Maroon Archaeology Is Public Archaeology

Researchers of the contemporary past have sought to be instrumental in public dialogue about how artifacts speak to heritage matters relevant to living communities and decision-making polities (Emberling and Hanson, Catastophe!: the looting and destruction of Iraq’s past, 2008; Gibbon, Who owns the past?: cultural policy, cultural property, and the law, 2005; Mullins, Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology, 2004; Renfrew, Loot, legitimacy and ownership: the ethical crisis in archaeology, 2000; Skeates, Debating the archaeological heritage, 2000). This approach has made archaeology a public endeavor that serves the needs of inquisitive researchers, as well as those groups of individuals whose lives may be directly affected by the excavation, analysis, and interpretation of archaeological remains. This paper will broadly assess how the archaeology of Maroons—tribal communities of runaway slave descendants—has affected the application of scholarly research in the former Dutch territory of Suriname, SA. The shift in relevance is due to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights 2007 judgment that allows Suriname Maroons to assert decision-making authority on matters of land management and development in ancestral and contemporary habitat. Vital to this endeavor is, Maroon involvement in archaeological research and more importantly, an overhaul in Surinamese antiquity laws.     

Public Archaeology as Renewer of the Historical Museum

Abstract

Working towards greater public interaction in the museum, and with archaeology reflecting on its contemporary context, traditional collection practices will inevitably be challenged. Archaeologies of the contemporary bring new kinds of artefacts to collections and raises ethical and political questions, since it must interact with the world of the living. Public archaeology, on the other hand, strives to involve people in the making of history, with an aim towards more inclusive, and even democratic, pasts and collections. Three recent research projects at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities have dealt with these issues. The case studies future memories, archaeologist for a day and public contract archaeology question artefact categorizations, policies for storage and display, as well as database organization, design, and availability. It clearly turned out that the way museums work with collections structure and limit the ways in which audiences can engage with them. To deal more intensively with the public relations of archaeology, and to get more engaged in the contemporary, has definite consequences for the collections and collection practices of archaeological museums. A public-need focus will inevitably give opportunities for archaeologists and institutions to renew their perspectives and practices.     

The Dynamics of Inclusion at the Dynamics of Inclusion in Public Archaeology Workshop Public Event

This paper describes, analyzes and critiques a public archaeology event created to demonstrate the methodologies of a dialogic archaeology. Collaboratively produced by the Wenner-Gren-sponsored Dynamics of Inclusion in Public Archaeology Workshop and the African Burial Ground National Monument, this event drew a capacity crowd representing diverse communities from the New York City region for a program dedicated to exploring public archaeology as it is, and has been, practiced in New York City. The on the ground actions involved in designing the event are explored here for insight into how communities form in, around, and with archaeology, while participant observation data gathered during the event is used to demonstrate the facilitating role archaeology and archaeologists play when a community uses the past for needs in the present. Feedback from several of the audiences attending the event, including the Workshop participants and other archaeological colleagues who were present, provide reflection on the aims and goals of public archaeology.     

A Consideration of Public Archaeology Theories

It is possible to identify four approaches to public archaeology: educational, public relations, pluralist, and critical. The most significant divide in the discourse of public archaeology over the last few decades has existed between the educational and public relations approaches on one side, and the pluralist and critical approaches on the other. Today, however, the dividing line in these four approaches is gradually shifting, as the pluralist and critical approaches, which have so far tended to be grouped together as a more theoretical and post-processual category, are progressively splitting apart. What is emerging, as a result, is a new divide between the educational, public relations, and pluralist approaches on the one side, and the critical approach on the other. This shift seems to be caused by economic neo-liberalism which demands that archaeology be more viable in economic terms. The more archaeology seeks economic viability, however, the more it alienates itself from critical reflection. The critical approach is, thus, faced with the danger of being regarded as a detriment to the sustainability of archaeology. What seems to be crucially needed today, then, is to reconfigure public archaeology, so that it can cope with the presently dominant economic paradigm, while at the same time continuing to keep critiquing it.     

