The Process is the Outcome

Ethics are the key to what WAC is all about. It is our stated responsibility as WAC members to help shed the dark disciplinary past and forge a future archaeology of solidarity with the aim of fostering equality (but not sameness) among people everywhere. The present Forum section of Archaeologies showcases the scope and depth of the discussions surrounding this core aspect of WAC, which took place at the first meeting of the Committee on Ethics (henceforth CoE) at Stanford Archaeology Center (California, USA) from April 19th to 21st 2007. It is an invitation to WAC members and others to partake in the process of drafting a “General Code of Ethics” for WAC, a process that ultimately is much more about inclusive discussions and decisions on a framework for ethical practice than about writing a text or proscribing how to behave. The second affiliation for Julie Hollowell will be in effect from 15 December 2007.     

WAC at a Crossroads

The Sixth World Archaeological Congress in Dublin is likely to be a crossroads for the organisation, as it negotiates a number of key issues. One set of issues is concerned with the manner in which we negotiate the sharply politically divided nature of the contemporary moment. It is one of the extraordinary ironies of the current moment that the world of Dublin 2008 is, in many ways, more sharply divided, less securely predictable, and less amenable to immediate analysis than the world of Southampton 1986. So how does WAC find a way through these contending forces, pressures and identities? One answer comes from reminding ourselves that WAC has always been an oppositional organisation of a particular kind, cutting against the grain of received modes of thought and practice. Another answer comes from reminding ourselves of WAC’s core intellectual project. The WAC of 2008 exists as a loose conjunction of at least three different projects. The first is concerned with asserting the rights of Indigenous persons and groups in relation to archaeological processes. The second is about asserting the interests of archaeologists from the global South. The third is about contesting a particular politics of knowledge, and framing an epistemological challenge to received modes of thought and practice. These projects share a number of points in common, although they also pull in different directions. WAC was founded on a discussion of “sameness”, the extent to which we formed part of a “one world” archaeology. Perhaps it is time to find a way—seriously, respectfully—to talk about the points on which we differ?     

Heritage Formulation in Overtly Politicized Environments: A Commentary

Archaeology undertaken in overtly politicized environments creates situations and data that archaeologists are not positioned to control either in the moment or in perpetuity. This commentary examines the five diverse, revealing case studies that appear Archaeologies 2.2 and 3.1 and identifies the underlying dynamics that can create both an ethical burden for archaeologists and potentially charged, even dangerous, situations for others. These include archaeological heritage management demands and failures; contrary heritage valuation; restriction of associations with potential heritage resources; balancing archaeological research goals against local economic, political and social aspirations; and the complex trans-border reality of archaeologically identified societies that complicates heritage deployment in modern contexts. Whether or not activist engagement or outcomes are part of our practice or intention, there is no such thing as a value-free archaeological outcome.     

Archaeology and the Late Modern State: Introduction to the Special Issue

While archaeologists have always shown great interest in the rise and fall of premodern states, they perennially show little interest in their own. This is particularly troubling because the state is the nexus of power in archaeology. In practice, virtually all archaeology is state archaeology, imbued with and emboldened by state power. It is in this light that contributors to this Special Issue of Archaeologies grapple with the archaeology–state nexus, addressing such timely issues as colonialism, capitalism, and cultural resource or heritage management (CRM/CHM). We outline here the archaeology–state nexus concept and introduce the Special Issue.     

Heritage Ethics for a Present Imperfect

Lynn identifies three critical discussion that framed the Stanford workshop. First, the language of the code, which she feels should reflect our acknowledgement that archaeologists are not the primary stakeholders for most situations and using core values instead of codification as a starting point. Second, the recognition of particular histories and the consequences of colonial encounters, with the acknowledgment that colonialist relations continue to exist in many places. Third is the issue of how WAC positions itself in relation to issues of social justice. Lynn points out that while WAC could be an active vehicle for attaining social justice on a global scale, the ethical implications of taking any kind of interventionist stance need to be fully thought through, lest they be seen as telling people what to do—a stance that would only serve to mirror imperialist and colonialist practices. We need to ask people what they want in regard to their heritage and be prepared to listen, even if archaeology is not immediately important for them or they suggest directions that we find challenging.     

