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.     

The archaeological study of neighborhoods and districts in ancient cities

The spatial division of cities into residential zones is a universal feature of urban life from the earliest cities to the present. I propose a two-level classification of such zones that archaeologists can use to analyze preindustrial cities. Neighborhoods are small areas of intensive face-to-face social interaction, whereas districts are larger areas that serve as administrative units within cities. I review comparative historical data on neighborhoods and districts and outline archaeological methods for their identification and analysis. Illustrative cases are drawn from Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica, and I conclude with a review of the major top-down and bottom-up social forces that generate and shape neighborhoods and districts in preindustrial cities.     

The Public’s Archaeology: Utilizing Ethnographic Methods to Link Public Education with Accountability in Archaeological Practice

This paper discusses exploratory PhD research which utilized ethnographic methods in an attempt to understand the myriad connections to archaeology, history, and heritage in a small Indiana town. I rejected an initial hypothesis that archaeological resources are an integral part of collective cultural identities and, instead, discovered that talking with living people can facilitate more effective communication and collaboration between archaeologists and local communities by making research and educational efforts contextualized and community-based. Through discussions with local stakeholders, I believe all archaeologists have better opportunities to link the professional ethics of accountability, public education, and stewardship in their research.     

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.     

(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.     

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.     

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.     

On the Use of the Term ‘Non-Anglo Archaeologists’

Many universities in India teach in both English and Hindi to separate classes—the students have an option to choose their language of instruction. Thus the claim of non-Anglo archaeologists as being co-opted raises the double question of being co-opted by whom and for what purpose? If it is the case that there are co-opted third and fourth world archaeologists, then who is to blame and how may this situation be rectified. I feel every-one has the answer to this question and nothing more needs be said about it. My sympathies rest with the co-opted.     

Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Gamo of Ethiopia

The use of a pottery vessel leaves markers on the ceramic wall that can inform archaeologists how the vessel functioned in the past. At present, archaeologists have little information for understanding how use-alteration reflects the complex nature of ceramic function and socioeconomic status. I conducted a 2-year ethnoarchaeological research project among the Gamo people of southwestern Ethiopia, who continue to produce and use pottery on a daily basis. This research indicates that interior surface attrition occurs primarily on pottery vessels used in wealthy households because of fermentation processes from high-status foods. Thus, the Gamo example suggests that there is a relationship between ceramic use-alteration and household socioeconomic status.     

Unpacking Neoliberal Archaeological Control of Ancient Indigenous Heritage

Archaeologists often discuss the First People of the Western Hemisphere (the Americas) and their descendants, as Immigrants from Asia or Solutreans from France. In this paper, I discuss how archaeologists as handmaidens of the late modern state control the past in the present. This control keeps Indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere as recent migrants on a global history time scale. Arguing against recent initial migration time frames to the Western Hemisphere, I discuss the Indigenous Palaeolithic of the Americas; and what an acknowledgement of the ancient past may bring to contemporary Indigenous communities.     

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 “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.     

Iktomi in the Land of the Maymaygwayshi: Understanding Lived Experience in the Practice of Archaeology Among American Indians/First Nations

In discussions concerning American Indians/First Nations and the practice of archaeology in North America, the issues are typically presented in a polarized fashion with American Indians/First Nations on one side and archaeologists on the other. Frequently the literature discusses how archaeologists should modify their practice in response to the needs of American Indian communities. Very little of the literature looks at the roles and challenges faced by American Indians who choose to pursue archaeology. This paper addresses this latter issue by examining my own work among First Nations communities in Ontario, Canada. Through the lens of ‘lived experience’, I will examine the interplay of identity, personal and communal histories, and the contemporary situation of my self and the First Nations communities I worked with, looking at how having ‘insider’ knowledge can be both useful and a handicap in fieldwork.     

Confessions of an Archaeological Tour Guide

This article examines the contradictions, responsibilities and opportunities that inhere when the authenticity of the tourist experience results at least in part from having an archaeologist guide. It is argued that archaeologists are always participants in tourism, through the visions of the past they offer in even the most scholarly of papers, that make their way to tourists and tour guides through a wealth of secondary literature. It is argued that, even if most are not aware of it, archaeologists are engaged with the cultural heritage industry and it would be irresponsible to try to step aside. It is argued that archaeologists should take responsible action in light of the undeniable influence of archaeologists in defining the routes and meanings of site tours.     

