No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Re-visiting the field: Collaborative archaeology as paradigm shift
Abstract
The emphasis of the JFA on field methods resonates strongly with current disciplinary interest in multivocality and participatory research. In this new epistemology of inclusiveness, communities play an active role in the production of archaeological knowledge as well as in the conservation of cultural heritage. From the perspective of archaeologists trained in the U.S. who conduct research in Latin America, we historicize changes in the triadic relationship among archaeologists, contemporary communities, and things of the past. This examination focuses on the evolving social context of archaeological practice. The social milieu within which archaeology is conducted is explored further by reference to a recent survey of archaeologists that elicited comments on grand challenges to archaeology. A few examples of the many forms that an engaged archaeology might take are offered from the Maya region. Although collaborative research poses challenges that emerge as communities entangled with archaeological practice become research partners, we suggest that the enhanced relevance that accompanies this transformation is well worth the effort.
... Including community members enables them to educate professional researchers about their past and their concerns about research plans (Atalay 2006;Colwell 2016;Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2010;McAnany and Rowe 2015). This leads to a shift from archaeological gatekeeping to a more collaborative framework that has modern relevance, that benefits descendant communities, and that has a wider audience. ...
... This leads to a shift from archaeological gatekeeping to a more collaborative framework that has modern relevance, that benefits descendant communities, and that has a wider audience. Giving equal consideration to other views can lead to new research avenues and reveal theoretical and personal biases in data interpretation while putting materials in context and bringing broader understanding (Brunson and Reich 2019;Colwell 2016;Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2010;Fox and Hawks 2019;Kiddey 2020;McAnany and Rowe 2015;Nassaney 2021). ...
This article discusses ethical frameworks for planning and implementing composite research in the United States. Composites, defined here as archaeological materials with multiple genetic sources, include materials such as sediment, coprolites, birch pitch, and dental calculus. Although composites are increasingly used in genetic research, the ethical considerations of their use in ancient DNA studies have not been widely discussed. Here, we consider how composites’ compositions, contexts, and potential to act as proxies can affect research plans and offer an overview of the primary ethical concerns of ancient DNA research. It is our view that ethical principles established for analyses of Ancestral remains and related materials can be used to inform research plans when working with composite evidence. This work also provides a guide to archaeologists unfamiliar with genetics analyses in planning research when using composite evidence from the United States with a focus on collaboration, having a clear research plan, and using lab methods that provide the desired data with minimal destruction. Following the principles discussed in this article and others allows for engaging in composite research while creating and maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders.
... The Ceibal-Petexbatún Archaeological Project was not conceived or carried out as a community-based, collaborative archaeology project [10][11][12]. However, the project's directors and members have made efforts to form mutually beneficial relationships with local communities, especially Las Pozas, while promoting heritage preservation. ...
... Méndez Bauer worked as an archaeologist while also completing a licenciatura degree in Sociology based on a microsavings project in Las Pozas, described below. The Ceibal-Petexbatún Archaeological Project was not conceived or carried out as a communitybased, collaborative archaeology project [10][11][12]. However, the project's directors and members have made efforts to form mutually beneficial relationships with local communities, especially Las Pozas, while promoting heritage preservation. ...
The Ceibal-Petexbatún Archaeological Project has built long-standing relationships in the area around Ceibal, Guatemala, particularly in the Q’eqchi’ Maya village of Las Pozas. Both Q’eqchi’ and ladino (non-indigenous) people in the region face serious, systemic problems, including a loss of access to land and an absence of economic opportunities. The ancient Maya sites in the area have been damaged by deforestation and looting. Project archaeologists seek to improve economic conditions in local communities while encouraging the preservation of cultural heritage. Here, we describe past microfinance and classroom outreach projects conducted in Las Pozas and discuss future initiatives that could make archaeological heritage more beneficial to multiple communities.
... Calls for using FAIR (findability, accessibility, interoperability, reuse) and CARE (collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, ethics) data management principles (Bollwerk et al. 2024;Carroll et al. 2020;Gupta et al. 2023;Nicholson et al. 2021Nicholson et al. , 2023Wilkinson et al. 2016) supplement the exhortations to digital archaeology. These movements have a common desire to democratize and decolonize archaeology through improving accessibility, removing barriers to data sharing, and promoting multivocal interpretation (see McAnany and Rowe 2015). These are necessary exhortations, because digital archaeology runs the risk of reinscribing colonialist relationships and attitudes, especially in cases of international collaboration, in which one member or team might bring new workflows, methods, or tools to another party. ...
Overview
Archaeologists promote the use of digital methods and data management principles such as FAIR and CARE to democratize and decolonize the discipline and our projects. Digital archaeology offers the potential to enhance accessibility, improve opportunities for data sharing, and foster multivocal interpretation while avoiding colonialist dynamics in international collaborations. In June 2024, the authors’ discussions about digital archaeology in Armenia highlighted the importance of addressing collaborators’ prior knowledge and knowledge frameworks in digital archaeological projects. These discussions, along with a case study about an earlier digital survey in the Azat River valley, demonstrated that varying levels of familiarity with tools such as geographic information systems (GIS) and different training traditions can limit successful collaboration and data interpretation if not addressed explicitly. This review argues that successful digital archaeology requires a focus on understanding and integrating the diverse knowledge frameworks and prior experiences of all team members into all aspects of the digital workflow.
... The issue of archaeology in Sudanese Nubia is relevant to a wider scope of current academic discussions, especially of community archaeology and decolonizing research methodologies. Community archaeology has been widely discussed and practiced across the world in the last two decades (e.g., Marshall 2002;Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008;in Africa, Schmidt 2014;Posnansky 2017), some consider it transforms archaeological practice (McAnany and Rowe 2015). Though the definition of "community archaeology" varies (Thomas 2017), an important implication is that archaeology should be open to a participation of different communities who have geographical, cultural, and/or ancestral associations to archaeological sites and objects. ...
... First, the methodology for this project was built on the growing body of literature that emphasizes the importance of community-based (also known as collaborative) archaeology. This methodological framework usually references research that is done by trained archaeologists who are working with descendent communities who are currently involved or have historically been involved with the heritage being studied (Atalay 2012;Colwell 2016;Faysse et al. 2012;Guttmann-Bond 2010;Hendry 2014;Mcanany and Rowe 2015;Nelson and Shilling 2018). Not only does community-based archaeology advocate for the importance of working with descendant communities, but there is also an emphasis on using traditional knowledge within the research frame (Atalay 2012;Colwell 2016;Nelson and Shilling 2018). ...
Along the southern Morocco-Algeria border runs the Jebel Bani mountain range, a feature that marks the edge of the Anti-Atlas mountain region and the beginning of the Sahara Desert. The area receives little annual rainfall and has almost no surface water. Despite the dry environment, there is a string of agricultural oases that use ancient underground technology to access groundwater. The khettara system (qanat) has allowed for life in this arid landscape for centuries but is currently facing rapid abandonment, and the oases are subsequently struggling to survive. This project, a community-based archaeological survey of the khettara oases along the Jebel Bani, demonstrates how modern irrigation practices are undermining the resilience and sustainability of Saharan oases and emphasizes the importance of traditional water management practices. This project provides a new avenue for understanding the diffusion, use, and abandonment of the khettara oasis systems and other traditional water management systems worldwide.
... Our efforts resonate with calls for synthesis and higher-level archaeological analysis 21,25 using 'big data' or at least unprecedentedly large datasets, while also duly accounting for the fragmentary and complex nature of the available material registers [26][27][28] . The latter draws attention to a nascent transformation in knowledge ecologies based on an ethos of sharing and collaborative inquiry 25,[29][30][31] necessary to develop data infrastructures promoting broad-scale comparative investigations at cross-regional scales. The here-presented dataset 19 is a first attempt to work towards such a shared data infrastructure for Late Glacial Europe, to build a scalable higher-order data framework for lithic analysts and to probe into the untested utility and potential of such integrated collaborative work. ...
Comparative macro-archaeological investigations of the human deep past rely on the availability of unified, quality-checked datasets integrating different layers of observation. Information on the durable and ubiquitous record of Paleolithic stone artefacts and technological choices are especially pertinent to this endeavour. We here present a large expert-sourced collaborative dataset for the study of stone tool technology and artefact shape evolution across Europe between ~15.000 and 11.000 years before present. the dataset contains a compendium of key sites from the study period, and data on lithic technology and toolkit composition at the level of the cultural taxa represented by those sites. The dataset further encompasses 2D shapes of selected lithic artefact groups (armatures, endscrapers, and borers/perforators) shared between cultural taxa. These data offer novel possibilities to explore between-regional patterns of material culture change to reveal scale-dependent processes of long-term technological evolution in mobile hunter-gatherer societies at the end of the Pleistocene. Our dataset facilitates state-of-the-art quantitative analyses and showcases the benefits of collaborative data collation and synthesis.
... Of late, Indigenous, African diasporic, and community-centric approaches in archaeology have led the charge in attempts to right the abuses archaeologically oriented heritage practices have long perpetuated (see, for example Smith, 2006). The growing number of projects taking these approaches as their central ethos (Colwell, 2016;Wylie, 2014Wylie, , 2019 is causing what might be the most significant paradigm shift in the field since the postprocessual movement (e.g., Acabado and Martin, 2020;Cipolla and Quinn, 2016;Cowie, Teeman, and LeBlanc, 2019;Diserens Morgan and Leventhal, 2020;Flewellen et al., 2022;Fryer and Raczek, 2020;Gonzalez, 2016;Lyons, 2013;McAnany and Rowe, 2015;Schmidt and Pikirayi, 2016;Sesma, 2022;Surface-Evans and Jones, 2020). There's ample overlap between those projects utilizing community collaborative methodologies and those projects whose aims center on repairing injustices and combating the epistemic violence permeating our field-a result often of our tendencies to prioritize archaeological understandings of the past while excluding other voices and perspectives (Gnecco, 2009;Schneider and Hayes, 2020). ...
... 88) is known for his position that anthropology is a "bridging" discipline between the sciences and the humanities. Anthropological archaeology has made great strides in interpreting materials of the past and incorporating participation-based research to bridge the past with the present, especially regarding the decolonization of archaeological practice and collaboration with descendent communities and the public [34][35][36][37][38]. In this new wave of epistemology of inclusiveness, field school directors may forget that the students we teach, who are participants in field-based learning, play an active role in the production of archaeological knowledge. ...
