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.     

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.     

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?     

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.'.     

WAC Matters: A Different View to that of Shepherd and Haber

This paper is a response to Shepherd and Haber??s (Public Archaeol 10(2):96?C115, 2011) critiques to World Archaeological Congress, from the viewpoint of the current Secretary of WAC. While most of the issues discussed have been already answered and corrected by Smith (Public Archaeol 10(4):223?C234, 2011), this paper adds my own views on two of these controversial issues: the meeting between WAC and Rio Tinto Limited in 2007 to explore options to work together on enhancing cultural heritage management and protection in mining activities (where I attended as the WAC Treasurer), and the Archaeologists Without Borders Program (as member of the committee for this program).     

‘WAC-y’ Reflections: Perspectives from the 2007 Stanford General Code of Ethics Meeting

Long-time WAC member Jill Reid sat in on days two and three of the meetings at Stanford. For her, the greatest value of the meeting came in the exposure to many different perspectives and the opportunity to reflect on the way archaeology is done in her own work situation. Jill cautions the committee not to replace familiar or widely used terms with others that may create confusion or require explanation. Based on her experiences in Australia, she discusses a situation where deference to cultural heritage laws creates ethical dilemmas and promotes injustice and hopes that whatever process is outlined will be able to take such complexities into account.     

What Happened at the First Meeting of the World Archaeological Congress Committee of Ethics?

Herrera reflects on the committee’s deliberations in how to approach developing a framework for ethics in tune with the aims and ethos of WAC. He points out the importance of a foundation of meaningful principles, embedded in the thread of the actions of individuals acting in specific cultural and historical social contexts and based on core values that at the same time acknowledge the contradictions inherent in diverse standpoints. The committee faces major questions of how to define social justice and appropriate ethical behaviour for people and institutions embedded in different social and historical contexts across the globe.     

Eavesdropping on a Global Conversation

How do we negotiate our own positions as locally situated archaeologists in relation to a global discipline? On the one hand, we belong to a worldwide community of scholars, practitioners and activists whose conversations and debates crisscross national boundaries, continents, hemispheres and social classes. On the other hand, we are positioned in specific, local contexts through out national and institutional affiliations, which themselves are variously situated in relation to the fault-lines and cleavages that divide out world: North and South, West and non-West, developed and under-developed economies, and members of dominant and subaltern national groupings. These different forms of insertion often play a key determining role when it comes to the kind of archaeology that we practice, and our access to resources and networks. One of the strengths of WAC as an organization is that it pays close attention to the different ways in which we are situated as archaeologists, and thinks creatively around how to address this. One demonstration of this in practice is the WAC list-serve, where as a subscriber one eavesdrops on a global conversation, around a fascinating range of issues. Archaeologies has a new look and a new publisher! My co-editor, Anne Pyburn, and I are delighted to announce that Archaeologies has moved to Springer Press. The move has many potential benefits for WAC members, and takes the journal into the mainstream of scholarly publishing.     

Putting the Records Straight: ‘What is up with WAC?’

This paper is a reaction to the paper of Nick Shepherd and Alejandro Haber titled ??What is up with WAC? Archaeology and ??Engagement?? in a Globalised World??, published in Public Archaeology volume 10, number 2 of May 2011. Having been associated with WAC since its inception in 1986 and having been a player in all the programmes criticized by Nick Shepherd and Alejandro Haber, I am reluctantly obliged to provide some information to put the records straight. WAC being a true worldwide organization (not just international) has membership from different social, cultural, linguistic, political, economic, religious and ideological backgrounds. This calls for mutual respect and conscious effort to understand people and their points of view and also to be very sensitive to our differences. Summing up issues in the context of simplistic ??globalised world?? is big error of judgment.     

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.     

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.     

Care as mundane politics: contested familial refugee lives in Finland

Refugees often find themselves in challenging positions regarding their familial relations while seeking asylum. Whereas transnational human rights agreements and institutions identify families as units of protection and sources of care with variable compositions, many immigration policies and humanitarian practices regard familial relations also problematic and interpret refugees’ rights to family life narrowly. This leaves refugees’ attempts to draw from and manage their transnational family lives poorly recognized and supported. In result, refugees may end up in paradoxical subject positions of having to give up and take responsibility for their families, with their own experiences and understanding of familial life remaining secondary. These contradictions are heightened when familial concerns are among the reasons for seeking asylum, involving caring and uncaring relations. In this article, we analyze familiality as a form of mundane care politics in refugee situations, based on our study with asylum seekers and refugees in Finland.     

