The Archaeology of Immateriality

Despite changes in archaeological theory and practice over the past 40 years, most archaeologists are still not very good at acknowledging that “significance” is context-dependent and non-material. In this paper I present two cases studies from New England where archaeologists collaborated with Native peoples on sites that had significant preservation concerns. I evaluate to what extent these projects were successful in their goal of decolonizing archaeology. I call for a definition of materiality that acknowledges that tangible objects and their intangible contexts and meanings are inextricable, and that values are continuously created and recreated in the present by a variety of memory communities.     

Trajectories of Development: International Heritage Management of Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa

Archaeology and material heritage are increasingly being used for development projects aimed at producing economic growth and reducing poverty. I am interested in how these projects construct particular ‘developmental’ visions of heritage, orienting and circumscribing relationships both with the past and contemporary social contexts. Here I address these processes as developmental technologies that produce poverty as a ‘local’ affair, in need of intervention, set in contrast to the traveling and translational abilities of international expertise in heritage management and development. I trace the expansion of this expertise across the Middle East and North Africa region, in a variety of contexts where material heritage is mobilized to reduce poverty. Importantly, the question of the economic value of heritage is necessarily placed center-stage in such projects. I argue that as archaeologists we need to engage with the economic value of material heritage, in order to start examining how exactly material heritage works in the world: to what ends and results, in what contexts, who gains to profit, and who suffers.     

Introduction to Webs of Memory,Frames of Power: Collective Remembering in the Archaeological Record

Over the past few decades, archaeologists have increasingly viewed collective memory as critical to the establishment and legitimation of power relations. For societies in the past and present, collective memory can be drawn on to clarify group identity, justify or subvert hierarchies, invent traditions, and define behaviors. The contributors to this special issue focus on the process of remembering, how it produced multiple archaeologically visible understandings of the past, and how these viewpoints impacted power-laden social negotiations. To better elucidate this process, this introduction situates the concept of collective remembering within recent materialist frameworks that emphasize the integration of human and nonhuman actors into webs of interaction. We suggest that by viewing collective memory from the standpoint of interactions, multiple viewpoints can be recognized. We argue in turn that accounting for the diverse actors invested in memory production provides archaeologists a means to delineate how the past becomes a site of contested values that social groups are constantly reworking to define membership, justify social hierarchy, and validate resistance.     

Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology

The practice of historical archaeology has exploded over the past two decades, and especially since 2000. Methodological advances and new theoretical insights mean that archaeological research requires periodic evaluation, and this overview builds on the work of three earlier assessors of the discipline. Here, I concentrate on four areas of research currently being pursued by historical archaeologists: analytical scale, capitalism, social inequality, and heritage and memory. I conclude that historical archaeologists have made major strides in understanding the modern world and that future research promises to offer diverse perspectives that will deepen our appreciation for how the past influences the present.     

Towards a Transpacific Archaeology of the Modern World

The historical archaeology of overseas Chinese communities is a rapidly growing subfield. Although historical archaeology is not widely practiced in China, there are well-developed interdiscipinary research centers that investigate the history and culture of migrants’ qiaoxiang (hometown) societies. Scholars in American Studies programs throughout Asia are also bringing new perspectives to the study of Chinese migration past and present. By collaborating with these scholars, archaeologists on the Chinese Railroad Workers in North America Project are developing new chronological, geographic, spatial, and material frameworks for the interpretation of overseas Chinese archaeological sites and landscapes.     

INSIGHTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF ANGEL MOUNDS POTTERY TROWELS

Archaeologists have recovered pottery trowels in excavations at numerous historic and pre-Columbian archaeological sites in North America since the late nineteenth century. Despite these facts, pottery trowels have not been the subject of thorough scientific analysis or interpretation. In this study, I define and implement a new method of analysis for pottery trowels, using a sample of 188 pottery trowels from the Mississippian site of Angel Mounds (12VG1). After describing the quantitative and qualitative attributes of pottery trowels, I define categories of frequently occurring pottery trowel bell and handle types. The extensive variability of pottery trowel shapes and sizes discovered at Angel Mounds is then discussed with regard to alternative or multiple uses for the tools and the spatial and temporal distributions of pottery trowel types. As an artifact type that provides opportunities to analyze technology, craft production and specialization, and daily practices in past societies, I argue pottery trowels may hold important future insights into a number of topics of interest to archaeologists.     

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.     

Working Borders: The Contexts of Copán Archaeology

The work of archaeologists and the knowledge they produce both help create, and are conditioned by, a variety of kinds of borders, including political, academic, and cultural. In this article I review a series of borders that shape and determine the social conditions in which archaeology at the well-known site of Copán in western Honduras takes place and takes on meaning. I argue that the histories of these borders, their construction, and their crossings reveal structural tensions in the overlapping registers of academia, public history and popular discourse, in which archaeological knowledge circulates. These histories must be consciously interrogated in order to be negotiated. I suggest that by becoming fluent in the cultural conversations ongoing in a place, archaeologists are best able to begin productive collaborations and make informed choices about how they participate in the border-making processes of their work.     

(Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology

Building virtual models of archaeological sites has been seen as a legitimate mode of representing the past, yet these models are too often the end product of a process in which archaeologists have relatively limited engagement. Instead of building static, isolated, uncanny, and authorless reconstructions, I argue for a more active role for archaeologists in virtual reconstruction and address issues of representational accuracy, personal expression in avatars and peopling the virtual past. Interactive virtual worlds such as Second Life provide tools and an environment that archaeologists can use to challenge static modes of representation and increases access to non-expert participants and audiences. The virtual model of Çatalhöyük in Second Life is discussed as an ongoing, multivocal experiment in building, re-building, and representing the past and present realities of the physical site.     

Digging and destruction: artifact collecting as meaningful social practice

Collected sites are commonly seen as places requiring expert intervention to ‘save the past’ from destruction by artifact collectors and looters. Despite engaging directly with the physical effects of collecting and vandalism, little attention is given to the meanings of these actions and the contributions they make to the stories told about sites or the past more broadly. Professional archaeologists often position their engagement with site destruction as heritage ‘salvage’ and regard collecting as lacking any value in contemporary society. Repositioning collecting as meaningful social practice and heritage action raises the question: in failing to understand legal or illegal collecting as significant to heritage, have archaeologists contributed to the erasure of acts that aim to work out identities, memories and senses of place, and contribute to an individual’s or group’s sense of ontological security? This question is explored through a case study from the New England region of North America where archaeologists have allied with Native American and other stakeholders to advocate for heritage protection by taking an anti-looting/collecting stance. We explore alternatives to this position that engage directly with forms of collecting as meaningful social practices that are largely erased in site narratives.     

Re/membering the town body: methodology and the work of local history

This paper seeks to rework connections between material productions of memory and formations of local identity, both theoretically and empirically. A growing literature about sites of memory suggests that social groups continually reconstruct the past for political-economic purposes. Often, this literature does not sufficiently theorize the production of social groups, particularly when these groups are taken to be a priori units of analysis. Identity is thereby presumed while showing that some version of history was invented. I suggest that presumed and contested histories embody the performance of group identifications just as social groups construct the past. Commemorative books from Stockbridge, a small rural New England community with national cultural prestige, are then used to outline a town narrative in «double-time» where history both structures and is structured by performances of identity. The projects of local historians, I argue, performatively reconstitute local identity through ongoing processes of union and differentiation. Yet in the production of literature memorializing a town body called Stockbridge, the projects have presumably drawn from localized resources. Narration in double time thus works methodologically both to erase and to evoke the small community, endeavouring to make it visible as a fundamental yet fictitious social formation.     

The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods

Marine shell ornaments have several characteristics that make them significant for archaeological analysis. Made from a raw material valued by cultures throughout the world and imbued with water, life, health, and fertility symbolism, shell objects have functioned as prestige goods. Shell prestige goods circulated between individuals, groups, and societies and materialized interpersonal relationships, making them valuable for archaeologists shifting focus from objects to the people in past societies. Shell ornaments had multiple roles, including ornamentation, wealth, marking status, and as ritual paraphernalia, and had varying symbolic associations even within a society. The rich ethnographic literature on shell use provides a source for archaeological model building. Marine shell artifacts often moved between societies and across long distances, offering a way for archaeologists to explore regional relationships and the interactions between ancient societies. To do this requires using several scales of analysis to investigate archaeological residues of a system that includes marine shell ornaments, the social organization of their production and exchange, and the people who made, displayed, and circulated them.     

Authorisation and the Process of Power: The View from African Archaeology

African prehistory has a unique contribution to make to our understandings of the ways that power and authority were constituted and enacted in the past; a combination of anthropological, historical and archaeological approaches to the issue provide a powerful heuristic for thinking through the ways that authority was legitimised. In this introductory paper we focus on the divide between power and authority, and argue that a process-based approach is necessary to understanding the ways that each was created in societies of the past. Such an approach, we argue, can offer a mediation between practice-based perspectives on social power, and those that focus on the operations of the state. We make a fundamental distinction between twin aspects of the exercise of power, imposition and composition, and demonstrate how the incorporation of the latter into our understandings of prehistory can allow archaeologists to consider the materials with which they work as residues of the performance of power. The African archaeological record has a key role to play in our understandings of the operation of power, the creation of legitimacy and the exercise of authority.     

5. WHAT DO MEDIEVAL BUILDINGS MEAN?

The aim of this article is to review and reconsider what scholars, including historians, archaeologists, and those in other disciplines, are trying to get at when they attempt a “social interpretation” of English late medieval domestic buildings. I focus on the definition and interpretation of “meaning,” and I examine critically a series of concepts routinely deployed in social interpretations in the past, including my own work, such as type, zeitgeist, and intention. I argue that some of these concepts and interpretive moves are problematic and rather than aiding in our understanding, raise further questions in their turn about how buildings were lived in and understood by their medieval inhabitants. I argue for a shift in language and jargon away from “planning” and “meaning” to that of “lived experience”. I explore such a possible shift with reference to different understandings of and debates over the late medieval castle of Bodiam in southeastern England. Such a shift from meaning to lived experience raises fresh challenges for the development and empirical evaluation of interdisciplinary research on medieval buildings, but it also raises fresh possibilities and insights.     

