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.     

Transdisciplinary Archaeology and the Future of Archaeological Practice: Citizen Science,Portable Science,Ethical Science

This paper presents a vision and a pathway for the future of archaeological practice, in which several fields that are currently considered distinct, including community-based collaborative archaeology, indigenous archaeology, and applied archaeology, could become the norm. Inspired by personal encounters with some exceptionally open and collaborative archaeology projects, as well as by recent advances in archaeological science, which are starting to make it more portable, this paper sets out an agenda for a more open approach to archaeological practice. It advocates a method of producing knowledge about the past that does not privilege one investigator over another, but gives everyone who is interested and wants to participate an opportunity to do. Specific methodological challenges that are discussed include the need to ‘flip’ the public outreach element of research designs, to embed open participation from the outset by nurturing relationships of mutual respect and trust, and to take advantage of, and improve, the portability of archaeological science, so that it can be done in and by local communities. It is argued here that the opening of archaeological research, including the archaeological sciences, to a wider range of participants, is the most ethical approach to archaeological practice in a pan-disciplinary research environment.     

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.     

Introduction: The Materiality of Traces and Legacies

This Special Issue presents issues in contemporary archaeological theory and practice as influenced by the work of H. Martin Wobst. Wobst came to study in the U.S. nearly 50 years ago and has contributed to many changes in the theory and practice of archaeology since then. Though the papers cover a wide range of topics they share common interests in seeing materiality as constitutive of culture, archaeologists as participants in the present as well as observers of the past, and an interest in transcending traditional definitions of archaeological research.     

Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey

What does Indigenous archaeology offer archaeologists who do not work on Native land, at Indigenous sites, or with Indigenous people? This article demonstrates the broad applicability of Indigenous archaeology and the way it can be utilized by archaeologists working in any locale. Through recent fieldwork in south central Turkey working with a non-indigenous community of local residents near the archaeological site of Çatalhöyük, I demonstrate ways that the theories and methodology of Indigenous archaeology are a useful and relevant part of practice for archaeologists working in areas that are neither on Native land nor involve sites related to indigenous heritage. It also points to the need for further investigation into collaborative methods for the development of a set of best practices within archaeological and heritage management settings.     

The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Toolkit to Ubiquitous Spatial Perspective

In the 1970s and 1980s, regional analysis was an influential part of archaeological research, providing a discrete set of geographical tools inspired by a processual epistemological and interpretive perspective. With the advent of new technologies, new methods, and new paradigms, archaeological research on regional space has undergone significant changes. This article reviews the state of regional archaeology, beginning with a consideration of its history and a discussion of the fundamental issues facing regional investigations before focusing on developments over the last several years. On one hand, the diversification of archaeological theory has created new paradigms for thinking about human relationships with one another and with the physical environment across regional space; in this regard, historical ecology, landscape archaeology, and evolutionary theory have been particularly influential in recent years. This has led to a corresponding diversification of the traditional methods of regional analysis. Most notably, the advent of powerful digital technologies has introduced new tools, especially those from the geographic information sciences, that build on the quantitative methods of past approaches. The investigation of regional data is no longer based on a discrete toolkit of simple mathematical and graphical procedures for representing spatial relationships. Instead, regional archaeology has matured into a diversity of multiscalar spatial and geostatistical techniques that inform many areas of archaeological inquiry.     

Migration as an explanatory concept in paleolithic archaeology

Migration is frequently invoked as an explanation for pattern in paleolithic archaeology but the credibility of doing so depends almost exclusively upon acceptance of an analogy between historical process and the processes that have combined to create an ancient archaeological record. It is argued here that paleolithic archaeology cannot be treated as an extension of history and that historical processes are therefore inappropriate analogies for the site formation processes manifest in Upper Pleistocene archaeological contexts. The credibility accorded migration as an explanatory concept varies from one national or regional research tradition to the next. Why this should be so is examined in a discussion of the paradigm concept and how it affects construals of the nature and meaning of pattern.     

The Freedom of the Seas: Untapping the Archaeological Potential of Marine Debris

The issue of marine debris is of a growing concern to present day society. Nonetheless, the occurrence of garbage on the sea floor is widely ignored by the marine archaeological body. The main purpose of this article is to discuss archaeological aspects of marine debris of the contemporary past. In particular, the article explores the phenomenon of marine dumping, the active use of raised debris for the sake of education and opinion forming and the human footprint of holiday boating. Drawing from this, it is argued that a maritime garbology—a maritime archaeology that intersects both with the archaeology of the contemporary past and the multidisciplinary field of consumption- and garbage studies—is not only possible but also a promising and relevant field of research.     

现代中国环境考古研究模式的分析

本文将1987年以来的中国环境考古研究称为"现代中国环境考古研究",并将之归纳为"考古地理的环境考古研究模式"、"文化历史环境考古研究模式"和"资源环境考古研究模式"。本文对这三种研究模式的合理性进行了分析。接下来,从考古学的基本理论假设出发,指出环境考古学、文化历史考古学之间并没有严格的继承关系,中国环境考古研究的最大问题是核心概念的不匹配。最后,通过考察西方环境考古研究和考古学史,本文提出应该用文化适应,即"考古学中的文化"取代考古学文化而将之作为核心概念进行环境考古研究,让中国环境考古摆脱文化历史考古学概念体系的束缚。     

考古对象对考古学研究的影响——考古学反思之一

考古学与人类学、社会学、历史学等社会科学或人文科学一样,其总的研究对象都是人类社会。所不同的是,考古学研究的起点是古人活动遗留下来的遗迹和遗物(总称...     

