In their introduction to the book Scribbling Through History: Graffiti, Places, and People from Antiquity to Modernity Drs. Ragazzoli, Harmansah, and Salvador note that rather than trying to define what graffiti is or what it means, it is perhaps most profitable to examine what graffiti does. In many instances graffiti materializes the political struggles of the marginalized. The presence of graffiti may impel a response from peers or authority figures trying to cover it up. In all cases, graffiti is an active player in a dramatic landscape.
This project started when I snapped some pictures of Covid-19 related graffiti on the Quad gazebo in 2020. Actually, the fire was lit before that based on inspiration from my colleagues, Drs Livia and Abigail Stone, and their work with graffiti in Oaxaca. As we returned to in person classes on campus, I offered students extra credit for snapping pictures of graffiti around campus. With confirmation of the widespread prevalence of graffiti, students in Explorations in Archaeology began more documentation in the heart of campus in 2023. In the process, we identified not only the work of those creating graffiti but of the University’s (or other actors) attempts to erase the unsanctioned images. Even though the specific details are all quite different than what the Drs. Stone encountered in Oaxaca, there are similar patterns of “conversations” between disparate parties that reflect the political and economic environment of our University, and probably apply to many similar institutions across the country.
After a couple years of unsystematic survey, students examined the core area of campus around the Quad as well as the athletic facilities on the west side of campus during two days in late September 2025. Images, location, and other descriptive data were recorded using Kobo Toolbox. Rain the day before each survey reduced the number of chalk messages recorded in the official data but observations on other days noted an extensive chalking between conservative and liberal student groups on the Quad.
As the bar chart shows, tags are the most common graffiti identified with spray painted stencils or other short messages common as well. These small tags and stenciled images are relatively quick to create and are often documented in several different areas of campus. This indicates a strategy of quick movement over a wide geographic area to spread the “message” as far as possible while evading identification.
Erased images/messages are nearly as common as tags, demonstrating how graffiti impels action to maintain the manicured aesthetic of campus. Yet in spite of the extensive clean-up effort, some spray painted images persist for years like the bearded man or rat stencils of the Creative Arts building.
After completing fieldwork, students wrote papers analyzing their findings with many taking inspiration from structuration theory to tease apart the complex inter-relationship between individual action and broader influences on the content and placement of graffiti on campus. But our work is just beginning to unravel what graffiti does on ISU’s campus. The long-term goal is to continue updating the data yearly as a way to track similarities or differences through time while simultaneously providing practical, accessible, and therefore equitable archaeological fieldwork experience for students. Of course, there are opportunities for student research and analysis projects as well. Please contact me if you are interested in participating.