Major Fallacies Surrounding Stone Artifacts and Assemblages

While lithic objects can potentially inform us about past adaptations and behaviors, it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of all of the various processes that influence what we recover from the archaeological record. We argue here that many assumptions used by archaeologists to derive behavioral inferences through the definition, conceptualization, and interpretation of both individual stone artifact forms and groups of artifacts identified as assemblages do not fit squarely with what we have learned from both ethnographic sources and analyses of archaeological materials. We discuss this in terms of two fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the “desired end product” in stone artifact manufacture, which also includes our ability to recognize such end products. The second fallacy has to do with the notions that lithic assemblages represent simple accumulations of contemporary behaviors and the degree to which the composition of the depositional units we study reliably match the kinds of activities that took place. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer a comprehensive set of new methodologies and theoretical perspectives to solve these problems, our goal here is to stress the importance of rethinking some of our most basic assumptions regarding the nature of lithic objects and how they become part of the archaeological record. Such a revision is needed if we want to be able to develop research questions that can be addressed with the data we have available to us.     

Ceramics, Ethnohistory, and Ethnography: Locating Meaning in Southern African Iron Age Ceramic Assemblages

For ceramics to be relevant in the Southern African Iron Age, archaeologists must broaden their theoretical base to include social and other contexts when interpreting material culture items such as pottery. Pottery remains critical in understanding cultural dynamics in the region for the past two millennia, but current usage is narrow in scope. Using ethnohistorical data and archaeological examples from South Africa and Zimbabwe, we argue that pottery provides valuable information on the region's Iron Age, if archaeologists address the social meaning of ceramic assemblages. Ceramic production among rural communities provides the basis on which a wide range of social issues are discussed and used to critique pottery recovered from archaeology. Ethnography suggests that ceramic assemblages are context specific, and archaeologists are cautioned against making generic statements on the basis of similarities of vessel shape and decoration motif.     

Considering gender analogies in southeastern prehistoric archaeology

Prehistoric archaeologists have done very little yet to explore how gender “works” within the historical processes of social construction during the long prehistory of the Southeast. As we undertake examinations of gender ideologies, roles, and relationships, applications of analogs play an important role. This is despite a distinctly unsettled agreement on uses of analogy in archaeology. In this piece, I explore archaeologists’ continued unease with the use of analogy in archaeological interpretation, assigning part of the blame to underlying and unresolved epistemological issues. A disciplined and studied use of formal analogies is suggested.     

Experiencing Authenticity at Heritage Sites: Some Implications for Heritage Management and Conservation

Abstract

This article summarizes the results from recent research focusing on the experience and negotiation of authenticity in relation to the historic environment. I argue that approaches to authenticity are still hampered by a prevailing dichotomy between materialist approaches (which see authenticity as inherent in the object) and constructivist approaches (which see it as a cultural construct). This dichotomy means that we have a relatively poor understanding of how people experience authenticity in practice at heritage sites and why they find the issue of authenticity so compelling. Drawing on ethnographic research in Scotland and Nova Scotia, I show that the experience of authenticity is bound up with the network of tangible and intangible relationships that heritage objects invoke with past people and places. I argue that it is these inalienable relationships between objects, people, and places that underpin the ineffable power of authenticity, and this also explains why people use ideas about authenticity as a means to negotiate their own place in the world. A summary of the main thesis developed out of this research is provided with short case examples. The article then highlights the implications for practices of heritage management and conservation.     

The “War on Terror” and the Military–Archaeology Complex: Iraq, Ethics, and Neo-Colonialism

The archaeological response to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is often portrayed as a crusade to rescue antiquities, destroyed either directly by the military action itself or indirectly by the looting of archaeological sites and museums. I argue in this paper that this narrative is awfully inadequate, and masks the ethical and political dimensions at the core of this historical episode. I contend that, in their often well-intended attempts to rescue antiquities, most archaeologists involved have projected a professionalized, apolitical and abstract response, devoid of the social and political context, and based on the fetishisation of a narrowly and problematically defined archaeological record. I argue further that the increasing collaboration of many archaeologists with the invading militaries and occupation authorities since 2003, assisted by the “cultural turn” especially within the US military, have laid the foundations for an emerging military-archaeology complex. I trace the contours of this phenomenon by examining various archaeological and museum discourses and practices. This new development (with historical resonances that go as far back as the 18th century, if not earlier) is linked directly with the ontology and epistemology of archaeology, and deserves further close scrutiny and analysis. The thesis advanced here does not advocate inaction and withdrawal in situations of warfare, but a critical engagement that safeguards the autonomy of the scholar; critiques the political agendas and power structures of contemporary warfare; deconstructs its discursive basis and its ideological overtones; and shows its catastrophic consequences for people and things alike, past and present.