Many individuals practicing field-based research are subjected to sexual harassment and assault. This fact holds true for people engaged in archaeological field research and may be true for students who are just learning field methods while enrolled in an archaeological field school. We review some of our current research on the means of reducing and preventing sexual harassment and assault at archaeological field schools, as well as ways to create safer, more inclusive learning spaces. Additionally, we suggest that for the discipline to advance field school teaching and learning, we, as field directors, must situate ourselves as active and advocacy anthropologists: an approach that puts our students as a central focus when developing field-based pedagogy. As the authors of this work, we review our identities and positionality in conducting this research and in making meaning from the data we have collected.
... Limited time and financial resources in specific geographic areas impose constraints on archaeological surveys, particularly in emerging market regions such as Latin America (Ledergerber-de-kohli, 1984;McAnany & Rowe, 2015). Mesoamerican Archaeology focuses on prospecting and preserving monumental sites, while smaller sites are relegated to and even destroyed by urbanization (López Wario, 2016). ...
Highlights: • A pre-Hispanic settlement within the southern limits of the Aztec Empire (Lerma River Basin-Balsas River Basin, State of Mexico, Mexico) was systematically surveyed based on GIS integration data from optical sensors. • The combination of varied input data (Sentinel 2, UAV, DTM and NDVI) can be replicated as an alternative research method for similar mountainous landscapes with dense vegetation cover in emerging market economies. • The result is a binary map of potential anthropic features, with field validation in rugged terrain to distinguish anthropic anomalies (75%) from those of natural origin (25%). Abstract: Mexico's vast archaeological research tradition has increased with the use of remote sensing technologies; however, this recent approach is still costly in emerging market economies. In addition, the scales of prospection, landscape, and violence affect the type of research that heritage-culture ministries and universities can conduct. In Central Mexico, researchers have studied the pre-Hispanic Settlement Pattern during the Mesoamerican Postclassic (900-1521 AD) within the scope of the Aztec Empire and its conquests. There are settlements indications before and during the rule of the central empire, but the evidence is difficult to identify, particularly in the southwest of the capital, in the transition between the Lerma and Balsas River basins and their political-geographical complexities. This research focuses on a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based processing of multiple source data, the potential prospection of archaeological sites based on spatial data integration from Sentinel-2 optical sensors, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), Digital Terrain Model (DTM), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and field validation. What is revealed is the relationship between terrain morphologies and anthropic modifications. A binary map expresses possible archaeological remnants as a percentage; NDVI pixels and the morphometry values were associated with anthropic features (meso-reliefs with a tendency to regular geometries: slope, orientation, and roughness index); they were then interpreted as probable archaeological evidence. Within archaeological fieldwork, with limited resources (time, funding and staff), this approach proposes a robust method that can be replicated in other mountainous landscapes that are densely covered by vegetation. Resumen: México tiene una vasta tradición de investigación arqueológica que, en las últimas décadas, se ha incrementado con el uso de tecnologías de percepción remota; sin embargo, este enfoque sigue siendo costoso en el contexto de las economías emergentes. Además, las escalas de prospección, paisaje e inseguridad influyen en el tipo de investigación que realizan los ministerios de patrimonio cultural y las universidades. En el Centro de México, el Patrón de Asentamiento Prehispánico durante el Posclásico Mesoamericano (900-1521 d.C.), ha sido estudiado dentro del alcance del Imperio Azteca y sus conquistas. Hay indicios de asentamientos antes y durante el dominio del Imperio central, pero la evidencia es difícil de identificar; particularmente en el suroeste de la capital, en la transición entre las cuencas de los ríos Lerma y Balsas y sus complejidades político-geográficas. Esta investigación se centra en el procesamiento basado en GIS de MIRANDA et al., 2022 Virtual Archaeology Review, 13(27): In Press, 2022 2 datos de múltiples fuentes, la prospección de sitios arqueológicos apoyada en la integración de datos espaciales de los sensores ópticos Sentinel-2, el vehículo aéreo no tripulado (UAV), el modelo digital del terreno (MDT), el índice de vegetación de diferencia normalizada (NDVI) y la validación de campo, que revelan la relación entre las morfologías del terreno y las modificaciones antrópicas. Un mapa binario expresa los posibles remanentes arqueológicos como un porcentaje; los píxeles del NDVI y los valores de morfometría se asociaron a características antrópicas (mesorrelieves con tendencia a geometrías regulares: pendiente, orientación e índice de rugosidad), y se interpretaron como probable evidencia arqueológica. Dentro del trabajo de campo arqueológico, con recursos limitados (tiempo, finanzas y auxiliares), este enfoque sugiere un método robusto que puede ser replicado en otros paisajes montañosos que están densamente cubiertos por vegetación. Palabras clave: posclásico mesoamericano; imperio azteca; sensores ópticos Sentinel-2; vehículo aéreo no tripulado (UAV); fotogrametría digital aérea (DAP); índice de vegetación de diferencia normalizada (NDVI)
... Since then, several scholars have considered engaged archaeology specifically (e.g. Herr et al. 2021;McAnany & Rowe 2015;Mizoguchi & Smith 2019;Smith & Ralph 2019). Although engaged archaeological perspectives vary, two general features commonly characterized the approach. ...
Photography has been a particularly important though often under-theorized aspect of archaeological research. Although seemingly simple representations, photographs are simultaneously objective and subjective, truthful and creative. This article considers the contradictory nature of photography generally and the specific relationship between photography and archaeology. It then looks at the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico and examines how individuals have photographed ancient Maya sites, architecture and artifacts from the mid nineteenth century to the present. Initially used to support diffusionist theories of Maya origins, photography was later understood as a neutral and scientific way to record the Maya past. More recently, it has been used to share power more equitably with local communities and to make archaeology a more inclusive and relevant endeavour. Indeed, several have demonstrated that photography is a useful tool for engaged archaeology. This article argues that the reverse is also true: insights from engaged archaeology are useful tools for archaeological photography generally. By making photographic choices explicit and by including people and other aspects of the contemporary world in their photographs, scholars can emphasize that archaeology is a decisively human and necessarily political endeavour, and that archaeological sites and artifacts are dynamic and efficacious parts of the contemporary world.
... The two-year project was conceived with the aim of understanding the local values of Old Dongola, and to revitalise the archaeologist-community relationship in order to work together with local communities for sustainable, mutually beneficial heritage management and community development. It considers collaboration as a way to introduce a humanistic aspect and method in archaeology, and to contribute to decolonising Sudanese archaeology (McAnany and Rowe 2015). ...
... Defining community-based archaeology is a challenge. Attempts to explain the concept often invoke theoretical and didactic acrobatics that overlap with the tenets of community engagement (Moshenska 2017;Thomas 2017); public archaeology (Matsuda 2004:67;McGimsey 1972;Moshenska 2017); social archaeology (Smith 2017;Vilches et al. 2015); activist archaeology; archaeological heritage management (Willems et al. 2018); community outreach; engaged archaeology (Matsuda and Okumara 2011); collaborative archaeology (Guilfoyle and Hogg 2015;McAnany and Rowe 2015); participatory action research (Resilience Alliance 2007; Schreckenberg et al. 2014;White 2019); and cultural resource management, commonly referred to as CRM (Bollwerk et al. 2015:179-180). These are just a few of the terms employed from various venues of the academic and applied arenas of archaeology that arguably serve as the framework for the community-based archaeology model (Colwell 2016;Schmidt 2017). ...
Defining community-based archaeology is a challenge. The model is rooted in multivocal interpretation harnessed from the sub-altern collective memory of descendant communities. However, the proximity to “the public” at large is the common application of the model in developed countries. Unfortunately, in developing nations the model eclipses the necessity of a structured mechanism to work with a community. I present a useful tool for research via interdisciplinary data gathering methods among African diaspora Maroons—groups descended from escaped slaves—in Suriname, South America. In these communities, the matter is amplified due to issues of human rights, land rights, and sustainable development.
... The growing Ch'orti' Maya identity move-ment in western Honduras confronts a long history of social domination and violence in which foreign anthropologists are implicated (Chenier, Sherwood, and Robertson 1999;Mortensen 2005;Rodríguez-Mejia 2016), and recent community-driven archaeology supports local participation, education, and leadership (W. Fash, B. Fash, and Ramos 2016;McAnany and Parks 2012;McAnany and Rowe 2015). In this context, the Copán Neighborhoods Archaeological Project involved twenty Indigenous high school students in an introductory anthropology course that addressed project research questions of how and why infrastructural power changed over time (Landau and Rodríguez-Mejía, n.d.). ...
Recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the city of Copán was a major center of Maya culture during the Classic Period (AD 250–900). While archaeologists have been traditionally concerned with the top‐down despotic power of Maya rulers, I show how infrastructural power—the ability of the state to affect the everyday lives of its residents—waxed and waned. As a representative subset of the city at large, the intermediate scale of neighborhoods best reveals effects of and reactions to state power. I focus on politcal dynamics at six households within the San Lucas neighorbood, attending to episodes of landscape engineering, architectural construction, and artifactual trends. I consider these changes together with political events recorded in hieroglyphic inscriptions at Copán Center. This correlation shows whether and how state policies altered the daily lives of residents. Incorporating a bottom‐up perspective from the intermediate scale of neighborhoods enables an integrated assessment of citywide political dynamics. [ political dynamics, collective action theory, urbanism, neighborhoods, Maya ]
... Reflecting on our own modest work in mainland Southeast Asia, we have found three activities to be at this intersection of what is requested by the local communities we work with, what is meaningful to undertake, and what is practical to accomplish with minimal resources. These activities are long established within the US and the UK and similar places (Atalay 2007;Jeppson and Brauer 2007;McAnany and Rowe 2015), but we are not aware of their routine use by the majority of international archaeologists working in Southeast Asia. Indeed, although these activities sound obvious and trite, and only represent a small selection of many possible options, we feel compelled to mention them here because of the number of times we have heard local colleagues ask why visiting researchers do not undertake these activities that they would be expected to do if they were working in their own country. ...
Among public health researchers two ethical concerns have recently stimulated discussion: “overresearch” and “ethics dumping”. Over-research refers to a situation where the host community are not benefiting from research activity conducted by outsiders. Ethics dumping refers to doing research deemed unethical in a researcher’s home country in a foreign setting with laxer ethical rules. We briefly review the origins of these terms and explore their relevance for archaeology, with special consideration of Southeast Asia. To minimize over-research and ethics dumping in archaeology we propose some modest, specific activities that should be possible for all archaeologists to do to increase the benefit of their research to local communities, and to ensure their work is consistent with international ethical standards.