The Cunning Means of Domination

This discussion started on the WAC listserv when I objected on 8 April 2007 to a short message sent by Claire Smith on the previous day. She had been announcing that her colleague “Heather Burke and [are] putting together a list of important non-Anglo archaeologists” and was asking whether “anyone has any recommendations” for that list and, if so, whether they would email her off list. I objected strongly. This paper explains why. In doing so I am describing the degree of complexity language use has acquired in the contemporary world with old linguistic maps quickly become obsolete. To insist that English is simply the lingua franca of academic discourse is to ignore that complexity. The wide use of English as an academic lingua franca means in practice that there are very strong asymmetries not only in individual archaeologists’ abilities to express themselves competently and confidently in that language but also in what is considered appropriate or possible to express. For a language is not simply a random code with which anything might be said to anybody. Language, and the conventions that govern how a given language is to be applied, influences to a large extent even what is a sensible thing to say in a given context. Language use in archaeology is not about translating the same archaeology into different languages but about translating between different archaeologies and associated cultural practices including languages. The only sensible way forward is for WAC to promote among its members the learning of more languages—which is something the vast majority of “non-Anglo” archaeologists already knows and accepts as a fact of life. We do not need lists of “non-Anglo” archaeologists that are considered worth reading about in English, but more archaeologists being able to appreciate the work of colleagues in its original language. In conclusion I urge exclusively Anglophone archaeologists to please stop finding excuses for learning foreign languages.     

Some Angles on the Anglo Debate

Little can be done to replace English as the world’s common language for full WAC congresses. WAC intercongresses, however, offer an opportunity for linguistic (and intellectual) diversity. A regular plenary session at WAC full congresses in which the best works in archaeological theory are presented, with special efforts to include archaeologists whose works are not in English (in addition to those whose works are in English) might help insure diversity of perspectives in WAC.     

Book Review

Abstract

The year 2011 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC). WAC marked a bold intervention in the politics of knowledge in archaeology in the context of the mid-1980s. But how has it fared in contemporary worlds of practice? In this paper, two senior WAC members take a close and critical look at the changing fortunes, meanings, and contexts of the organization. At its centre, is an account of the controversial meeting between the WAC Executive and Rio Tinto Limited, the mining multinational, in Melbourne in 2007. Other parts of the paper engage with notions of the Indigenous, and discuss the assumptions informing the WAC programme Archaeologists Without Borders. Framed as a challenge, the paper invites response and commentary, as a way of opening debate which allows us to envisage alternative futures for the discipline, beyond the banal prospect of 'Archaeology Inc.'.     

The Future of WAC: A Fringe or a Popular Professional-Social Network?

In response to Shepherd and Haber??s (Public Archaeology 10(2):96?C115, 2011) article ??What is up With WAC??? I argue that, on the one hand, it is possible to adopt the authors?? new definition of Indigenous with certain modifications that enable it to accept a diverse constellation of responses to dwelling-in-displacement and explain the origin of these inequalities. On the other hand, I argue that WAC is not a reactionary organization of colonial heritage but that it makes great efforts to respond to 21st century postcolonial archaeology.     

The State We're in on the Eve of World Archaeological Congress (WAC) 6: Archaeology in Ireland vs Corporate Takeover and a Reply from University College Dublin

Abstract

There has been a change in how the state in Ireland uses archaeology since the 1990s, when it began collaboration with the private sector on large-scale development. Most archaeologists are now employed by private companies on temporary, short-term contracts. As in other countries, this has happened in tandem with increasing bureaucratic, corporate control of universities and pressure on academics to orient teaching to meet the needs of industry. This is an inevitable expression of expansion by multi-national corporations, often part of the ‘spreading democracy’ which, updating a famous phrase, can be characterised as a US-led ‘war by other means’. I present a case study of that process unfolding in one country, focusing on road development, the corruption upon which it is necessarily founded, and the role of archaeology. The M3 motorway which threatens the landscape of the Hill of Tara provides a good example. Crucial questions of professional ethics and standards, particularly professionals’ accountability to the community, have been sidelined. WAC 6 will be held in University College Dublin in June 2008; this congress will be pivotal because WAC will decide for or against archaeologists’ accountability to communities and their life-or-death struggle for survival, and for or against embedding the profession with cultural destruction in the private sector. A reply from University College Dublin follows this article.     

