Archaeological Ethnography,Heritage Management,and Community Archaeology: A Pragmatic Approach from Crete

This article examines the introduction of archaeological ethnography as an approach to establish positioned research and bring context-specific and reflexive considerations into community archaeology projects. It considers recent critiques of heritage management in archaeology and the role of archaeologists as experts in it, contending that smaller and less prominent sites exist in different contexts and pose different problems than large-scale projects usually addressed in the literature. We describe how the ‘Three Peak Sanctuaries of Central Crete’ project, investigating prehistoric Minoan ritual sites, involves communities and stakeholders and what demands the latter pose on experts in the field. Archaeological work is always already implicated in local development projects which create and reproduce power hierarchies. It is therefore important that archaeologists maintain their critical distance from official heritage discourses, as they are materialized in development programmes, while at the same time engaging with local expectations and power struggles; they also have to critically address and position their own assumptions. We use examples from our community archaeology project to propose that these goals can be reached through archaeological ethnographic fieldwork that should precede any archaeological project to inform its methodological decisions, engage stakeholders, and collaboratively shape heritage management strategies.     

Consuming the Past: Public Perceptions towards the Discipline of Archaeology in Zimbabwe

This paper discusses the public perceptions of archaeology and the information that archaeologists produce in Zimbabwe. There have been accusations that archaeologists in various parts of the world research for themselves. The products of archaeological research are often presented in academic jargon only accessible to those in the profession. Archaeological research in developing countries has been criticized for having limited involvement, if any, with the local communities in which it is conducted, and fails to address development issues that are important and much more relevant to the concerned societies. The paper discusses the extent to which these accusations are justified in Zimbabwe, focusing on the perceptions that local communities have on archaeology, archaeologists, archaeological remains, archaeological research, and institutions dealing with archaeological cultural heritage in that country. It also discusses why it seems difficult to put into practice some of the suggestions that have been made in the past on how to engage with the public. The paper argues that, although there have been efforts to change the situation, southern African archaeology in general and specifically its practice in Zimbabwe remains largely a preserve of the initiated. It concludes by recommending that writing on archaeological issues be accessible and that research issues should have social relevance. Awareness of local communities in research, outreach activities to schools, and the benefits of archaeological resources for local communities, are crucial means by which the value of the discipline can be appreciated by the public.     

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.     

Archaeology and roman society: Integrating textual and archaeological data

Although the collection of new data and the development of an enduring interest in theoretical concerns characterize much current work in Roman archaeology, the field continues to experience, tension between traditional classical archaeological approaches and practices borrowed from other branches of archaeology. This tension is most clearly visible with the integration of textual and archaeological data. How the dynamic between these provenances plays out in Roman archaeology can be seen in theoretical and methodological applications, the use of field survey, and the adoption of an Annaliste perspective by some Roman archaeologists. Text and archaeology are crucial contributors to the the study of early Rome and its origins, investigations in the capital for all periods, the study of Pompeii, and attempts to illuminate the chief characteristics of the Roman economy. Many advances in Roman archaeology have occurred largely as a result of a conscious attempt on the part of Roman archaeologists to properly contextualize textual data in light of the archaeological data, thereby providing a better balance between the two sets of information and liberating archeeology from being the “handmaid of history.”     

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.     

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.     

Balancing the Elements: An Archaeological Story

In this piece of short fiction, readers will explore the experiences of four American archaeologists as they complete an archaeological excavation impacted by laws at the local (Massachusetts State) and national (federal USA) level. All four archaeologists are in various stages of their careers in archaeology and find themselves working together for the same privatized Cultural Resource Management (CRM) firm on an unexpectedly complex and sensitive site excavation. Here readers are urged to consider how archaeologists’ previous experiences (both personal and professional) impact site excavations, and how, in turn, each project leaves an impression on an archaeological professional moving forward. They are further invited to relate the experiences of the archaeologists in the story to their own—possibly very different—experiences. While site context is key at every excavation, is the human context equally relevant?     