Still methodologically becoming: collaboration,feminist politics and ‘Team Ismaili’

This article mobilizes a feminist analytic to examine team research and collaborative knowledge production. We center our encounter with team research – a collectivity we named ‘Team Ismaili’ – and our study with first- and second-generation East African Shia Ismaili Muslim immigrants in Greater Vancouver, Canada. We draw upon feminist politics to highlight the ways in which ‘Team Ismaili’ at once destabilized and unwittingly reproduced normative academic power relations and lines of authority. A ‘backstage tour’, of ‘Team Ismaili’ shows the messiness and momentum of team research and sheds light on how collaborative knowledge production can challenge and reconfirm assumed hierarchies. Even as we are still methodologically becoming, through this discussion we strive to interrupt the prevailing silence on team research in human geography, to prompt more dialogue on collaboration and to foreground the insight garnered through feminist politics.     

Thinking Through Networks and Their Spatiality: A Critique of the US (Public) War on Terrorism and its Geographic Discourse

Conventional thinking about war is encumbered by an inappropriate geographic paradigm that conceptualizes "targets" in terms of fixed latitudinal/longitudinal locations. This paper reconceptualizes terms such as "war" and "targets" to recognize intangible problems and develop appropriate counter‐terrorist strategies. This requires geographic inquiry focused on spatiality, not on location. We frame our discussion about terrorist networks (Al‐Qaeda in particular) in terms of understanding a network's sense of place and sense of space . The former "places" a network's meeting and recruiting grounds; the latter clarifies the operational dynamics of a network across space, at different scales, from the body to the neighborhood, to the region, and across nations. We argue that the roots of terrorism lie in conditions of disenfranchisement in particular types of places, understanding, however, that the socio‐cultural fabric of a terrorist network such as Al‐Qaeda evolves across space as well as time. Counter‐terrorist strategies should target neither people nor places but rather the conditions that give rise to terrorism; further, "intelligence" should focus on network dynamics, beyond particular people in particular places. We draw from network theories (specifically actor network theory and network approaches in economic sociology) to unravel network dynamics, and we draw from the literature on spatiality to interpret such dynamics in space, over time. We advocate a non‐military engagement with terrorism on both moral and strategic grounds; here we focus on the strategic dimension, the value of which has received scant attention.     

IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING VEIN QUARTZ ARTEFACTS: AN EXPERIMENT CONDUCTED AT THE WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS, 2008

Worldwide, vein quartz was used as a raw material for stone tools, and in many regions quartz was the dominant raw material, if not the only raw material. While using quartz was not necessarily problematic for the communities in question, and was often preferred over other materials, the ‘problem’ with quartz is for archaeologists attempting to analyse the material, especially with coarse‐grained quartz. This paper presents the results of a quartz recognition experiment conducted on volunteer participants at the 2008 World Archaeological Congress (WAC) conference held in Dublin, Ireland. The results have shown that the identification and classification of vein quartz artefacts is particularly challenging, even for analysts with substantial experience in quartz artefact analysis.     

试析近代法国重大的错误决策

近代法国历史上曾经出现许多重大的治国决策的失误,归纳起来,这些决策失误至少存在忽略社会发展主要任务、混淆敌我矛盾和错误判断局势三种类型。近代法国掌权者们的重大错误决策不是偶然现象,它具有深刻的原因。近代法国历史上重大的错误决策向人们提供了明确的教训:只有抓住要害,把握转折关头,才能正确决策。     

Feminist geography,the ‘everyday’, and local–global relations: hidden spaces of place‐making*

An interest in the taken‐for‐granted, mundane routine activities of women's lives has long been central to the production of knowledge in feminist geography. Here, I revisit the ‘everyday’ in relation to changing lines of inquiry as geographers work to capture the complexity of local–global relations in conceptualising an accelerated pace of the stretching of social relations over space. Through a primary focus on feminist work on care in the home, I explore the various ways in which the meanings and organisation of caregiving activity are intricately connected with the intertwining of globalisation, neoliberalism, social conservatism and a ‘greying’ population in the West. Foregrounding gender in my discussion, I review literature and draw on research examples to illustrate ways in which various types of ‘hidden’ caregiving contribute to contemporary place‐making, and open up our understanding of the ‘local’.     

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.