Educating for Sustainability in Archaeology

‘Sustainability’ is a concept that suffuses the present. Policy initiatives require ‘sustainability’ as one of the criteria by which projects are judged. In recognition of their role as interpreters and custodians of the past, archaeologists are one of the many groups contributing to the creation of ‘a sustainable historic environment’ and ‘sustainable communities’. Accordingly, sustainability is a concept that we perhaps need to incorporate into our activities as educators of future good citizens and into our training for the profession of archaeology. This paper seeks to address this issue, particularly in the light of Themes and Sessions relating to both sustainability and education at WAC8, but where the link between them remains unexamined.     

The entanglement of the heritage paradigm: values,meanings and uses

This paper explores the ways in which heritage as a practice and concept has been used and diverse meanings and values ascribed to heritage by different claimants, using the medieval site of Ani in eastern Turkey as a case study. On one hand, the site marks a point of conflict between Turks and Armenians, with the heritage and the past of the site playing an important role for identity making and construction of national narratives, as well as developing what might be seen as the authorised heritage discourses for both sides. On other hand, the local community around the site has developed a different relationship to the site Ani because of their daily relationship with its landscape and built environment. This has revealed meaning and values embodied in the site that are beyond the national and political level. This paper considers to what extent the built environment in particular, can play a role in identity making and add to the political tension. It also examines how the value and meaning of a heritage site can be distinct for local communities from national political meanings and uses, and, as a consequence, can be used to resist authorised heritage discourses.     

Archaeology,assistance, and aggression along the Euphrates: reflections from Raqqa

ABSTRACT

This paper traces the cultural missions and salvage archaeology programs along the Euphrates River around Raqqa from the 1950s onwards. We suggest that the varied investments from international expeditions, conservation programs, and technical assistance in Syria have an important, untold history that is relevant to recent developments and conflicts in northern Syria. We explore the intersecting practices of archaeology and assistance, illuminated by archives drawn from international agencies such as UNESCO, as well as companies, consultants, bureaucrats, and archaeologists. Our focus is upon foreign intervention around imperiled heritage, considering not only internal politics but also UNESCO’s 1960s shift from fully funded campaigns to global appeals reliant on foreign governments, corporations, and universities. The outsourcing of salvage allowed specific patrons – national and international – to privilege particular pasts; and it is these histories and legacies that further require us to reassess the place of Raqqa in the current civil war.     

Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa: Historical and Contemporary Considerations of Archaeological Education

This paper discusses the history and trending of archaeological education in South Africa, a set of frameworks wherein primary and secondary level students instrumentalize archaeology to investigate and debate their pasts. Archaeological education has existed thus far as a conversation among archaeologists and a footnote in the national curriculum. I present the first cohesive treatment of these projects. I examine attendant conflicts and obstacles, drawn partly from my involvement in two South African projects but illustrating issues that I believe have global resonance. I submit that archaeological education entails engagements that hold serious ramifications for archaeological ethics, practice, and epistemology.     

The fusion of law and ethics in cultural heritage management: The 21st century confronts archaeology

Abstract

Archaeologists around the world face complex ethical dilemmas that defy easy solutions. Ethics and law entwine, yet jurisprudence endures as the global praxis for guidance and result. Global legal norms articulate ‘legal rights’ and obligations while codes of professional conduct articulate ‘ethical rights’ and obligations. This article underscores how a rights discourse has shaped the 20th century discipline and practice of archaeology across the globe, including in the design and execution of projects like those discussed in the Journal of Field Archaeology. It illustrates how both law and ethics have been, and still are, viewed as two distinct solution-driven approaches that, even when out of sync, are the predominant frameworks that affect archaeologists in the field and more generally. While both law and ethics are influenced by social mores, public policy, and political objectives, each too often in cultural heritage debates has been considered a separate remedy. For archaeology, there remains the tendency to turn to law for a definite response when ethical solutions prove elusive.

As contemporary society becomes increasingly interconnected and the geo-political reality of the 21st century poses new threats to protecting archaeological sites and the integrity of the archaeological record during armed conflict and insurgency, law has fallen short or has lacked necessary enforcement mechanisms to address on-the-ground realities. A changing global order shaped by human rights, Indigenous heritage, legal pluralism, neo-colonialism, development, diplomacy, and emerging non-State actors directs the 21st century policies that shape laws and ethics. Archaeologists in the field today work within a nexus of domestic and international laws and regulations and must navigate increasingly complex ethical situations. Thus, a critical challenge is to realign approaches to current dilemmas facing archaeology in a way that unifies the ‘legal’ and the ‘ethical’ with a focus on human rights and principles of equity and justice. With examples from around the world, this article considers how law and ethics affect professional practice and demonstrates how engagement with law and awareness of ethics are pivotal to archaeologists in the field.     