Archaeology’s quest for a seat at the high table of anthropology

Between 1900 and 1970, American archaeologists perceived themselves as second-class anthropologists because the archaeological record suggested little not already known ethnographically, archaeology served anthropology by testing ethnologically derived models of cultural evolution, the archaeological record was ethnologically incomplete as a result of poor preservation, and archaeologists used but did not write anthropological theory. Ethnologists of the period agreed with these points and regularly reminded archaeologists of their limited role in anthropology. A few archaeologists claimed in the 1950s that archaeology could contribute to anthropological theory but they were ignored. The claim was reiterated by new archaeologists of the 1960s, and by the 1970s worries about the poor preservation of the archaeological record had softened. However, most archaeologists after 1970 (and before 1990) used anthropological theory and did not write new theory on the basis of archaeological data. The root cause of American archaeology’s ninety-year absence from anthropology’s high table of theory seems to be the discipline-wide retention of the ninety-year old belief that archaeology is prehistoric ethnology and the (unnecessary and constraining) corollary that archaeologists must use anthropological theory to explain the archaeological record.     

Who's “That Girl”: British, South African, and American Women as Africanist Archaeologists in Colonial Africa (1860s–1960s)

This paper reviews the accomplishments of British, South African, and American women Africanist archaeologists who worked between the 1860s and the 1960s. Despite their many significant contributions to African archaeological method and theory, especially those exposing the importance of indigenous populations to their own cultural development, the work of these women tends to be either appropriated or ignored by their contemporaries and by present day archaeologists. A postcolonial feminist analysis draws on the colonial context in which African archaeology developed and the continued Western domination of the discipline to provide a background for understanding how and why these women are omitted from historiographies of African archaeology.Cette étude revise les accomplissements des femmes archéologues Africanistes anglaises, sudafricaines et Americaines, qui travaillaient entre les années 1860 et les années 1960. Malgré leurs plusieurs contributions d'importance à la méthode et la théorie de l'archéologie Africaine, en particulier celles qui exposaient l'importance à leur propre développement culturel des populations indigènes, leurs travaux tendent à être ou appropriés ou ignorés par leurs contemporains ou par les archaéologues d'aujourd'hui. Une analyse féministe post-coloniale utilise le contexte colonial dans lequel l'archéologie Africaine s'est développée, et la domination occidentale soutenue de cette discipline, à fournir une base pour comprendre comment et pourquoi ces femmes ont éeté omises des historiographies de l'archéologie Africaine.     

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.     

Geographic Visualization in Archaeology

Archaeologists are often considered frontrunners in employing spatial approaches within the social sciences and humanities, including geospatial technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS) that are now routinely used in archaeology. Since the late 1980s, GIS has mainly been used to support data collection and management as well as spatial analysis and modeling. While fruitful, these efforts have arguably neglected the potential contribution of advanced visualization methods to the generation of broader archaeological knowledge. This paper reviews the use of GIS in archaeology from a geographic visualization (geovisual) perspective and examines how these methods can broaden the scope of archaeological research in an era of more user-friendly cyber-infrastructures. Like most computational databases, GIS do not easily support temporal data. This limitation is particularly problematic in archaeology because processes and events are best understood in space and time. To deal with such shortcomings in existing tools, archaeologists often end up having to reduce the diversity and complexity of archaeological phenomena. Recent developments in geographic visualization begin to address some of these issues and are pertinent in the globalized world as archaeologists amass vast new bodies of georeferenced information and work towards integrating them with traditional archaeological data. Greater effort in developing geovisualization and geovisual analytics appropriate for archaeological data can create opportunities to visualize, navigate, and assess different sources of information within the larger archaeological community, thus enhancing possibilities for collaborative research and new forms of critical inquiry.     

Places in Interaction: The National Archaeological Park Project as an Integrated Approach to Public Archaeology in China

The aim of this paper is to re-examine how concepts of public archaeology have been established and developed in varying social and political contexts in China, and how the recent national archaeological park project is structured as an important approach for improving public-archaeology relationships and promoting the public uses of archaeology. Since all archaeological activities in China are exclusively regulated by the state, all archaeological resources are administered for the benefit of the public. As such, concepts of public archaeology demonstrate the efforts of Chinese archaeologists to re-evaluate public-archaeology relationships and uses of archaeology through public engagement as well as archaeological communications with the public. The national archaeological park project was launched in 2006 to expand the practice of archaeology with the creation of archaeological communications, public space, and community-driven programmes. The project facilitates multiple perspectives on public archaeology practice through public education, community cohesion, re-creation of public space, and local economic development.     