Public Challenges and the Private Ways of State Archaeology: the Case of Greece

Abstract

Since its emergence Greek archaeology has been run exclusively by the state for political and economic reasons. The relevant legislation has always granted the Archaeological Service enough power to establish it as one of the most authoritative services in the public sector. I argue that the conditions under which archaeology is practised in Greece are increasingly changing. Agents operating at an international, national and local level are challenging the exclusive rights of the state in archaeological heritage management and demanding their views on protection are acknowledged. An overview of recently undertaken initiatives and research projects, as reported in the press and on websites, demonstrates an increasing demand for a more inclusive and public approach to the management of archaeological heritage. I also argue that Greek archaeologists are aware of the potential value of a public engagement with the discipline, but for different reasons — such as conservatism, bureaucracy and lack of means — do not act on it to the extent that they should. Finally, the paper confronts Greek state archaeology as an exclusive system of archaeological heritage management, and puts forward the importance of the local rather than the global public (i.e. tourism — where the emphasis of archaeological management in Greece currently lies).     

Evaluating Community Archaeology in the UK

Abstract

Does community archaeology work? In the UK over the last decade, there has been a boom in projects utilising the popular phrase 'community archaeology'. These projects can take many different forms and have ranged from the public face of research and developer-funded programmes to projects run by museums, archaeological units, universities, and archaeological societies. Community archaeology also encapsulates those projects run by communities themselves or in dialogue between 'professional' and 'amateur' groups and individuals. Many of these projects are driven by a desire for archaeology to meet a range of perceived educational and social values in bringing about knowledge and awareness of the past in the present. These are often claimed as successful outputs of community projects. This paper argues that appropriate criteria and methodologies for evaluating the efficacy of these projects have yet to be designed. What is community archaeology for? Who is it for? And is it effectively meeting its targets? Focusing on the authors' experiences of directing community archaeology projects, together with the ongoing research assessing the efficacy of community archaeology projects in the UK, this paper aims to set out two possible methodologies: one of self-reflexivity, and one of ethnoarchaeological analysis for evaluating what community archaeology actually does for communities themselves.     

Archaeology and Regional Identity in Saxony

Abstract

The paper discusses the interrelation between archaeological method and regional identity using the example of Saxony, a federal state of Germany. While the role of archaeology in the nationalist and ethnic discourse has been discussed relatively intensively, little is known about the hidden or open resistance present and the subnarratives used on a more local level. Saxony, with a multi-ethnic past (Germanic, Slavic and German settlement) and strong indications of a multi-ethnic identity, can be used to demonstrate the changing strength of the ‘Germanocentric’ view of German prehistory.

The paper follows the evolutions of the ‘Saxon character’ and its reflection in the archaeological narrative from the Romantic phase (c. 1817–70), through Nationalism, Fascism and archaeology in the GDR to modern times. This specific point of view does not only determine the evaluation of past events, but the questions asked and the methods used to interpret archaeological finds as well.

In conclusion, the ‘instrumentalization’ of archaeology as part of the public domain is seen as inescapable. But archaeologists retain responsibility for the use their data are put to. Any construction of identity by way of a common past is exclusive and potentially xenophobic. The author argues for a greater independencce from the past that leaves room for the recognition of distance and ‘strangeness‘.     

Industrial Archaeology: Its Place Within the Academic Discipline,the Public Realm and the Heritage Industry

Abstract

This paper presents a review of industrial archaeology literature and offers some initial thoughts on how this literature relates to my research on public perception and experience of Cornish mining landscapes. A brief summary of the development of industrial archaeology is given, which reflects on its amateur origins, its 'identity crisis' and its slow integration into university archaeology departments. The reasons for the transformation of industrial sites into industrial heritage is then examined and temporal models of change presented which relate to both an acceleration of the past into the commodity heritage as well as an affective progression from disdain to acceptance. The public's attitude to industrial archaeology is then discussed — which raises complex questions over the nature of such sites including, the importance of time and aesthetics as well as the phenomenological nature of perception and experience.     