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.     

‘The Good Collector’: Fabulous beast or endangered species?

Abstract

About a year ago, an argument broke out during a good dinner at Cape Town. We were all part of WAC4, the meeting of the World Archaeological Congress, and one night some of us gathered in a fish restaurant on the waterfront as guests of the publisher Edward Milford.

It was one of those dinners where you can move around and sample new company as you wait for the next course. So I did not hear this particular argument begin, and tuned in only when it was well underway. There were two main contestants, though others occasionally chipped in. One was Professor Susan Keech McIntosh, from Rice University in Texas: her main work as a field archaeologist has been in Mali, with its shocking history of cultural plundering by Westerners. Her opponent was Professor Aron Mazel from Cape Town, director of the South African Cultural History Museum.

Susan McIntosh was proposing that a creature known as the Good Collector should, could and did exist, and that archaeologists should take the species seriously. Aron Mazel remained steadily sceptical. Their debate, conducted amicably, none the less went to the heart of the problem which inflames everyone concerned with public archaeology: the trade in illicit or unprovenanced antiquities, and the scientific and ethical minefields which surround it. This, it seemed to me, was exactly the sort of controversy which Public Archaeology was designed to pick up and run with.

I asked Susan McIntosh to make her point in more detail, and invited others to comment on her thesis.     

Global finance and the German model: German corporations, market incentives, and the management of employer-sponsored pension institutions

Where there was a settled political geography of state power and responsibilities, the remarkable growth of global finance has put enormous pressure on national economic, political and social institutions. Furthermore, the looming crisis facing many continental European social security systems has raised many doubts about the long-term viability of the German model compared to its Anglo-American rivals. In this context, large German corporations have sought ways of sustaining their global competitiveness by, in part, restructuring their national and regional commitments. To illustrate, in this paper we concentrate on the nature and organization of German employer-sponsored pension institutions in relation to Anglo-American management practice. Two issues drive the analysis. One has to do with an emerging coalition between corporate management and shareholders with respect to the market value of the firm. The second issue has to do with the allocation of risk and uncertainty between the social partners when negotiating the financing and final value of promised retirement income. The institutional framework of collective decision-making common to many of Germany's largest firms is under pressure; three models of investment decision making relevant to pension assets and liabilities are used to illustrate this point. In doing so, we suggest that the German model is more fragile than commonly realized. We also suggest that Anglo-American management practices have penetrated and affected German corporate (national and regional) institutions and regulations. The social market lauded by advocates of stakeholder capitalism is changing rapidly, at least in the sphere of large firms and global finance.     

Storied landscapes makes us (Modern) Human: Landscape socialisation in the Palaeolithic and consequences for the archaeological record

The unusual nature of the Neanderthal archaeological record has attracted the attention of archaeologists for the past 150 years. On the one hand, the technical skill apparent in their lithic technology, the practice of symbolic cultural behaviours (such as burials), and their successful survival in harsh environmental conditions for more than 200,000 years demonstrate the adaptive success and underlying humanity of the Neanderthal populations. On the other hand, the apparent lack of abundant and repeated use of symbolic material culture has resulted in a number of researchers arguing that these populations were largely incapable of symbolism – a conclusion with significant implications for social organisation. This paper reviews ideas regarding the use of ‘place’ or ‘landscape’ by Neanderthals and argues that the identified differences between the archaeological records of Neanderthals and late Pleistocene Modern Humans is not so much the result of significant variance in cognitive capacities, but rather the use of contrasting approaches to interaction with the physical landscape. ‘Landscape socialisation’ is a Modern Human universal, but what if Neanderthals did not participate in this kind of landscape interaction? Would this difference in behaviour result in the apparently contradictory archaeological record which has been created? The ideas presented in this paper are drawn together as a hypothesis to be developed and tested.     

Heritage Tourism, Identity and Development in Peru

In this paper the linkages between archaeology, identity, and tourism in Peru are discussed in the context of economic and social development. The role of archaeologists in the heritage process (patrimonialización) is shown to transcend the production of narratives and destinations pivotal to the touristic experience. Engagements beyond the material remains of the pre-Colonial past have been hampered by the complex role of the indigenous in the national mythology, as much as by the perceived mandate of the discipline. Promise and pitfalls of ethical practices leading to locally grounded strategies are explored in two case studies.