Tóm tắt: “Trong những điểm chung về tính lành mạnh của các nhà nghiên cứu, hai mối quan tâm về mặt đạo đức gần đây đã thúc đẩy thảo luận về: “nghiên cứu mang tính lối mòn và sự tha hóa về mặt đạo đức”. Nghiên cứu mang tính lối mòn ám chỉ tới một trạng thái mà cộng đồng sở tại không được hưởng lợi từ các hoạt động nghiên cứu đã tiến hành bởi người ngoài. Sự tha hóa về đạo đức ám chỉ tới việc thực hiện nghiên cứu phi đạo đức không theo một số quy tắc đạo đức ở chính quê hương của mỗi nhà nghiên cứu khi thực hiện nghiên cứu ở bên ngoài quốc gia của họ vì các quy tắc lỏng lẻo về mặt đạo đức. Chúng tôi sẽ xem xét ngắn gọn một số căn nguyên của các thuật ngữ này và tìm hiểu sự liên quan của chúng đối với khảo cổ học, bằng cách xem xét cụ thể ở Đông Nam Á. Để có thể giảm thiểu việc nghiên cứu mang tính lối mòn và sự tha hóa về mặt đạo đức, chúng tôi đề xuất những hành động cụ thể và trong chừng mực mà các nhà khảo cổ học có thể thực hiện nhằm gia tăng lợi ích nghiên cứu của họ đối với các cộng đồng sở tại, và cũng là để củng cố việc làm của họ sao cho phù hợp với các tiêu chuẩn đạo đức quốc tế.
မဆီေလျာ်ေသာ သုေတတန (over research) ဟုဆိုလိုရာတွင် သုေတသနြပလုပ်ေသာ ိုင်ငံ (သို) ေနရာသည် ၎င်းသုေတသန၏ အကျိးေကျးဇူးအား ခံစားခွင့်မရှိဘဲ သုေတသနလာေရာက်ြပလုပ် ေသာ အဖွဲအစည်းမှ အကျိးအြမတ်အားလံုးကို ရရှိခံစားြခင်းကို ဆိုလိုပါသည်။ မသင့်ေလျာ်ေသာ ကျင့်ဝတ်များ (ethics dumping) ဆိုသည်မှာ ိုင်ငံတကာကျင့်ဝတ်များကို ေကျာေထာက်ေနာက်ခံထား၍ သုေတသနြပလုပ်ရာတွင် ၎င်းတိုထက် ေလျာ့နည်းေသာ ကျင့်ဝတ်များှင့် သုေတသန လက်ခံလုပ် ေဆာင်ေသာိုင်ငံတွင် ကျင့်သံုးြခင်းဟု မှတ်ယူိုင်ပါသည်။ အေရှေတာင်အာရှိုင်ငံများကို အထူးထည့် သွင်းစ်းစားြခင်းအားြဖင့် က်ုပ်တိုသည် အထက်ေဖာ်ြပခဲ့ေသာ အေကာင်းအရာများ၏ မူလရင်းြမစ်ှင့် ၎င်းတိုှင့် ဆက်စပ်ေနေသာ ေရှးေဟာင်းသုေတသနလုပ်ငန်းရပ်များကို အကျ်းချံးြပန်လည် သံုးသပ် ထားပါသည်။ ေရှးေဟာင်းသုေတသနတွင် မဆီေလျာ်ေသာ သုေတသန ှင့် မသင့်ေလျာ်ေသာ ကျင့်ဝတ် များအတွက် ေခတ်မီ၍ တိကျေသာ လုပ်ေဆာင်ချက်များကို အကျ်းချပ်၍ တင်ြပလိုက်ပါသည်။ ေခတ်မီ၍ တိကျေသာ လုပ်ေဆာင်ချက်များကို ဆိုလိုရာတွင် ေရှးေဟာင်းသုေတသနပညာရှင်အားလံုးတို သည် သုေတသနြပလုပ်ေသာေဒသအတွင်း အကျိးစီးပွါးတိုးတက်မကို အမှန်တကယ် အေထာက်အကူ ြဖစ်ေစရန် ှင့် ၎င်းတို၏ သုေတသနလုပ်ငန်းများသည် ိုင်ငံတကာ ကျင့်ဝတ်များှင့်အညီ တသတ်မတ် တည်း လုပ်ေဆာင်ရန် ရည်ရွယ်ပါသည်။
... Muitos já escreveram sobre os insights e engajamentos éticos proporcionados pela arqueologia colaborativa e suas primas intelectuais, como as arqueologias indígenas (Acabado, Martin & Datar 2017;Cipolla, Quinn & Levy 2019;Colwell 2016;McAnany & Rowe 2015;Mrozowski 2017;Nicholas 2012;Welch, Lepofsky & Washington 2011;Wylie 2015). E, mesmo assim, apesar desses novos métodos e ideias, as raízes do colonialismo persistem. ...
Há mais de um século atrás a arqueologia científica estava presa nas teias do colonialismo. Ao redor do globo, nações extraiam recursos culturais de locais distantes – mais frequentemente em comunidades indígenas – para tecer histórias, construir museus, e arrecadar prestígio e poder para acadêmicos e suas instituições. Nos anos setenta, ativistas indígenas e seus aliados começaram a criticar esse modelo e a propor alternativas que empoderavam comunidades locais para controlar seu próprio patrimônio. Uma das ideias mais importantes desse movimento foi a de arqueologia colaborativa, que defende um compartilhamento equiparado do passado entre cientistas e membros das comunidades. A colaboração gerou novas possibilidades radicais para a arqueologia. Entretanto, chegamos a um momento importante, no qual temos que considerar como a colaboração corre o risco de reforçar estruturas de poder colonialistas, quando é praticada como um meio e não como um fim. Colaboração em arqueologia não é uma solução para o colonialismo, mas uma ferramenta que comunidades e acadêmicos podem usar para concretizar a busca da disciplina por um futuro pós-colonial.
... Such goals, however, are difficult to achieve. As other scholars have noted, the "challenges to collaborative [and other forms of engaged] archaeology should not be underestimated" [10]. At Punta Laguna, fieldwork has led to a series of paradoxical questions likely encountered by those working with and for other Indigenous communities. ...
Engaged archaeology, like other forms of research, is replete with contradictions. Over the last several years, members of the Punta Laguna Archaeology Project—a community-based endeavor in Yucatan, Mexico—have encountered and sought to address several paradoxical questions. Do attempts to mitigate certain forms of inequality unintentionally sustain other forms of inequality? Can the production of capital alleviate rather than exacerbate unequal social relationships? And, can Western social theories be marshalled to advocate for and increase Maya and other Indigenous perspectives in archaeology? This article examines these contradictory questions and analyzes them as potential sources of dialectical change. To conclude, the article suggests three new foci for engaged archaeology: intersectionality, control, and authoritative speech.
... More recently, this has increased (e.g. Acabado, Martin, and Datar 2017;Atalay 2006;Martin and Acabado 2015;McAnany and Rowe 2015;Thomas and Lea 2014). Smith and Waterton (2009, 81-87) describe this approach as understanding what is at stake, defining what could be a decolonizing archaeology practice. ...
National historical narratives generally leave out local histories of groups on the periphery of society. This is accentuated in colonised settings where colonial powers promote the narratives of dominant cultures, which soon become national meta-narratives. As an example, peoples on the fringes of colonialism in the Philippines were described as remnants of the past and this exoticizes their cultures. These descriptions became the basis of their identity. We argue that vigorous community engagement provides venues for learning and unlearning histories and empowers marginalized peoples. In this paper, we present how recent archaeological data force the rethinking of history and subsequently empowering descendant communities to take control of their history and heritage. We describe the establishment of the Ifugao heritage galleries as an example of museums becoming areas of contestations and emphasize the fact that no one has the monopoly on the creation of knowledge.
... However, taking pride in a culture that is not one's own often carries with it the potential for paternalistic claims to authority over knowledge production and the overstepping of boundaries [4,6,18,21]. For several decades, researchers have been raising these issues about who should be able to "speak for" ancient communities [17,[41][42][43][44][45]. Even as archaeological projects increasingly promote the incorporation of subaltern perspectives, we continue to do so largely within the framework of authorized heritage discourse [42] that still privileges Western, scientific theoretical foundations [7,21,27]. ...
This paper explores specific challenges that archaeologists face when attempting to involve a broader community of local stakeholders in cultural heritage research. We combine our perspectives as a US-based archaeologist and a local community member in a discussion of practical approaches for promoting more equitable research collaborations in the Puuc region of the northern Maya lowlands. The format of the paper includes a blend of dialogue, narrative, and analysis. First, we evaluate the importance of engaging in social interactions outside of the fieldwork setting and examine the limitations to full-coverage community participation. Next, we discuss the structural barriers discouraging greater local interest in cultural heritage research. We assess the potential of linguistic education and digital conservation programs for encouraging broader-scale engagement with knowledge production. Finally, we highlight the importance of employment by archaeological research projects as the critical factor influencing local participation in heritage-related activities. Barring immediate structural changes to the socio-economy of the Yucatán, the most significant way to promote local involvement in cultural heritage projects is for archaeologists and community members to work together to try to secure funding for more sustainable employment opportunities.
... Reflecting on the process of fieldwork [45] need not detract from archaeological discovery. Rather, the process by which we get to discovery and subsequent co-production of knowledge follows a pathway that is more richly informed due to input from multiple sources. ...
Taking an aspirational approach, this article imagines what Maya Archaeology would be like if it were truly anthropological and attuned to Indigenous heritage issues. In order to imagine such a future, the past of archaeology and anthropology is critically examined, including the emphasis on processual theory within archaeology and the Indigenous critique of socio-cultural anthropology. Archaeological field work comes under scrutiny, particularly the emphasis on the product of field research over the collaborative process of engaging local and descendant communities. Particular significance is given to the role of settler colonialism in maintaining unequal access to and authority over landscapes filled with remains of the past. Interrogation of the distinction between archaeology and heritage results in the recommendation that the two approaches to the past be recognized as distinct and in tension with each other. Past heritage programs imagined and implemented in the Maya region by the author and colleagues are examined reflexively.
... We can see this methodologically and theoretically, with the development of existing perspectives and approaches, and the exploration of new ones. Methodologically, we might cite such diverse and wide-ranging avenues as: agent-based and other advanced modelling techniques (Wurzer et al. 2015), geoarchaeological analyses (Canti and Huisman 2015;French 2003), geospatial technologies and processing techniques (Opitz and Herrmann 2018;Orengo and Petrie 2017), microbiological analyses (Margesin et al. 2017;Weiner 2010), palaeoproteomics (Hendy et al. 2018), and participatory research (McAnany and Rowe 2015) to name but a few. These approaches generate a wide range of data, big and small (and rarely complete), that form the basis of what we think we know. ...
