The anthology Excavating Memory: Sites of Remembering and Forgetting, edited by Maria Theresia Starzmann and John R. Roby, presents a very diverse and ambitious attempt at studying the complex interplay between remembering and forgetting. Within the seventeen chapters contained in this book this is usually achieved through a bottom-up approach, where the emphasis is placed upon studying the diverse ways in which memories that have been silenced are still present and can be reclaimed, particularly through everyday actions and mundane material culture. In recognizing and giving importance to the distinctly material aspects of remembering, the editor Starzmann describes the volume as ‘engaging in archaeological ways of thinking about memory’ (p. 3). These are highlighted through the title of the volume, Excavating Memory, which is not referring to the practical side of archaeological excavations but to the materiality of memory―a materiality which can be excavated through different means, depending on the discipline. It is easy to sympathize with the volume, since it underlines the ethical and political implications that analysis of social memory has, not only for academic debate, but also for the communities which have been affected.

There has been a large amount of research on memory within archaeology (e.g. Borić, Reference Borić2010) and heritage studies (e.g. Anheier & Ray Isar, Reference Anheier and Raj Isar2011) within the last ten years, but this volume manages to add new insights and perspectives through its diversity and grounding in ethics. The volume is highly interdisciplinary and the chapters, arranged by four main themes, are written by historians (4), archaeologists (3), anthropologists (2), sociologists (2), activists (1), community workers (1), forensic anthropologists (1), architects (1), and more. Moreover, the geographical scope is extensive: North America and Europe are the most strongly represented, but there are also case studies from Africa and Asia. While this breadth is stimulating, it also potentially provides a challenge for the reader, who has to navigate very swift shifts in focus and academic expertise. In practice, however, this seldom poses a problem. Rather, the shared theme of reclaiming memories runs smoothly throughout the volume and the variety of methods and examples opens up new perspectives and often forces the reader to think outside of the customary disciplinary boxes.

Arguably, the chapter that provides the most polemic approach to the issue is that by Alfredo González-Ruibal, titled ‘Land of Amnesia: Power, Predation, and Heritage in Central Africa’ (Ch. 6). Through a study focused on Equatorial Guinea, where he has conducted archaeological field work, González-Ruibal shows that despite the moral imperative to reclaim memories that drives him as an archaeologist, there may be cases in which memories have become too silenced to be given a voice. González-Ruibal is referring to the systematic and institutionalized ‘production of oblivion’ occurring in Equatorial Guinea. As Michel Rolph-Trouillot (Reference Trouillot1995) has shown in his influential work, silences are inherent in each narrative produced in order to make meaning out of the past. These silences are often crucial for understanding the role of the narrative. Furthermore, Dacia Viejo Rosé (Reference Viejo-Rosé2011: 150‒95) argues that the forced silencing of memories seldom succeeds in erasing them, but rather infuses these memories with an element of confrontation. However, González-Ruibal presents here an alternative that is very seldom considered, namely that there may be cases in which the ongoing and forced silencing of memories can be successful, rendering any kind of attempt at reclaiming them—a so-called democratic bottom-up archaeology—unfeasible. González-Ruibal even refers to it as anti-heritage, a land of amnesia.

In contrast, the chapter by Edward González Tennant, titled ‘Hate Sits in Places: Folk Knowledge and the Power of Place in Rosewood, Florida’ (Ch. 10) looks at the folklore surrounding a tragic massacre of African-American people in Rosewood, Florida, which occurred in 1923. González Tennant shows how memories of the massacre are still being silenced within the landscape. In such a way, forms of structural racism are maintained through what is and is not allowed to be remembered in the landscape. These attempts at forgetting occurred in three stages: secrecy, transformation, and ultimate destruction. However, contrary to the situation outlined by González-Ruibal, oblivion has not been the result. The chapter very much argues for the power of places, in the sense that places in themselves may be carriers of memories, obstructing any attempts at inducing amnesia. González Tennant draws on the influential work of Bruno Latour (Reference Latour2005) in seeing places as actants, as he powerfully states: ‘we dwell in places and places dwell in us’ (p. 237). The conclusion in the paper by González Tennant suggests that places help us remember, and can act against institutionalized vacuums such as the one outlined in González-Ruibal's chapter.

These two chapters are representative of the overall theme of the volume: the interplay between remembering and forgetting, the danger in forced forgetting, and the moral imperative driving the academic in reclaiming memories. The ethical responsibility of awakening memories is usually used as a starting point underlying the argument, where memories are often inherently and unquestionably seen as positive for society, while the loss of memories is inherently and unquestionably seen as negative. This is seldom raised as an issue, but constitutes a taken-for-granted assumption. However, this assumption becomes difficult to maintain if we consider that the loss of memories can be an active and even conscious process (Connerton, Reference Connerton2008), and that all narratives constructed about the past include silences (Trouillot, Reference Trouillot1995). As this volume convincingly shows, the loss of memories can be used as a form of political oppression, and can be crippling for the communities affected, while a sense of truth and justice often has to be recognized in order for people to move on. However, the loss of certain memories may also serve a particular need in a post-war society. Therefore, there is a risk involved if the academic assumes that all memories are worth reclaiming and would lead to the empowerment of people. To take it one step further: would that not be a top-down approach claiming to be bottom-up?