Eating Archaeology: Experimenting with Food in Public Outreach

Public engagement is becoming increasingly common practice in archaeological projects, capitalizing on the interactions of field archaeologists with local communities as well as with the descendants of the people under study, in a variety of ways: from the use of social media to engaging the local public with onsite presentations and exhibitions. However, public engagement efforts are often less robust when archaeologists return to their home institutions, with most of the researchers’ time and energies spent fulfilling their academic duties. Interactions between archaeologists and their local communities — those closer to their home institutions — are often minimal, creating insular university departments. To secure a future as a vibrant, relevant field of research, archaeology must develop greater interest and skill in engaging with its neighbours both within and outside the academy. The study of past meals and foodways provides an exceptional avenue for public outreach, which in turn is further enhanced through fruitful collaboration among various university departments and museums. Here we present the results of the multidisciplinary outreach project ‘Eating Archaeology’, designed with the intention of building collaborations across disciplines and a new narrative with which to engage the public.     

Fractured Media: Challenging the Dimensions of Archaeology’s Typical Visual Modes of Engagement

As new media technologies increasingly populate our toolkits, questions arise about whether archaeologists are yet even competent users of orthodox media. Prior to engaging with emerging tools, this paper takes one step back to probe the subtexts of traditional two-dimensional archaeological images. Of interest is whether the many implications of these images can be made poignant via personally manipulating and imposing upon their form and function. Influenced by the work of various playwrights, artists, anthropologists, cultural theorists, and archaeologists, this paper examines what is legitimate in our practices of picturing the past, and what it means to explicitly—perhaps illicitly—interfere with typical archaeological visuals. Via tentative experiments with assorted maps, photos and illustrations, I endeavour to turn these orthodox modes of engagement into more defiant tools of discovery and critique. Ultimately, my objective is to disrupt convention and prompt archaeologists to confront and respond to themselves (and their responsibilities to others) in their everyday interactions with media.     

Building Bundles,Building Memories: Processes of Remembering in Adena-Hopewell Societies of Eastern North America

Over the past 20 years, archaeologists have grown increasingly interested in exploring the relationships between humans and things. In part, this focus on materiality has been fueled by the integration of modern philosophical perspectives and considerations of non-Western ontologies and the New Materialisms. In North America, much emphasis has been placed on exploring the relational aspects of American Indian ontologies in the past and present. In this article, I build upon these perspectives by integrating memory as an important infrastructure through which these relationships are cast and maintained. I refer to these memory-based practices as processes of remembering. I argue that identifying these discursive memory processes provides an opportunity to refine how we understand objects like bundles and the social process of bundling—one way archaeologists have framed complex human/thing relationships. I use an Adena-Hopewell burial mound from the Middle Woodland period in Eastern North America (ca. 200 BCE–CE 500) as a case study to illustrate how societies during this era were, at least in part, organized and sustained through the rituals involved in revising bundles of ancestors, objects, and memories of human action. I argue that bundling assemblages of the past managed social dissonance by stabilizing or transforming perceptions of kinship in social coalitions.     

WHAT I BELIEVE: DOING ARCHAEOLOGY AS A FEMINIST

I propose that a feminist approach will enrich archaeology in the Southeast and Midsouth. Feminist archaeology starts by taking the lives of women seriously in thinking about past human societies. This standpoint has implications for all topics of interest for Southeastern archaeologists: subsistence patterns, craft production, exchange, development of political systems, warfare, ritual, and so forth. Feminist archaeologists are also self-reflexive about and alert to conditions of work in the profession of archaeology. They pay attention to the importance of the intersection of gender, age, status, and other aspects of personal identity and to the need to accept ambiguity in interpretation. I review how a feminist archaeology might be applied to the archaeology of the South and what risks a feminist archaeology might raise.     

The Origins and Ethics of Maritime Archaeology – Part I

Abstract

For archaeologists, the principal value of prehistoric figurines is that they offer a means – however limited – into the cultures and lives of prehistoric peoples. There is a long tradition of archaeologists assuming that the figurines they unearth had a religious significance for the people who created them (since anthropomorphic figurines have a religious use in many cultures with which we are familiar). However, just as archaeologists began questioning their attribution of divine status to prehistoric figurines in the 1960s, practitioners of neopagan and goddess spiritualities – particularly those in the feminist spirituality movement – were adopting it. Moreover, in addition to describing prehistoric figurines as images of a Great Goddess who dominated prehistoric religious life, these contemporary feminist neopagans use reproductions of prehistoric figurines to inspire and enact their own spirituality. Feminist neopagan appropriation of prehistoric figurines has been problematic for many archaeologists, who quarrel – legitimately – with the conclusions feminist neopagans make about prehistory based on these artefacts. Yet, as this article argues, the contemporary religious use of prehistoric figurines should not be a matter for archaeologists to decide.