In this article we advocate a return to the consideration and examination of the basic building blocks of archaeological enquiry: the evidence. Reacting to a widely held perception that archaeology now understands various commonalities of human experience, we suggest that such concepts and the inevitable oscillation towards “big picture” approaches that stems from them are problematic. They engender a type of scholarship that does not always engage fully with the evidentiary bases of interpretation and that risks assuming a great deal about large parts of the world that have not been studied in as much detail as others. We explore this by looking at the South Asian context, where archaeologists are forced to contend with a number of constraints, chief among which is a relative absence of archaeological evidence. Focusing on one particular sub-region, we piece together exactly what evidence exists and consider what can (and cannot) be said from it. On one level this serves as a useful comparator for those working in other parts of the world who may not appreciate the evidentiary constraints that exist elsewhere. Yet beyond this and simple questions of analogy, we suggest that detailed consideration of an area such as the one presented here forces us to return to even more fundamental questions relating to when archaeological research becomes “interesting”, “ground-breaking”, and “new”; and who decides this.
... A bounded scientific community of practice may fail to recognise the inherent shortcomings of their basic assumptions and norms of justification, an epistemic limitation that can be mitigated by drawing on a wide range of perspectives from outside the discipline. Characterised as 'participatory action research' and ' community-based participatory-research' across the social sciences (Chevalier and Buckles 2013), and defined more specifically as ' collaborative archaeology' within our discipline (McAnany and Rowe 2015) this approach "is credible… because it is self-consciously situated and brings diverse angles of vision to bear on its central knowledge claims" (Wylie 2014: 68). This demands a ''rethinking of traditional views of objectivity that takes social, contextual values to be a resource for improving what we know, rather than inevitably a source of compromising error and distortion'' (Wylie 2014: 69). ...
Digital technologies are ubiquitous in archaeology, and have been argued to improve workflows across the archaeological knowledge chain; but to what extent have digital tools materially changed the nature of archaeological scholarship or the role of archaeologists in knowledge production? This paper compares a traditional ‘pipeline’ with a networked ‘platform’ model of fieldwork, assessing the impact of technology-enabled participation on archaeology’s disciplinary and professional boundaries. In contrast to the collaborative potential of peer-to-peer systems, the current vogue for intra-site digital tools (such as tablet recording, GIS, and 3D technologies) can be seen to augment rather than reinvent pre-digital workflows. This point will be illustrated through an assessment of the UK based collaborative platform, DigVentures, in contrast with recent high-profile initiatives to transition to digital workflows by other established field projects. Evaluated through the lens of Nesta’s recent typology of platform organisations in the ‘collaborative economy’, it will model the underlying dynamics of peer-to-peer interaction by utilising the ‘Platform Design Toolkit’, considered alongside a worked project example and assessment of digital web analytics of the DigVentures platform. It will finally consider how a peer-to-peer system is experienced by scholars themselves, and the changing role of the archaeologist in a system that shifts the locus of work beyond the physical limits of an organisation, to open up the archaeological process to anyone who chooses to participate.
... Archaeologists in some contexts, like the Amazon, have involved local farmers in site documentation and ecological survey (Gomes 2006). Other projects have centered on community mapping (e.g., Larrain and McCall 2019;McAnany and Rowe 2015). And some have sought to engage local site residents' proximity -like O'Grady, Luke, Mokrišová, and Roosevelt (2018) who drew on "local understanding of biodiversity and climate … to document seasonal weather impacts on mudbrick." ...
While individuals living near or on archaeological sites have frequently been hired around the world to dig on archaeological excavations, they have very rarely participated in the recording or documentation of those excavations. They have played even less of a role in designing the structures of either paper or electronic data management systems. In this paper, I describe some potential gaps in the archaeological record as a result of this exclusion, by detailing some ways that the communities at Çatalhöyük, Turkey and Petra, Jordan have developed highly situated forms of knowledge about these archaeological sites due to their proximities to them. I also argue that “proximity” inculcates not only forms of knowledge about an archaeological site, but also, under certain conditions, an important means of sharing knowledge between archaeologists and the communities who live where we work. I contrast proximity to the expansiveness of big data, and question whether it is possible and even preferable to imagine ways of integrating local, proximate perspectives into the rubric of big data.
... For example, Snodgrass (2002) claims that among Classical Archaeologists, an increase in research on previously neglected periods of antiquity, such as the Greek Early Iron Age, constitutes a paradigm shift. McAnany & Rowe (2015) propose that the appearance of community-based participatory models of research among some communities of archaeologists is a paradigm shift, though they concede that it is transformational rather than revolutionary. Harris (2012) similarly argues that community crowdsourced geographic knowledge (or volunteered geographic information) could be paradigm shift for archaeological communities. ...
There is an argument in philosophy of science that revolutions in science are either idea-driven or tool-driven. We explore this debate in light of recent efforts by many scientific disciplines to embrace methods to improve the reproducibility of their research. One of the most profound changes driven by this concern for reproducibility and transparency is from analysing data using tools dependent on point-and-clicking with a mouse in closed source software, to tools based on writing scripts in open source programming languages and making them openly available. We present bibliometric evidence for this change in ecology and in archaeology to test if the adoption of these new tools is revolutionary or transformational. We identify a positive citation effect for papers that use the open source programming language R. We discuss how computational approaches to improving reproducibility and transparency in archaeology are mediated and transformed by the use of R code.
... Wikipedia is not often utilized as a means of dissemination of archaeological information and outreach to the public, nor as a pedagogical tool. Nor have archaeologists realized Wikipedia's potential for incorporating more, and more diverse, voices in archaeological conversations: frequent calls to respect and encourage multivocality in archaeological interpretation (Atalay 2008;Hodder 2008;McAnany and Rowe 2015;McDavid and Brock 2015) can in fact be put to fairly immediate practice through Wikipedia. As a result, we see potential in not only training American undergraduate students to contribute well-sourced and detailed archaeological content (and to develop the tools to identify sub-par content), but also in encouraging contributions to Wikipedia by diverse communities of scholars and students worldwide. ...
Although archaeology has become increasingly concerned with engaging diverse publics, and has embraced the internet as a means of facilitating such engagement, attitudes towards Wikipedia have—understandably—been more ambivalent. Nevertheless, we argue here, Wikipedia's popularity and reach mean that archaeologists should actively engage with the website by adding and improving archaeological content. One way to do this is in the classroom: this paper provides a detailed how-to for instructors interested in having students create new Wikipedia content. We provide a case study in Wikipedia engagement from an advanced undergraduate course on African Archaeology, assess a program (Wiki Education) designed to help, and suggest further avenues for future outreach. We conclude that Wikipedia's utopian mission aligns with many of the goals of public archaeology, and argue that archaeology has much to gain by engaging with—rather than ignoring or even shunning—Wikipedia.
... Although the goals of the collaborative archaeology paradigm 1 are clearly something that we should all aspire to, I think it is important to note that for many early career archaeologists, particularly those beginning projects abroad, "true collaboration" 2 , i.e. collaboration from a project's inception, may simply not be possible. This is because archaeologists at early stages in their research will likely not yet have received the funding required to spend the time building the necessary partnerships. ...
Although the goals of the collaborative archaeology paradigm 1 are clearly something that we should all aspire to, I think it is important to note that for many early career archaeologists, particularly those beginning projects abroad, "true collaboration" 2 , i.e. collaboration from a project's inception, may simply not be possible. This is because archaeologists at early stages in their research will likely not yet have received the funding required to spend the time building the necessary partnerships. In such cases, should we simply ignore the heartbreaking destruction of cultural heritage in the area we have become so passionate about? My response to this question was "decidedly not", and I argue here that with the aid of a community-insider, simply being open and honest (see statement 2), and putting community interests first, can go a long way towards ameliorating indigenous people's fears and concerns about archaeologists and their practices. In my research area, the Lake Atitlán Basin of highland Guatemala, I was acutely aware that several previous archaeological projects, had been prematurely terminated for incurring the suspicions and mistrust of the indigenous Tz'utujil Maya. Beginning with the ejection of the Carnegie Institution's Samuel Lothrop from the site of Chuitinamit in the 1930s 3 and extending up until the recent expulsion of the Samabaj crew by the leaders of Santiago Atitlán 4 , the Tz'utujil have repeatedly declared their refusal to be overlooked in matters pertaining to their cultural heritage. Given this checkered history and the cautionary warnings of regional experts such as Barbara Arroyo, concerns about causing no harm (see statement 1) were at the forefront of my mind as I embarked on my investigations. Fears that I would not be able to identify, let alone appease, all of the relevant stakeholders, or that I would inadvertently anger one or more landowners, however, led me to expend considerable effort, in the months leading up to the project, soliciting public opinion via a project Facebook page 5 , and searching for a local advisor who could help me negotiate the complexities of the local politics and permissions processes. My search for an appropriately qualified advisor eventually led me to contact a mathematics professor named Domingo who had lived in the area all his life and had recently self-funded the construction of a community center dedicated to the promotion of science, culture and the arts. But while Domingo had already declared his "support" for the project over e-mail, I was unclear, when I arrived, exactly what level of commitment or help he was going to be able to offer. These fears were allayed on our first day in town, however, when he informed us that he had scheduled a meeting with the alcalde for the following morning and that the following week we would be given an opportunity to explain our mission to the public by way of an interview on a popular local TV station. Thanks to Domingo's introduction and declaration of support, our first meeting with local officials was a tremendous success and, from that point on, Domingo played a crucial role in the project, helping us to arrange all of our official meetings, and ensuring that we followed established local protocols. This extended to making sure that all of our important meetings were conducted on propitious days in the Mayan calendar and that our first day of fieldwork was preceded by a blessing from a respected local aj kij (daykeeper). And while Domingo's powers to influence the decisions of individual landowners were
The long and rich history of archaeological research in Belize has produced an unparalleled whole vessel and ceramic sherd type collection spanning the entire country and all of Maya prehistory. Such ceramic collections are imperative for cross-dating and understanding inter-site and interregional connections. The Institute of Archaeology (IA), NICH, has been actively engaged in systematically curating their collections through reorganizing type collections, checking the proveniences of whole vessels, and attempting to identify contexts of unprovenienced pots. Specifically, the IA has been curating the National Collections by providing better storage and organization, however this is an ongoing process that needs the attention and support of all archaeologists conducting research in Belize, in the same way that researchers have focused on excavation and “the site”. The IA has received few type collections from current and past archaeological projects since the 1980’s, and project record-keeping in the laboratory has not always paid the necessary nor equal attention to detail as excavation records. As researchers interested in the archaeological history of the country, both foreign projects and government entities have a responsibility to the cultural heritage and patrimony of Belize. Thus, it is necessary to curate these collections properly so that they remain available to future archaeological endeavours, students, researchers, and the people of Belize.