国外公共考古学研究现状综述

公共考古学的概念自20世纪70年代提出以来,"公共"(Public)一词的含义一直都是公共考古学研究的核心问题。"公共"蕴含着国家和公众两个不同的维度,根据"公共"一词包含的不同价值取向,国外公共考古学的研究经历了政府参与、公众参与、公众导向等三个不同的阶段,这对中国公共考古学的定位于"面向公众的考古学"提供了理论支撑。     

The Cave Who Never Was: Outsider Archaeology and Failed Collaboration in the USA

Abstract

The alleged 1982 discovery of a phantasmagorical Late-Antique necropolis in southern Illinois has largely escaped the attention of professional archaeologists, despite thousands of artefacts having been sold to naive collectors and would-be revolutionary scholars for more than a quarter of a century. The site (named Burrows Cave after its notorious finder) is a staple of outsider archaeology, like 10,000-year-old pyramids and ancient astronauts. Burrows Cave flourishes in the extra-disciplinary realm of hyperdiffusionist archaeology, terra incognita outside the bounds of the traditional science and thus not considered worthy of examination by scholars. This essay explores the significance of US archaeologists’ failure to critically yet respectfully engage with a public who is extremely interested in archaeological discoveries but sceptical of scholarly elitism. Professionals’ disinterest has resulted in a dismissal of outsider archaeology en masse, leaving the worst abuses unchecked. This leaves the public with few clues to distinguish the impossible from the improbable, unorthodox, or iconoclastic. Audacious enterprises such as Burrows’ are left to flourish, driving wedges between archaeologists and the interested public, preventing effective collaboration and dialogue. Burrows Cave is a lesson for aspiring archaeologists: proof of what happens when professionals turn up their noses at opportunities for engagement with community interests.     

The Archaeology of Al-Andalus: Past,Present and Future

Abstract

THIS PAPER PRESENTS AN OVERVIEW of the archaeology of al-Andalus (the Arabic name for Islamic Spain and Portugal), from its beginnings in the late 1970s to the present day. Innovative approaches and challenging theoretical stances made the archaeology of al-Andalus the spearhead of medieval archaeology in Iberia between the 1980s and 1990s. A problematic, and often conflicting, relationship between archaeology and history has characterised medieval archaeology in Spain since its inception, however, and a new awareness of these problems is emerging. This paper reviews past and current attitudes to such challenges and reflects on the future needs of the discipline. It also reflects on the politics of archaeology and on the role of medieval archaeology in revealing social change, which has until now been underrated.     

Sense and Sensibility in Midwestern Archaeology and the Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology,Part II

Abstract

The progression of archaeology in the midcontinent over the past 40 years has moved on a series of different but overlapping fronts: regional, governmental, institutional, disciplinary, and personal. This collection of thoughts by both longtime and relatively young practitioners of our field suggests the many ways that archaeology has changed for the good—and maybe not so good—depending on our own experiences. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology (MCJA) has changed along with these developments. Part I of this discussion centered on the need for, and foundation of, MCJA. Part II is more diverse, with the archaeologists who have participated in the field for the last 40 years reflecting on the shifts in archaeology within their regions—both in terms of practice and institutional practices. The forces of national economics and academic politics and the changing sensibilities toward our public constituencies described here are themes that continue to influence us today.     

Community Archaeology in Proto-Historical Tel Bareqet,Israel: School Children and Agency for Active Public Engagement in Cultural Heritage Projects

Abstract

Community archaeology has become very popular over the past decade, and community archaeology projects are yielding interesting results in many regions around the globe (Merriman, 2004). These projects seem to be gaining academic importance as well, and are considered by some people to be vital to the survival of archaeology as a whole (Marshall, 2002: 218).

Still, community archaeology projects often stir debate regarding their importance, role, and existence. A major theme of these discussions is the role played by the community. In particular, the question is often raised of what role, if any, should be given to non-professional local populations in a project's scientific decision-making.

The current article aims to present the controversy between two types of archaeological practices, 'archaeology from above' and 'archaeology from below' (Faulkner, 2000) through the examination of a community archaeological project in which schoolchildren constitute the community participants. The site of the excavation is Tel Bareqet, a 5000-year-old (Early Bronze Age II, c. 3050–2700 BCE) urban settlement located in central Israel. On the one hand, the excavation strives to maintain the highest scientific standard; on the other hand, it depends upon the participation of unskilled young people in the excavation process.

This article presents obstacles that have been encountered in this excavation, and describes the methodological framework that has been developed in order to overcome these obstacles and continue carrying out a successful community archaeology project.     

