Location as Memory

  Both Nathaniel’s term paper topic and Dr. Redick’s essay for the W&M Journey panel cited the relevance of archaeological environments as ways to convey the hero’s journey. We also discussed the nature of ancient ruins and their relationship to memory. I want to unpack this interplay a little more.

At the end of our class discussion on memories, we discussed the ways in which there is a paracausality between the interpretation of a memory and its actual meaning. This seems immensely counterintuitive, as events occur a single time—how then can they be changed by the future?

This question stands on a presupposition that is not entirely accurate: events don’t only occur one time. The act of recalling draws a facsimile that is alterable in the present. In the case of ancient archaeological sites, the act of still standing is a repeated one, and influenced by how we perceive the structures. Revitalization efforts may fill in derelict gaps to revitalize what was, and yet these endeavors may be incorrectly informed, and create a new structure (different from the original) while still retaining the label of the foundation. A building under renovation doesn’t change addresses. The same occurs often with memories, which undergo the act of “being” in our minds, and are updated, revitalized, and reinterpreted as our lives continue.