Based on findings made by Norrbotten County Museum around 2010 in the vicinity of Sangis in Arctic Sweden of advanced iron and steel production in a hunter-gatherer setting dated to the pre-Roman Iron Age (c. 200-50 BC), the aim of the present thesis is twofold. First, with a focus on know-how/established process stages, it investigates the possible wider geographical distribution of such production in the Arctic European area. The analysis is based on archaeometallurgical methods applied to materials from previously conducted and new surveys/excavations. Second, the aim is also to analyze the probable social/organizational conditions for the adaptation of iron and steel production among the ancient Arctic hunter-gatherer groups. The results are of breakthrough character, revealing an extensive spatial distribution of advanced iron and steel production at more than 40 sites in present-day northernmost Finland, Sweden, and Norway more than 2000 years ago (i.e., contemporary, and even partly prior to the Romans). The geographical spread of advanced and early iron technology which emerges through the results fundamentally challenges traditional perceptions of the emergence of ferrous metallurgy, especially when societies traditionally considered as less complex/highly mobile are addressed. Hence, iron- and steel production necessitated long-term organization/balancing with other subsistence activities in the collected rhythm of activities in the strongly seasonally influenced (climate-wise) landscape of the ancient Arctic hunter-gatherer communities. In addition to advanced knowledge, the new metal-related activities required significant supplies of raw materials (including their extraction, transportation, preparation, and storage) and thus (related) manpower. Overall, the results imply we ought to significantly broaden the perspectives of the ancient Arctic hunter-gatherer communities in terms of specialization and complex organization far beyond the traditional interpretative paradigm labeling prehistoric iron technology in the European Arctic as small-scale, dependent on imports, and underdeveloped or archaic. Also, because some parts of the process, like the necessary production of charcoal, required multi-year planning, the adaptation and investment of iron technology in the rhythm of activities in the landscape logistically bound the communities to specific locations in the landscape, thus implying reduced residential mobility, i.e., a higher degree of sedentism than previously recognized for these groups. The research process forming the basis of this thesis (conducted by a small group of archaeologists, archaeometallurgists, and historians of technology) was strongly characterized by the fact the results are completely at odds with both the larger international and Arctic European literature, implying both weak support for the interpretation of our results and perceived need for pin-pointing hidden assumptions in earlier research in order to “make room” for our results. In addition, the process was characterized by the fact that it took place in (and the ancient findings were made within) a region strongly marked by ethnopolitical forces and groups striving for identity building, where history (and particularly ancient findings) often gets to play a central role.
The digital age has revolutionized our way of conceptualizing and managing information generated by research projects in the Humanities. Converting from “analogical data” to “digital data” has expanded how knowledge stored virtually in Open Access is preserved and shared. In spite of this, data from many collections categorized as archaeological and / or ethnographical come from contexts where intellectual property, author rights, governance and cultural sovereignty are blurred and pass from those who were the original makers/creators (or their descendants) to the science researcher. We analyze what data are in the scientific system, in archaeology in particular, and for indigenous peoples and we reflect upon who holds sovereignty. We propose working from a collaborative standpoint centered on dialogue with indigenous communities in order to negotiate a consensus on the ways of giving access and allowing governance of digital data on the history and culture of originary peoples. This is a way of recognizing indigenous rights and of contributing to the process of cultural recovery and visibilization that many indigenous communities are currently pursuing.
Keywords: Digital data; Indigenous communities; Collaborative perspective; Governance.
English version is the supplementary material of original paper in Spanish https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/41157/44136
Mengoni Goñalons, G. L., & Figuerero Torres, M. J. (2023). Datos digitales en arqueología y comunidades indígenas: una mirada desde una perspectiva colaborativa. Revista Del Museo De Antropología, 16(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v16.n2.41157
La era digital ha revolucionado el modo de conceptualizar y gestionar la información generada por los proyectos de investigación en Ciencias Humanas. El paso de “datos analógicos” a “datos digitales” ha ampliado la manera de preservar y compartir el conocimiento que se guarda en espacios virtuales de acceso abierto. Pese a ello, los datos que provienen de muchas colecciones categorizadas como arqueológicas y/o etnográficas surgen de un contexto en el que la propiedad intelectual, los derechos autorales, la gobernanza y la soberanía cultural se desdibujan y pasan de quienes fueron los hacedores/creadores originarios (o sus herederos) al investigador científico. Hacemos un análisis acerca de qué son los datos para el sistema de ciencia y técnica, la arqueología en especial y los pueblos originarios y reflexionamos acerca de quiénes tienen soberanía sobre ellos. Aquí proponemos trabajar desde una perspectiva colaborativa centrada en el diálogo con las comunidades indígenas que posibilite negociar consensuadamente diferentes maneras de dar acceso y facilitar la gobernanza sobre datos digitales de la historia y cultura de los pueblos originarios. Esto es una manera de reconocer sus derechos y una forma de contribuir al proceso de recuperación cultural y visibilización en el que muchas comunidades indígenas se encuentran abocadas en la actualidad.
This paper presents the results of a multi-year, interdisciplinary project that aimed to assess the holistic status of the khettara system in Morocco. The khettara (also known as qanat) is a traditional, earthen water management system. Historically the system was used for settlement in regions without access to reliable surface water. It is both a world and local heritage structure, found in rural and urban regions throughout 46 countries. Recent evaluations of this traditional system have advocated for its preservation and use in arid and semi-arid regions, as modern technologies (pump wells, industrial dams, drip irrigation, etc.) have proven to be unsustainable. This project evaluates remote sensing as a tool for assessing the distribution and status of the khettara in Morocco. The results of this project demonstrate that (1) the khettara system played a large role in the historic settlement of arid and semi-arid regions, and (2) the system continues to be an important part of agriculture and life in many oases across Morocco.
Contact the author !
Cet article présente les résultats d'un projet pluriannuel et interdisciplinaire visant à évaluer le statut holistique du système de khettara au Maroc. La khettara (également connue sous le nom de qanat) est un système traditionnel de gestion de l'eau sous terre. Historiquement, ce système a été utilisé pour l'établissement de populations dans des régions n'ayant pas accès fiables à des eaux de surface. Il s'agit d'une structure du patrimoine mondial et local, que l'on trouve dans les régions rurales et urbaines de 46 pays. Des évaluations récentes de ce système traditionnel ont plaidé en faveur de sa préservation et de son utilisation dans les régions arides et semi-arides, car les technologies modernes (puits à pompe, barrages industriels, irrigation au goutte-à-goutte, etc.) se sont révélées non durables. Ce projet évalue la télédétection comme outil d'analyse de la distribution et du statut de la khettara au Maroc. Les résultats de ce projet démontrent que (1) le système de khettara a joué un rôle important dans la colonisation historique des régions arides et semi-arides, et (2) le système continue d'être une partie importante de l'agriculture et de la vie dans de nombreuses oasis à travers le Maroc.
In this contribution to our periodic ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Lindsay M. Montgomery and Tiffany C. Fryer reflect on the reshaping of archaeological praxis in the Americas through recent developments in collaborative community-engaged research. Over the past 20 years, new theoretical and methodological approaches informed by decolonisation and Black feminism have shifted power dynamics within the discipline. The authors review this growing body of research, highlighting trends in collaborative archaeological research and discussing some of the ongoing challenges and tensions. They argue that this collaborative paradigm marks a new future for archaeology in the Americas, which will increasingly centre on topics of importance to Black and Indigenous scholars and descendant communities.
This chapter reviews the contributions of an engaged archaeological framework to past and present research about human-environmental relationships in Latin America. We argue that archaeology can play an expanded role in advancing our understanding of long-term socio-environmental systems by promoting greater integration between scientific research and broader societal needs and local spatial knowledge within the context of sustainability. We further suggest that participatory approaches can bridge some of the conceptual divides that separate archaeologists and anthropologists from Indigenous and local communities and contribute to the decolonization of the discipline. Specifically, the aim is to show how participatory mapping and participatory geographic information systems can be suitable tools to engage archaeological studies of human-environment interactions from an integrative research perspective.KeywordsLandscapesHuman–environment interactionsRemote sensing and GISParticipatory mappingLocal spatial knowledgeTraditional ecological knowledge
Community archaeologies should emerge from an awareness of the ways in which archaeological praxis is embedded with multiple pasts, subjectivities, materialities, and national and transnational histories. This longitudinal archaeological ethnography explores the lived experiences, perceptions of the past, and relationship to archaeology and archaeologists amongst villagers residing near the Kerkenes site in Turkey after attempts by the project to develop heritage awareness, a sustainable local economy, and collaborative management of the site within the community. However well-intentioned, considerable challenges to closing the gap in understanding between archaeologists and locals can arise when the efforts of archaeologists become entangled in larger socio-political frameworks beyond their control. Villagers have experienced being dehumanized as Muslim migrant workers in Europe and were Islamic-based nationalist supporters of the conservative Erdoğan regime. The archaeologists’ heritage-making practices inadvertently triggered symbolic associations of the project with the colonial endeavor. Locals produced counter-narratives about the site as a decolonizing response.
Museums have long been important to cultural understanding as well as sites of cultural conflict. One of the issues that is most pressing and straddles the expanse of the cultural understanding/conflict spectrum is Native American remains in the United States. A recent Department of Interior rule clarifying the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has strengthened the rights of Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and lineal descendant by making clearer their rights and their ability to ask questions of museums holding certain Native American remains and artifacts. I argue that a Marxist perspective can help explain the rule, and that such an explanation may be a foundation for improving ongoing discussions about Native American remains and artifacts in museums. Through a Marxist museology, I unpack the ways in which museums continue to function under a logic of capital accumulation despite the rule's necessary corrective.
The Middle East and North Africa have witnessed a surfeit of geospatial data collection projects, resulting in big databases with powerful deductive capacities. Despite the valuable insights and expansive evidentiary record offered by those databases, emphasis on anthropogenic threats to cultural heritage, combined with a limited integration of local perspectives, have raised important questions on the ethical and epistemological dimensions of big data. This paper contextualizes maritime cultural heritage (MCH) in those debates through the lens of the Maritime Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project (MarEA). MarEA is developing a unique for the region database for MCH designed to amalgamate a baseline record emphasizing spatial location, state of preservation, and vulnerability. This record will form a stepping stone toward finer-grained research on MCH and its interdisciplinary intersections. It is also developed as an information resource to facilitate local collaborators in prioritizing site monitoring and developing documentation, management, and mitigation strategies.