Archaeology from below

Abstract

This paper identifies and discusses two contrasting approaches to field archaeology in contemporary Britain. The dominant approach is that of ‘official archaeology’ rooted in professional rescue (or contract) work and represented by bodies such as English Heritage, county archaeology units and the Institute of Field Archaeologists. This ‘archaeology from above’ threatens alternative approaches to fieldwork, since state legislation and other bureaucratic controls are being used to restrict access to archaeology to an elite of self-accredited practitioners, and a persuasive and sophisticated ideology of heritage ‘protection’ and professional ‘standards’ is being deployed to legitimize this policy. This attempt to universalize the practices of professional rescue archaeology is academically incoherent and politically undemocratic. An alternative ‘archaeology from below’ is proposed in which fieldwork is rooted in the community, open to volunteer contributions, organised in a non-exclusive, non-hierarchical way, and dedicated to a research agenda in which material, methods and interpretation are allowed to interact. These points are illustrated with detailed references to the experience of ‘democratic archaeology’ on the author's project at Sedgeford in northwest Norfolk in 1996–98.     

土司,考古与公众——基于海龙囤的公众考古实践与思考简

人人共享文明成果,是文化遗产保护的最终追求。如何达到这一目的,是公众考古学（publicarchaeology）讨论的范畴。这是国内目前方兴未艾的一个考古学分支,各方都在积极讨论与尝试。2012年度,依托土司城堡海龙囤的发掘,我们开展了一系列公众考古活动,取得了很好的社会效应。本文即以之为例,对公众考古的相关问题进行初步探讨。     

The Archaeological Heritage of Iraq in Historical Perspective

Abstract

In this paper I argue that members of the public are simultaneously attracted to and alienated by the uncannyin archaeology. I examine the role of popular culture representations of archaeology in these conflicting but connected processes, and strategies for overcoming them. By exploring Freud's notion of the unheimlich, or uncanny, in relation to archaeology and autopsies, I argue that it is mediated by popular culture, which alienates the public from the actual uncanny practices. By considering the relationship between archaeologists and the public as a discourse between actors and their audience, I examine ways in which this alienation can be overcome. My aim is to offer a better understanding of the complex ways in which people engage with archaeology.     

On the Case: Method in Public and Community Archaeology

This paper seeks to initiate a conversation about methodology in public and community archaeology through an examination of the use of case studies. Case studies enable the exploration of situations that are, by their nature, not easily reduced to statistical data. The challenge is that unless they are carefully structured, case studies may contribute little beyond anecdote to the field. Other disciplines that rely on case studies have addressed the methodological challenges aggressively. This paper explores these issues in four sections: First, the rationale for methodology in public archaeology is examined. Second, actual practice—through analysis of papers published in Public Archaeology and, to a limited degree, in the ‘grey literature’—is reviewed. Third, alternative case study methods, gleaned from diverse disciplines, are presented. Finally, the potential for method-based case study research is illustrated through an example of the use of one such method.     

Archaeology and urbanism: railway stations and zoological gardens in the 19th-century cityscape

Abstract

Though later-historical and contemporary archaeology have added an important material dimension to key historical processes such as industrialization and colonialism, the phenomenon of urbanization has hitherto not been addressed. This paper argues for ‘an archaeology of the city’. Building on Habermas' work on the public sphere, it contends that the cityscape, just like the domestic sphere, is a domain for carving out social identities. It also contends that material agency can best be understood as a form of meaningful emergence through bricolage. The arguments are explored through an extensive empirical case study on zoos and railway stations in 19thcentury Europe. Both institutions developed around the same time, through the same liberal industrialism and often in each other's vicinity. Drawing on research into zoo studies, transport history, cultural history and urbanism, it is argued that zoos and stations were instrumental in transforming the 19th-century cityscape into a bourgeois space that provided gateways to the outside world.     

Industrial Archaeology in Western Europe: A Bibliography

Abstract

This bibliography lists books and articles covering industrial archaeology throughout Western Europe, excluding the British Isles. While it cannot claim to be complete, it is offered in the hope that it will be of some help to those concerned with industrial archaeology outside the British Isles. Its arrangement is simple. After a brief general section, the bibliography is divided alphabetically by country and within each country societies are listed first followed by books and articles on the industrial archaeology of that country.     

The Experiment in Archaeology: A Comparison of Two Case Studies

Abstract

A critical comparison is made between two recent case studies in American archaeology, The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics by James Deetz and “Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study” by William A. Longacre. The notion of experiment is introduced as a standard of comparison which results in a lesson about archaeology as a science.