Combining Indigenous and Maritime Archaeological Approaches: Experiences and Insights from the ‘(Re)locating Narrunga Project’, Yorke Peninsula, South Australia

This paper details the unique pairing of Indigenous and maritime archaeological approaches in the ‘(Re)locating Narrunga Project’. Narrunga was a ketch built by the Narungga Aboriginal community at Point Pearce Mission (Yorke Peninsula, South Australia) at the turn of the twentieth century and later sunk in the 1940s. It is argued that convergences between the scholarly interests of Indigenous and maritime archaeological approaches have been slow to develop and that maritime archaeology as a sub-discipline has not capitalized on the insights that can be gained from collaborative approaches between communities and practitioners. Similarly, Indigenous communities in Australia have had few opportunities to work with researchers to record their maritime heritage. As is evident in the Narrunga story told in this research, non-Indigenous records have been complicit in underplaying the maritime achievements and skills of Narungga people and collaborative research can work towards decolonizing this past.     

The Two Cultures and a World Apart: Archaeology and Science at a New Crossroads

Within the past decade or so, archaeology has increasingly utilised and contributed to major advances in scientific methods when exploring the past. This progress is frequently celebrated as a quantum leap in the possibilities for understanding the archaeological record, opening up hitherto inaccessible dimensions of the past. This article represents a critique of the current consumption of science in archaeology, arguing that the discipline’s grounding in the humanities is at stake, and that the notion of ‘interdisciplinarity’ is becoming distorted with the increasing fetishisation of ‘data’, ‘facts’ and quantitative methods. It is argued that if archaeology is to break free of its self-induced inferiority to and dependence on science, it must revitalise its methodology for asking questions pertinent to the humanities.     

从“归纳”到“解释”:汉唐考古研究的趋势

政治史取向和类型学方法在保证汉唐考古取得很大成绩的同时,也制约了汉唐考古的研究范围、理论建设,并影响到汉唐考古研究者的知识结构和思维方式。新出土资料的减少迫使汉唐考古改变"能源型"发展模式,其他人文学科的发展则为汉唐考古向"技术型"转变带来机遇。汉唐考古研究者的主要工作从归纳总结考古资料,转变为以历史文献为基础,借鉴其他人文学科的方法论,对汉唐考古材料的内涵和意义进行解释,是汉唐考古研究的发展趋势。     

土墩墓考古:新收获,新思考——在江苏句容、金坛土墩墓群抢救性发掘考古成果汇报会上的讲话

2005年江苏句容、金坛土墩墓群抢救性发掘考古成果在一墩一墓、一墩多墓、向心结构等土墩墓重大学术问题上取得了突破性进展,并为田野考古科学操作提供了典范。从方法论和考古学理论角度思考,土墩墓的发掘和研究还需进一步深化。     

考古发掘与考古发现

考古发现和考古学理论方法是考古学赖以进步的两条腿。考古发现不断刷新考古学家的视野并为考古学研究的深入提供新的资料,考古学理论方法使考古学的眼睛更加明亮,分析和思考更具有科学的力量。理论方法让考古学家对考古发现有更深入的认识,考古发现同时也推动综合研究和理论方法的进步。此外,考古发现往往会引起社会的关注,考古发现和考古学知识的普及可以为考古学的进步提供良好的社会环境,从而对考古学的发展产生强大的推动力量。考古学的持续发展要求考古学家必须正确处理考古发现、考古学自身理论方法的完善以及考古学与化遗产保护、公众知识状况和社会需求的关系。     

The Navajo Nation, Din�� Archaeologists, Din�� Archaeology, and Din�� Communities

There are several major considerations for the Navajo Nation that foreground questions of inclusion in public archaeology. The traditional Diné view of archaeological remains requires an evaluation of the public archaeologist’s notion of inclusion of Diné communities in archaeological research. Archaeological work on the Navajo Nation is also often a source of frustration for Diné communities because a shortage of human and monetary resources slows the pace of legislated archaeological compliance, in turn, slowing down vital housing and road infrastructural development. Finally, for Diné archaeologists, the structure of project development is not necessarily conducive to the creation of an intellectual foundation for Diné archaeology or community engagement in archaeological research.     

Paradigms in science and archaeology

The paradigm concept as developed in western philosophy of science contexts is reviewed, and the metaphysical paradigms that govern research protocols in mainstream Old and New World prehistoric archaeology are described and compared. It is concluded that post-1970 New World archaeological research receives its intellectual mandate from anthropology, is founded on postpositivist biases, and is governed by a critical-realist ontology, a modified-objectivist epistemology, and an experimental-manipulative methodology. Post-1970 Old World archaeological research is viewed as a kind of history, remains mostly in the strict empiricist tradition, and is governed by a realist ontology, an inductivist epistemology, and by an observational methodology. The claims of various kinds of postprocessual archaeology are also evaluated in terms of the paradigm concept.     

Identifying activity areas in archaeological soils from a colonial Virginia house lot using phytolith analysis and soil chemistry

Environmental archaeology methods can uncover both house lot organization and economic adaptation practices when applied systematically in conjunction with traditional archaeological research. This is the first study to employ both phytolith analysis and soil chemistry to interpret activity areas on an archaeological site. The patterning in the phytolith and soil chemistry analyses from the site of Rich Neck Plantation, Williamsburg, Virginia, reveals a set of six activity areas in and around the 17th century house lot, demonstrating a degree of economic diversification generally attributed only to 18th century colonial economic and social transformations.