The Puddle Dock neighborhood was home to many Eastern European Jewish families at the turn of the 20th century. One of the cultural and religious traditions they brought to the United States was immersion in a mikveh, a Jewish ritual bath. A mikveh constructed for community use between ca. 1912 and 1926 had been mentioned in Portsmouth oral histories, but the ca. 1901 house in which it was built and used was demolished, and there was no documentation. Today the neighborhood where that house and mikveh were constructed is part of Strawbery Banke Museum, an outdoor history museum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. A museum-directed archaeological field school, in collaboration with the local stakeholder community, set out to locate and document the mikveh and its source of living water. Its excavation provided material evidence of an important historical practice. This article also gives an overview of other mikvot excavated in the eastern U.S. and considers the importance of archaeological investigation and recognition of these features for research on the Jewish Diaspora.
Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) cada vez están más presentes en la formación de los futuros docentes como una de las metas más urgentes de la Agenda 2030. Desde la enseñanza de las ciencias sociales y, en concreto, desde la educación patrimonial, nos preguntamos si los futuros docentes reciben una adecuada formación al respecto, si conocen qué son estos objetivos y qué encierra cada uno de ellos. Así mismo, nos preguntamos qué saben sobre la sostenibilidad del patrimonio, cuál es su compromiso social y mediante qué estrategias lo prevén llevar a la práctica docente futura. Bajo estos planteamientos se ha llevado a cabo una investigación cuantitativa sobre la sostenibilidad del patrimonio en el Grado en Magisterio en Educación Primaria de la Facultad de Educación de Zaragoza, con un total de n=234 discentes, para conocer en qué grado este contenido está presente en su formación, en qué grado consideran que está relacionado con las ciencias sociales y qué estrategias de enseñanza aprendizaje les parecen más adecuadas para aplicar al aula. Los principales resultados reflejan que los ODS están presentes en todas las etapas educativas, pero que sigue distando de los niveles deseables. Tras la aplicación del cuestionario los discentes muestran un aumento en el grado de conciencia sobre la repercusión que tienen sus actos en el deterioro del patrimonio. Y, por último, didácticamente se percibe un compromiso vivo como agentes de cambio; entre sus prioridades para trabajar la sostenibilidad del patrimonio destacan la educación emocional y la importancia del enfoque relacional.
The ‘ontological turn’ in the social sciences is premised on the critique of representation. In this essay, I defend representation against some of the major criticisms advanced in archaeology. In developing my argument, I draw insights from the semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce and its incorporation in semiotic anthropology. I conclude that while it is not possible to go beyond representation, we can nonetheless improve our representational models through a ‘hermeneutics of generosity.’ Such a perspective involves opening up our interpretive practices to the agency of non-human actors not usually considered in our archaeological accounts. But it also involves engaging with descendent communities in the practice of collaborative knowledge production. These moves have the dual benefit of increasing scientific accuracy and underwriting meaningful social action.
Collaborative, open, participatory, community-based, public, and Indigenous archaeologies are frequently discussed collectively as a paradigm shift for the discipline. As these approaches mature, we begin to understand some of their less-than-positive repercussions. However, the archaeology of Indigenous descendant communities in a settler-colonist state differs from reactionary populism. In this article, I approach these concerns from my vantage point as a Euroamerican academic archaeologist working in the Southwest United States. I first situate Indigenous archaeology within its historical context. I then explore the issues faced by archaeologists working in the ancient Indigenous Southwest United States. As Southwest archaeologists work to decolonize our discipline, there have been successes, but there are also tremendous challenges and obstacles. I conclude with an example from my own work that illustrates how archaeologists can collaborate with Native communities to fight against global capitalist and neoliberalist interests.
After a heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, probability sampling became much less visible in archaeological literature as it came under assault from the post-processual critique and the widespread adoption of "full-coverage survey." After 1990, published discussion of probability sampling rarely strayed from sample-size issues in analyses of artifacts along with plant and animal remains, and most textbooks and archaeological training limited sampling to regional survey and did little to equip new generations of archaeologists with this critical aspect of research design. A review of the last 20 years of archaeological literature indicates a need for deeper and broader archaeological training in sampling; more precise usage of terms such as "sample"; use of randomization as a control in experimental design; and more attention to cluster sampling, stratified sampling, and non-spatial sampling in both training and research.
This article analyses the ethical consequences for archaeology and archaeologists induced by the process of capitalist globalisation and the integration of archaeological heritage as a resource within the market economy. I propose a theoretical reflection on the current situation as well as on the questions and repositioning of the different actors in this process, based on my participation in the 2003 debate on the declaration of the Quebrada de Humahuaca (Jujuy, Argentina) as a World Heritage Site. Finally, the alternative of sustainable archaeology is evaluated as a possible means of transformation for archaeology.
Le Ndakinna est le territoire ancestral de la nation w8banaki. Les W8banakiak, « gens du pays de l’aube » ou « ceux qui vivent au levant », forment la Première Nation algonquienne la plus au sud du Québec. Depuis 2013, le Bureau du Ndakinna est mandaté par le Conseil des Abénakis d’Odanak et le Conseil des Abénakis de Wôlinak pour répondre aux consultations territoriales. Afin d’y parvenir, le Bureau utilise notamment l’archéologie dans divers projets de gestion et d’affirmation sur le territoire ancestral w8banaki. Que ce soit au sujet de la protection et de la gestion d’écosystèmes indispensables pour la nation w8banaki, de la documentation des schémas et des sites historiques w8banakiak d’occupation du territoire ou du rayonnement scientifique, l’archéologie au sein du Bureau du Ndakinna représente un puissant véhicule d’autodétermination pour la Nation w8banaki.
The variants of community-based research projects in archaeology have increased exponentially in number since the 1980s, and the once-well-defined lines dividing “academic” and “public” archaeology continue to fade. We welcome the protracted and necessary change, but community-based research lacks the rigidity of previous paradigmatic approaches in archaeological research. For good reason. Here we provide a commentary based on our collaborative projects with two communities of mixed-descent on Long Island to emphasize how action research defies well-defined approaches. If anything, our experiences showcase some of the challenges community archaeologies encounter yet are reluctant to acknowledge. We focus on race and heritage, their intersection, and the dynamic experiences they impose and create. We offer very little in the way of solutions to the challenges we present, but hope to illustrate how self-reflection and flexibility are requisites of effective collaborative research, particularly with communities of mixed-ancestry.
Parallel archaeological projects and national heritage initiatives on Iron Age citadels in southeastern Turkey challenge archaeologists to rethink their relationship with the past, and with local people who can be impacted by their fieldwork. This paper approaches the Iron Age monumentality of one such site – Zincirli – to examine two closely related problems: the multi-temporality of legacy sites; and the relationship between Iron Age monumentality and modernist interest in such sites, past and present. The paper foregrounds notions of ‘development’ and ‘patrimony’ as discursive links between the Iron Age monuments of Zincirli, research at Zincirli in the late 19th century, and continued foreign-led research and national interest in the site today. The same discourses threaten the eviction of a village that inhabits the Zincirli settlement mound. The paper concludes by considering the relationship between the epistemological/methodological framework of the current excavators and national development agendas at Zincirli, and proposes alternatives for the sustainable heritage development of this place.
Although communities of practice develop organically, a carefully crafted design can drive their evolution. In this excerpt from a new book, the authors detail seven design principles. The payoff? Knowledge management that works. Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice In Silicon Valley, a community of circuit designers meets for a lively debate about the merits of two different designs developed by one of the participants. Huddling together over the circuit diagrams, they analyze possible faults, discuss issues of efficiency, propose alternatives, tease out each other's assumptions, and make the case for their view. In Boston, a group of social workers who staff a help line meet to discuss knotty client problems, express sympathy as they discuss difficulties, probe to understand each other's feelings, and gently offer suggestions. Their meetings are often deeply challenging and sometimes highly emotional. The fact-driven, sometimes argumentative, meetings of the Silicon Valley circuit designers are extremely different from the compassionate meetings of the social workers in Boston. But despite their differences, the circuit designers' and social workers' communities are both vibrant and full of life. Their energy is palpable to both the regular participants and visitors. Because communities of practice are voluntary, what makes them successful over time is their ability to generate enough excitement, relevance, and value to attract and engage members. Although many factors, such as management support or an urgent problem, can inspire a community, nothing can substitute for this sense of aliveness. How do you design for aliveness? Certainly you cannot contrive or dictate it. You cannot design it in the traditional sense of specifying a structure or process and then implementing it. Still, aliveness does not always happen automatically. Many natural communities never grow beyond a network of friends because they fail to attract enough participants. Many intentional communities fall apart soon after their initial launch because they don't have enough energy to sustain themselves. Communities, unlike teams and other structures, need to invite the interaction that makes them alive. For example, a park is more appealing to use if its location provides a short cut between destinations. It invites people to sit for lunch or chat if it has benches set slightly off the main path, visible, but just out of earshot, next to something interesting like a flower bed or a patch of sunlight. 1 The structure of organizational relationships and events also invite a kind of interaction. Meetings that contain some open time during a break or lunch, with enough space for people to mingle or confer privately, invite one-on-one discussion and relationship building. Just as a good park has varied spaces for neighborhood baseball games, quiet chats, or The goal of community design is to bring out the community's own internal direction, character, and energy.
Archaeological remains have long been recognised as fragile evidence of the past, which require protection. Legal protection for archaeological heritage has existed in Australia for more than thirty years but there has been little analysis of the aims and effectiveness of that legislation by the archaeological profession. Much Australian heritage legislation was developed in a period where the dominant paradigm in archaeological theory and practice held that archaeology was an objective science. Australian legislative frameworks continue to strongly reflect this scientific paradigm and contemporary archaeological heritage management practice is in turn driven by these legislative requirements. This thesis examines whether archaeological heritage legislation is fulfilling its original intent. Analysis of legislative development in this thesis reveals that legislators viewed archaeological heritage as having a wide societal value, not solely or principally for the archaeological community. Archaeological heritage protection is considered within the broader philosophy of environmental conservation. As an environmental issue, it is suggested that a ‘public good’ conservation paradigm is closer to the original intent of archaeological heritage legislation, rather than the “scientific” paradigm which underlies much Australian legislation. Through investigation of the developmental history of Australian heritage legislation it is possible to observe how current practice has diverged from the original intent of the legislation, with New South Wales and Victoria serving as case studies. Further analysis is undertaken of the limited number of Australian court cases which have involved substantial archaeological issues to determine the court’s attitude to archaeological heritage protection. Situating archaeological heritage protective legislation within the field of environmental law allows the examination of alternate modes of protecting archaeological heritage and creates opportunities for ‘public good’ conservation outcomes. This shift of focus to ‘public good’ conservation as an alternative to narrowly-conceived scientific outcomes better aligns with current public policy directions including the sustainability principles, as they have developed in Australia, as well as indigenous rights of self-determination. The thesis suggests areas for legal reforms which direct future archaeological heritage management practice to consider the ‘public good’ values for archaeological heritage protection.