These issues are briefly touched upon in the introduction of the volume. As stated by Starzmann, ‘empowerment can result from various strategies of speaking, reclaiming, or even omitting memory’ (p. 19, my emphasis). This quote shows that the editor acknowledges that strategies of omitting memory, or in other words of forgetting, can also be a source for empowerment. However, this is not touched upon in any of the chapters within the volume, and only within one chapter is a top-down valuation of remembrance as positive and forgetting as negative put under closer scrutiny, namely in Chapter 15, ‘Excavating a Hidden Past: The Forensic Turn in Spain's Collective Memory’, by Lore Colaert. Her chapter is an ethnographic study of how the forensic turn affected collective memory after the Spanish Civil War. Here, she recognizes an ethical dilemma in how the forensic turn has caused the exhumations of mass graves to be equated with truth revelation:

This quote reveals the danger in maintaining top-down assumptions about forgetting and remembering, and that the local community may have different ways of approaching the past which archaeologists and heritage professionals have not considered. I do not mention this in order to dismiss the moral significance of reclaiming memories: as this volume ably illustrates, archaeology and other disciplines can make a difference in society by giving a voice to those who have been silenced. However, I would have liked a more nuanced approach in dealing with and facing different perceptions and needs of memories within the local affected communities, as well as how to present and negotiate memories that are sensitive. Depending on how a certain memory is presented and negotiated, it can cause very different responses.

It would have been fruitful to provide a more critical engagement with how, why, and where specific memories can be highlighted, in order to empower people, and the risks and pitfalls involved. The uncomfortable truth is that specific memories (especially when presented in a one-sided way), may reproduce, enforce, or in the worst case scenario re-ignite conflict. This is not a call for sweeping uncomfortable memories beneath the carpet, but I do call for a large degree of responsibility in how to handle and present such memories. After all, not only is systematic forgetting used as a political tool to oppress people, but so too is systematic remembrance of specific events. This needs to be recognized and not dismissed, however uncomfortable such a truth may be.

Furthermore, within heritage studies, there has come a realization that heritage is not fundamentally oriented towards reconstructing pasts, but concerned with assembling futures as well (Harrison, Reference Harrison2015). Heritage is directed towards the future in terms of desires, dreams, or even fears. It would therefore have been interesting to include the way forgetting—and remembering—practices on specific sites of memory may be linked to future aspirations and visions (see Wollentz, Reference Wollentz2017).

Finally, despite the title of the volume being Excavating Memory and the argument made by Starzmann that the volume deals specifically with archaeological ways of thinking about memory, there is no chapter properly discussing the role an archaeological excavation may have for the community in terms of reclaiming memories, from the perspective of public archaeology. Even though archaeological excavations are indirectly touched upon, a thorough discussion of the dynamics involved in archaeological excavations is lacking, except for two chapters, by Lore Colaert (Ch. 15) and Roxana Ferllini (Ch. 16), dealing with forensic excavations of mass graves. I cannot help but feel that one or two chapters focusing more thoroughly on the role of public archaeology in the context of uncovering the past through its very materiality would have benefitted the volume and added some relevant perspectives to the arguments made.

Despite the concerns that I have brought up, the volume can be warmly recommended to anyone working on the topic of remembering/forgetting. After all, it is a topic that will never lose its relevance in society, nor its sensitivity and need of a nuanced, as well as inclusive, approach. Perhaps, the volume could have done a more thorough job in recognizing the role of academics themselves in shaping memories, even though this is indirectly touched upon in the paper by Michelle Caswell (Ch. 17, ‘The Future of the Painful Past: Archival Labor and Materiality in the South Asian American Digital Archive’), in which she demonstrates how archives are a process of remembering and forgetting and thus neither an objective nor a complete record of the past. In many ways, the same argument could be made for the academic environment itself, because in every research project decisions have to be made about what to record and not to record, what is interesting and what is uninteresting, etc. Furthermore, these results will then be presented in various ways, hopefully reaching local communities and in such a way influencing, shaping, and maybe even creating new memories. Of course, new perspectives on forgetting/remembering can always be added and no volume can collect them all. More significantly, this volume does a superb job in calling for an engaged and committed academic, who meets the local community on their own terms, with a will to make a difference and an ear to listen. Such a call is needed, now as much as ever.