann's case his obsession for the city of Troy resulted in a great discovery...so I really don't know what to think of these MacGuffins...Obviously, MacGuffins are to be related to archaeology, because they may drive archaeologists to truly comprehend and interpret data and provide us with more accurate answers...Although, an obsession with one specific culture/city or even behaviour may only provide a very specific and concentrated analysis, probably not interpreting a general and broader view of a society and its socio-economic role in the area...Thus, whilst a MacGauffin may be useful to lead archaeologists to interpret and find additional data, these may also destroy and discretit other views and aspects of a society and/or artifact of interest...
ReplyDeleteI feel that MacGuffins could be the reason why people get into archaeology or even which field of discipline they choose in the field but I don't feel like it should take over our lives like it did Heinrich in his search for Troy. People have looked for them in other fields like the lost civilizations of Mu and Atlantis and certain biblical examples such as noah's ark and the shroud of Turin which due to the materials they were made of might be impossible to find unless perfectly preserved leading some people on a "wild goose chase" trying to find them.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that MacGuffins are a motivating factor for many archaeologists of the past and the present. I also agree with Tasha's observation that MacGuffins are likely inescapable in archaeology, and I think this has a lot to do with the way people and the outside world, not trained in archaeology, view the discipline and conceive of the way archaeologists practice. I think this is because of the way the media frames a lot of archaeological finds to the public, as relics of the past that hold secrets to past or lost civilizations and people. Often archaeological materials, probably mostly so in recent history, were portrayed as 'treasures', as we can see in movies like Indian Jones in Raiders and the Last Crusade.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why are we looking for MacGuffins? Is it just to find a 'cool' piece of the past? Or are we trying to prove theories of the past right or wrong? We should be coming to conclusions and making hypotheses with our archaeological work, not seeking to separate fact from fiction. In this regard I think of biblical archaeology and how a lot of artifacts surface that are claimed to be real religious artifacts like the James Ossuary. I agree with previous comments that MacGuffin's can mislead us in our attempt to properly view the past. They can frame our understanding in a way that clouds the actual information of people and practices that an artifact may represent.
While McGuffins may have played a major role in the development of archaeology in the past, they also tend to cloud our judgement. Even though Schliemenn's discovery of Troy proved to be true,he also claimed that a random gold mask that was hundreds of years earlier than the Trojan war was in fact the face of Agamemnon. This search for Agamemnon's city and his burial clouded his judgement. Since he was expecting to find Agamemnon's tomb he automatically claimed that the first burial mask belonged to the Mycenaean King. This error still lives on today, as many tourists still likely think that it actually is the mask of Agamemnon. His preconception influences modern interpretation decades after his discovery.
ReplyDeleteModern archaeology, on the other hand is a search not for material MacGuffins but theoretical. Our search for the earliest domesticated seed, for example, often drives many archaeological expeditions. However, in order to be entirely without bias, we cannot let this be our driving cause. We must come to conclusions based upon the material evidence, not based upon what we want to find.
I agree with the idea that a MacGuffin can become so consumed in his/her quest for an archaeological answer that it either creates a bias interpretation of an archaeological site or harms the archaeological evidence. If you are on a quest for one specific thing and if you are obsessed with finding it, then it doesn’t matter what gets in your way. If your inner MacGuffin (I believe every archaeologist has one) is controlled and you remain focused on preforming good archaeology with a theoretical and scientific background then it would make archaeology a rewarding experience. You would never lose interest and you would be one of the lucky few who are passionate about what they do in this world. It’s all about the balance between MacGuffin and a professional archaeological approach.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of MacGuffin's are very important for a discipline like archaeology because they give it a direction. If we didn't have anything we wanted to search for why would we be even looking. Each person will want to focus on what they are interested in and therefore this is not only applicable to archaeology but life in general because it seems we are all looking for something. When we do eventually find even a clue to what we are searching for it is true that some people will freak out about it and risk everything to reach there goal that is just out of their grasp. This is where I think archaeology will show its strength in that there will always be people criticizing other peoples work. This will bring out more then one view not just one persons idealized vision.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of MacGuffin's intrigue me greatly. As a student who has a focus on cultural and social anthropology I understand the need to focus your orientation on something important and try to find it. For instance, in cultural and social anthropology, we are often obsessed with the idea of finding an undiscovered ancient culture, the "other" and as some anthropologists have done in the past, search unknown areas such as the Brazilian Amazon in hopes to discover that last unexplored culture. In Archaeology, I recently watched a special pertaining to the search for the lost city of Atlantis. Like the search for Troy, these archaeologists are using ancient texts to try and deduce the exact location. If memory serves me right, they have so far narrowed it down to somewhere off the coast of Spain. I believe MacGuffin's are not only important for archaeologists who need a sense of direction, but they also draw in and attract public attention. This to me is important for a discipline thought to one still stuck with "trying to discover the death of dinosaurs"
ReplyDelete