This article represents a systematic effort to answer the question, What are archaeology’s most important scientific challenges? Starting with a crowd-sourced query directed broadly to the professional community of archaeologists, the authors augmented, prioritized, and refined the responses during a two-day workshop focused specifically on this question. The resulting 25 “grand challenges” focus on dynamic cultural processes and the operation of coupled human and natural systems. We organize these challenges into five topics: (1) emergence, communities, and complexity; (2) resilience, persistence, transformation, and collapse; (3) movement, mobility, and migration; (4) cognition, behavior, and identity; and (5)human-environment interactions. A discussion and a brief list of references accompany each question. An important goal
in identifying these challenges is to inform decisions on infrastructure investments for archaeology. Our premise is that the
highest priority investments should enable us to address the most important questions. Addressing many of these challenges
will require both sophisticated modeling and large-scale synthetic research that are only now becoming possible. Although
new archaeological fieldwork will be essential, the greatest payoff will derive from investments that provide sophisticated
research access to the explosion in systematically collected archaeological data that has occurred over the last several
decades.
People care about archaeology for a variety of competing reasons. Archaeologists no longer ignore this as they once did, but few have come to terms on a pragmatic level with their responsibility to the public. Here I outline my own ideas about public engagement and the place of ethnography in the archaeologist's professional practice. While long-term collaborations between archaeologists and others are almost always preferable, they are rarely feasible, and lofty ideals can have negative repercussions for daily practice and political action. I advocate Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a method that archaeologists untrained in ethnography can use to expediently develop ethnographically sensitive and respectful relationships. I also advocate that archaeologists be honest about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how it relates to what they are actually trained to do. This is an important step since archaeologists need to be able to see themselves as one group of stakeholders with a right to advocate their position, but no right to ultimate control of the resources that they use to create an archaeological record. PAR is structured to ensure that project outcomes are not determined in advance. This means that the perspectives and objectives of archaeologists, even when they are allied with political and economic power, will not always prevail. I conclude with a description of a current community museums project I am supporting in Kyrgyzstan where I have put as much energy into transparency as into ethnography.
With indigenous and Afro-Latin land rights in Central America as ethnographic context, this article makes the case for politically engaged anthropology. The argument builds from a juxtaposition between “cultural critique” and “activist research” distinguished mainly on methodological grounds. Activist scholars establish an alignment with an organized group of people in struggle and accompany them on the contradictory and partly compromised path toward their political goals. This yields research outcomes that are both troubled and deeply enriched by direct engagement with the complexities of political contention. A case in the Inter-American Human Rights Court, where an indigenous community called Awas Tingni forced the Nicaraguan government to recognize the community's ancestral lands, illustrates the promise of activist research, in spite of the inevitable contradictions that present themselves even when the struggle is ostensibly successful.
In its original edition, Bruce Trigger's book was the first ever to examine the history of archaeological thought from medieval times to the present in world-wide perspective. Now, in this new edition, he both updates the original work and introduces new archaeological perspectives and concerns. At once stimulating and even-handed, it places the development of archaeological thought and theory throughout within a broad social and intellectual framework. The successive but interacting trends apparent in archaeological thought are defined and the author seeks to determine the extent to which these trends were a reflection of the personal and collective interests of archaeologists as these relate - in the West at least - to the fluctuating fortunes of the middle classes. While subjective influences have been powerful, Professor Trigger argues that the gradual accumulation of archaeological data has exercised a growing constraint on interpretation. In turn, this has increased the objectivity of archaeological research and enhanced its value for understanding the entire span of human history and the human condition in general.
The third edition of this classic introduction to archaeological theory and method has been fully updated to address the burgeoning of theoretical debate throughout the discipline. Ian Hodder and Scott Hutson argue that archaeologists must bring to bear a variety of perspectives in the complex and uncertain task of constructing meaning from the past. While remaining centred on the importance of hermeneutics, agency and history, the authors explore cutting-edge developments in areas such as post-structuralism, neo-evolutionary theory and whole new branches of theory such as phenomenology. With the addition of two completely new chapters, the third edition of Reading the Past presents an authoritative, state-of-the-art analysis of contemporary archaeological theory. Also including new material on feminist archaeology, historical approaches such as cultural history, and theories of discourse and signs, this book represents essential reading for any student or scholar with an interest in the past.
Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies
Edited by Junko Habu, Clare Fawcett, and John M. Matsunaga
This volume uses Bruce Trigger's 1984 article, "Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist" as a starting point to examine the complex interaction between contemporary society and archaeological practice today. It deals with the evaluation of multiple interpretations of the past, with a focus on the concept of multivocality. According to its practitioners and adherents, archaeological multivocality gives voice to underrepresented groups and individuals by providing alternative interpretations of the past.
This book uses case studies from Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America to explore the interplay between the sociopolitical context of specific national, regional or local archaeological traditions and the variety of interpretations of the past made by archaeologists and others. A key question asked throughout the book is whether multivocality, a concept derived from postmodern theory and embedded in the political, social and intellectual traditions of Britain and North America, is welcome or applicable in other parts of the world. The diversity of topics and geographical areas covered in the chapters allows readers to understand the dynamic nature of the relationship between archaeology, sociopolitical conditions, and peoples' identities in regional and historical settings.
The volume concludes with discussions by Alison Wylie, Ian Hodder, and Bruce Trigger who revisit past research but also look forward to the future of alternate archaeologies, multivocality and multiple narratives.
After much deliberation and debate, the Society for American Archaeology (the SAA) has ‘strongly’ endorsed ‘Principles of Archaeological Ethics’. It ‘urges’ archaeologists to use these principles in establishing the responsibilities they have to archaeological resources, to those who have an interest in these resources and to those affected by archaeological work (SAA 2004; SAA Ethics in Archaeology Committee 2000). In this paper, we discuss the implications the SAA principles have for the treatment of archaeological artefacts other than skeletal remains. We have excluded the latter from our discussion for a number of reasons: because skeletal remains raise complex issues that warrant extended discussion on their own; because these issues are investigated in other contributions to this volume; and because we have examined these issues in another context (see Groarke 2001). According to the set of principles the SAA proposes, the basic principle of archaeological ethics is the following principle of stewardship: The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records, and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record. Stewards are both caretakers of and advocates for the archaeological record for the benefit of all people; as they investigate and interpret the record, they should use the specialized knowledge they gain to promote public understanding and support for its long-term preservation. (SAA Ethics in Archaeology Committee 2000: 11)
This paper contends that proponents of various forms of Indigenous Archaeology base their argument on a paradigm of Aboriginal essentialism ("Aboriginalism") that is derived from the long-discarded concept of Primitive Man. The development of Aboriginalism is explored as a mutually reinforcing process between Indigenous and Western scholars, based on evidence that is at best anecdotal. The adoption of this flawed concept by archaeologists. Western publics, and Indigenous people themselves has led to problematic assumptions that have negative consequences for both the practice of archaeology and for the lives of those who identify themselves as Indigenous. Archaeologists can usefully challenge the historical assumptions on which the paradigm of Aboriginalism is based: the belief that local societies have endured as stable entities over great periods of time, and the consequent projection of contemporary ethnic identities into the deep past. Such a challenge confronts a significant element of the intellectual climate that allows marginalized groups to exist as permanent aliens in the societies of settler nations.
Archaeology impacts the lives of indigenous, local, or descendant communities. Yet often these groups have little input to archaeological research, and its results remain inaccessible. As archaeologists consider the consequences and benefits of research, the skills, methodologies, and practices required of them will differ dramatically from those of past decades. As an archaeologist and a Native American, Sonya Atalay has investigated the rewards and complex challenges of conducting research in partnership with indigenous and local communities. In Community-Based Archaeology, she outlines the principles of community-based participatory research and demonstrates how CBPR can be effectively applied to archaeology. Drawing on her own experiences with research projects in North America and the Near East, Atalay provides theoretical discussions along with practical examples of establishing and developing collaborative relationships and sharing results. This book will contribute to building an archaeology that is engaged, ethical, relevant, and sustainable.
Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory and practice, involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants, in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives. It seeks to make archaeology more representative of, responsible to, and relevant for Indigenous communities; to redress real and perceived inequalities in the practice of archaeology; and to inform and broaden the understanding and interpretation of the archaeological record through the incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories, and science. This entry provides a global approach to the concept in terms of both Aboriginal worldview, epistemology and politics, and Western science, sociopolitics, and heritage legislation. The grassroots development of Indigenous archeology has been driven by two broad, interrelated themes: (1) the treatment of the dead (and related objects and places); (2) cultural heritage and legislative concerns about the ownership of cultural and intellectual property. Also included is a review of the theoretical and methodological foundations of Indigenous archaeology, which include Marxist, feminist, critical, and postcolonial theory situated on more traditional cultural historical and, to a degree, processual approaches. The entry concludes by examining reactions to Indigenous archaeology, identifying current issues, and finally noting what it has to offer to Aboriginal communities and to the broad realm of archaeological inquiry.
The challenges of building research partnerships around community mapping are critically reviewed in reference to the politics of heritage and identity among Indigenous Maya communities in highland Guatemala. This paper discusses how the goals and interests of archaeologists meshed with those of indigenous mappers in five communities that chose to participate in the mapping program. Based on responses to a survey about the mapping project, participants report joining in order to enhance self-determination, gain cartographic literacy, and improve life opportunities. Community authority over the project and a broad base of participation (including young and old, male and female) proved essential to the program, which combined traditional practices of governance with new technologies. This paper describes the community organizational model and protocols for selecting features and topics for thematic maps as well as for gaining community consensus on map content. Finally, it reflects on this transmodern approach to indigenous mapping and the future of research partnerships.
In February of 1879, Dr. J. M. Toner, Professor Otis Mason, and Col. Garrick Mallery placed an advertisement in the Washington, D.C. newspapers that read, in part
Many persons interested in American archaeology have expressed a desire for an organization in this city to promote study and diffuse knowledge upon the subject. All willing to join an Archaeological Association are requested to attend a meeting at the Smithsonian Institution . . . for a conference upon the subject and the formation of such a society [Lamb 1906:564-565].