We Were Sitting Around the Table…

Alejandro comments on the sense of indeterminacy that pervaded our discussions, notably over what “archaeology” even consists of and over the dilemmas created when the principle of respect for the local community contradicts ethical principles that the archaeologist feels are universal in scale. He tells the story of Carlos Bruch, an early archaeologist in the Catamarca Region, recounting how Bruch portrayed local people and discounted their conceptions of the past, then constructed his own version, contributing to the official version in archaeological discourse. This continues to have ramifications today in the disenfranchisement of local voices in global colonialist projects. Alejandro saw our indeterminancy and quandaries over dilemmas faced by archaeologists as a positive development—a symptom of archaeology changing its pre-theoretical pre-understandings. He emphasizes the importance of local people enacting their own techniques of social memory and their own vocality.     

21世纪中国考古学的若干特点及发展趋势:从“中华文明探源工程”说起——王巍所长专访

21世纪以来,中国考古学呈现出新的学科特点和发展趋势。中国社会科学院考古研究所王巍所长认为,中国考古学随着自身的发展特别是在以"中华文明探源工程"及其各项阶段性成果的推进与影响下,形成了中国气派和中国特色,正朝着科学化、国际化、社会化、大众化的趋势和方向发展;中国考古学需要与国际考古界加强交流,博采众长,走向世界;作为一级学科的考古学的学科建设应是从文物管理机构到文物考古研究机构所共同担负的责任,需要形成一整套既符合中国实际,又顺应中国考古学发展的二级学科的设置,同时培养能够满足考古学发展需要的人才;公众考古是目前考古学新的发展走向,考古界需要转换意识和机制,培养专业人才,坚持考古的纯洁性和道德规范,以更好地服务社会与遗产保护事业。     

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.     

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。     

Recent archaeological research in the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada

The Northeast is comprised of interior and coastal areas that were historically occupied by Iroquoians and Algonquians respectively. This brief review sets aside most Euroamerican historical archaeology and developments prior to A.D. 900 to concentrate on recent research that has dominated regional attention and is most likely to be of interest to archaeologists working elsewhere. The review argues that while Iroquoian archaeologists often work with or against broad controlling models of long standing, archaeologists in the Maritimes and New England more often focus on technical problems that are relevant to shared interests in broad topical issues. The contrast relates to both differences in the their databases and differences in how archaeological research is conceived.     

Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1982

ARCHAEOLOGY and art history are closely allied disciplines, particularly for the study of the medieval period. This paper seeks to compare and contrast archaeological with art historical approaches to medieval material culture in terms appropriate to an archaeological audience, much as Stanis?aw Tabaczyński examined the relationships between archaeology and history in the pages of this journal only a few years ago.¹ Rather than emphasize the distinctions between archaeology and art history, an attempt is made to focus on where these two disciplines intersect and how art history at the cusp of the new millennium differs from what archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic often assume. This seeks to bring recent changes in art historical methods and theory to the attention of medieval archaeologists, suggesting that interdisciplinary cooperation between archaeology and the humanistic disciplines, including art history, should be strengthened.     

Archaeological Visualization: Towards an Archaeological Information Science (AISc)

This paper reviews and evaluates the potential use of modern visualization techniques in archaeology. It suggests the need to apply and develop such techniques as a central part of any modern archaeological investigation. The use of these methods is associated with wider questions about data representations, in particular, their integration with archaeological theory and their role in facilitating analysis and shaping interpretation. Concern for these questions and with the overall potential that information systems provide to capture, represent, analyze, and model archaeological information suggests the need for a new interdisciplinary focus, Archaeological Information Science. For such a focus to prosper, archaeologists need to develop additional skills that go beyond mere technical ones. They need to become more active in the design and creation of future information archaeological systems. To this end, archaeologists are urged to view this task as a way to extend archaeology in new directions and to recognize that the digital representation and treatment of archaeological information can generate new forms of doing archaeology.     

The medieval to early modern transition in a digital age: new developments relevant to the study of domestic buildings

SUMMARY: Transitions in the archaeological and historical record are difficult to discuss and frequently avoided. The authors briefly outline here how this topic has been studied, particularly in Post-Medieval Archaeology, reviewing differences of approach between European-based archaeologists, who stress continuities with medieval times, and archaeologists in the USA and elsewhere, who commence their studies with the arrival of Europeans. This outline is then used to explore how this earliest formative era of the post-medieval period can be studied via modern digital techniques, using a case study drawing on the study of buildings archaeology to further understanding of the transition. This 50th-anniversary contribution therefore intentionally bridges the old and the new.