It is argued that as a scientist one does not justifiably employ analogies to ethnographic observations for the "interpretation" of archaeological data. Instead, analogies should be documented and used as the basis for offering a postulate as to the relationship between archaeological forms and their behavioral context in the past. Such a postulate should then serve as the foundation of a series of deductively drawn hypotheses which, on testing, can refute or tend to confirm the postulate offered. Analogy should serve to provoke new questions about order in the archaeological record and should serve to prompt more searching investigations rather than being viewed as a means for offering "interpretations" which then serve as the "data" for synthesis. This argument is made demonstratively through the presentation of formal data on a class of archaeological features, "smudge pits," and the documentation of their positive analogy with pits as facilities used in smoking hides.
Many of the constructs of space, time and behavior in the ethnographic literature on hunter-gatherers may be partly determined by the severe constraints on ethnographic fieldwork. This paper discusses the genesis of some of these constructs, points out that the anthropological theory consumed by archaeologists is often based on, or developed for these constructs, and suggests that some of these constructs may be insensitive to deal with behavioral variability expressed in the archeological record, even though they can be made to fit any data. Their application to the archaeological record may merely be ethnography with a shovel in which the form and the structure of the ethnographic record are reproduced in the archaeological one.
Scitation is the online home of leading journals and conference proceedings from AIP Publishing and AIP Member Societies
In this article, Part I of Cultural Action for Freedom, Paulo Freire rejects mechanistic conceptions of the adult literacy process, advocating instead a theory and practice based upon authentic dialogue between teachers and learners. Such dialogue, in Freire's approach, centers upon the learners' existential situations and leads not only to their acquisition of literacy skills, but also, and more importantly, to their awareness of their right as human beings to transform reality. Becoming literate, then, means far more than learning to decode the written representation of a sound system. It is truly an act of knowing, through which a person is able to look critically at the world he/she lives in, and to reflect and act upon it. (pp. 480-498)
In this article, Part II of Cultural Action for Freedom, Paulo Freire explains the process of conscientization as an intrinsic part of cultural action for freedom. He rejects the mechanistic and behaviorist understanding of consciousness as a passive copy of reality. Instead, he proposes the critical dimension of consciousness that recognizes human beings as active agents who transform their world. He makes specific reference to the political and social situation in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, discussing the need for cultural action in order to break the existing "culture of silence." (pp. 499-521)
It is argued that archaeology has made few contributions to the general field of anthropology with regard to explaining cultural similarities and differences. One major factor contributing to this lack is asserted to be the tendency to treat artifacts as equal and comparable traits which can be explained within a single model of culture change and modification. It is suggested that “material culture” can and does represent the structure of the total cultural system, and that explanations of differences and similarities between certain classes of material culture are inappropriate and inadequate as explanations for such observations within other classes of items. Similarly, change in the total cultural system must be viewed in an adaptive context both social and environmental, not whimsically viewed as the result of “influences,” “stimuli,” or even “migrations” between and among geographically defined units.
Three major functional sub-classes of material culture are discussed: technomic, socio-technic, and ideo-technic, as well as stylistic formal properties which cross-cut these categories. In general terms these recognized classes of materials are discussed with regard to the processes of change within each class.
Using the above distinctions in what is termed a systemic approach, the problem of the appearance and changing utilization of native copper in eastern North America is discussed. Hypotheses resulting from the application of the systemic approach are: (1) the initial appearance of native copper implements is in the context of the production of socio-technic items; (2) the increased production of socio-technic items in the late Archaic period is related to an increase in population following the shift to the exploitation of aquatic resources roughly coincident with the Nipissing high water stage of the ancestral Great Lakes; (3) this correlation is explicable in the increased selective pressures favoring material means of status communication once populations had increased to the point that personal recognition was no longer a workable basis for differential role behavior; (4) the general shift in later periods from formally “utilitarian” items to the manufacture of formally “nonutilitarian” items of copper is explicable in the postulated shift from purely egalitarian to increasingly nonegalitarian means of status attainment.
The Gediz valley of modern, western Turkey is a major gateway linking the Aegean spheres with the central Anatolian plateau. The making of cultural heritage in Anatolia plays out in very different ways depending on the physical location of the community and the level of implementation of the post-1923 social- and political-engineering agendas of the authorities of the Republic of Turkey. In this case-study we analyse one community, a village of just under 200 people known as Hacıveliler in the Marmara Lake basin of the Gediz valley in western Turkey (province of Manisa). We explore how this community continues to (re)define its heritage (from the 19th century to the present day) in light of contemporary policies. The approach combines historiographical, archaeological, preservation and ethnographical datasets.
In its original edition, Bruce Trigger's book was the first ever to examine the history of archaeological thought from medieval times to the present in world-wide perspective. Now, in this new edition, he both updates the original work and introduces new archaeological perspectives and concerns. At once stimulating and even-handed, it places the development of archaeological thought and theory throughout within a broad social and intellectual framework. The successive but interacting trends apparent in archaeological thought are defined and the author seeks to determine the extent to which these trends were a reflection of the personal and collective interests of archaeologists as these relate - in the West at least - to the fluctuating fortunes of the middle classes. While subjective influences have been powerful, Professor Trigger argues that the gradual accumulation of archaeological data has exercised a growing constraint on interpretation. In turn, this has increased the objectivity of archaeological research and enhanced its value for understanding the entire span of human history and the human condition in general.
Multi–Sited Ethnography has established itself as a fully–fledged research method among anthropologists and sociologists in recent years. It responds to the challenge of combining multi–sited work with the need for in–depth analysis, allowing for a more considered study of social worlds. This volume utilizes cutting–edge research from a number of renowned scholars and empirical experiences, to present theoretical and practical facets charting the development and direction of new research into social phenomena. Owing to its clear contribution to a rapidly emerging field, Multi–Sited Ethnography will appeal to anyone studying social actors, including scholars within human geography, anthropology, sociology and development and migration studies.
Although there has been some progress towards ethical standards in archaeology during the past hundred years, only lately has the need for codified archaeological ethics begun to be felt. To elicit further discussion of this subject, the author suggests some elements that might be appropriate to such a code, including a rationale, a statement of principles and specific guidelines. The canons are grouped under four headings: the archaeologist in general, the sponsor, the chief excavator, and the excavation staff. Within each of these categories the author also notes several issues that are particularly controversial. He treats briefly the problems posed by any attempt to impose sanctions as a means of gaining compliance with such a code.
In this two-part article, Watson summarizes and discusses a number of new themes in the literature on archeological theory with critical emphasis on symbolic-structural approaches. Fotiadis comments by applying a structuralist analysis to Watson's argument.
How can ethnographic methods help communities articulate and enact their own conceptions of heritage management? This and related questions are being explored through an international research project, 'Intellectual Pro perty Issues in Cultural Heritage'. The project includes up to twenty community-based initiatives that incorporate community-based participatory research and ethnographic methods to explore emerging intellectual property-related issues in archaeological contexts; the means by which they are being addressed or resolved; and the broader implications of these issues and concerns. We discuss three examples that use ethno graphy to (a) articulate local or customary laws and principles of archaeological heritage management among a First Nations group in British Columbia; (b) assemble knowledge related to land/sea use and cultural practices of the Moriori people of Rekohu (Chatham Islands) for their use in future land and heritage manage-ment policies; and (c) aid a tribal cultural centre in Michigan in crafting co-management strategies to protect spiritual traditions associated with a rock art site on state property. Such situations call for participatory methods that place control over the design, process, products, and interpretation of 'archaeology' in the hands of cultural descen dants. We hope that these examples of community-based conceptions of archaeological heritage management, facilitated through ethnographic methods and participatory approaches, will increase awareness of the value of these and other alternative approaches and the need to share them widely.
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research, agroecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). In RRA information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders; in PRA it is more shared and owned by local people. Participatory methods include mapping and modeling, transect walks, matrix scoring, seasonal calendars, trend and change analysis, well-being and wealth ranking and grouping, and analytical diagramming. PRA applications include natural resources management, agriculture, poverty and social programs, and health and food security. Dominant behavior by outsiders may explain why it has taken until the 1990s for the analytical capabilities of local people to be better recognized and for PRA to emerge, grow and spread.
Introduction - William Foote Whyte PAR IN INDUSTRY Participatory Action Research - William Foote Whyte, Davydd J Greenwood and Peter Lazes Through Practice to Science in Social Research Participatory Action Research - Larry A Pace and Dominick R Argona A View from Xerox Participatory Action Research - Anthony J Constanza A View from ACTWU Participatory Action Research - Jose Luis Gonzalez Santos A View from FAGOR Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared - Chris Argyris and Donald Schon A Commentary Comparing PAR and Action Science - William Foote Whyte Research, Action and Participation - Richard E Walton and Michael Gaffney The Merchant Shipping Case Co-Generative Learning - Max Elden and Morton Levin Bringing Participation into Action Research Action Research as Method - Jan Irgen Karlsen Reflections from a Program for Developing Methods and Competence Participant Observer Research - Robert E Cole An Activist Role PAR IN AGRICULTURE Participatory Strategies in Agricultural Research and Development - William Foote Whyte A Joint Venture in Technology Transfer to Increase Adoption Rates - Ramiro Ortiz Participatory Action Research in Togo - Richard Maclure and Michael Bassey An Inquiry into Maize Storage Systems The Role of the Social Scientist in Participatory Action research - Sergio Ruano Social Scientists in International Agriculture Resarch - Douglas E Horton Ensuring Relevance and Conributing to the Knowledge Base Conclusions - William Foote Whyte
Using cultural anthropology to analyze debates that reverberate throughout the human sciences, George E. Marcus and Michael M. J. Fischer look closely at cultural anthropology's past accomplishments, its current predicaments, its future direction, and the insights it has to offer other fields of study. The result is a provocative work that is important for scholars interested in a critical approach to social science, art, literature, and history, as well as anthropology. This second edition considers new challenges to the field which have arisen since the book's original publication.
The original title of this paper was “Power, Desire, Interest.”1 Indeed, whatever power these meditations command may have been earned by a politically interested refusal to push to the limit the founding presuppositions of my desires, as far as they are within my grasp. This vulgar three-stroke formula, applied both to the most resolutely committed and to the most ironic discourse, keeps track of what Althusser so aptly named “philosophies of denegation.”2 I have invoked my positionality in this awkward way so as to accentuate the fact that calling the place of the investigator into question remains a meaningless piety in many recent critiques of the sovereign subject. Thus, although I will attempt to foreground the precariousness of my position throughout, I know such gestures can never suffice.