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?     

On the challenges and benefits of indoor archaeology: 15 years at the Archeodome (Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village,South Dakota)

Abstract

Field archaeology is normally associated with outdoor excavation and exposure to the natural environment. Archaeological excavations have adapted to a wide spectrum of these conditions, but the recent prominence of archaeological sites as tourist attractions and educational facilities has occasionally led to dramatically different environments for the archaeological recovery, interpretation, and preservation of evidence, including facilities that permit indoor excavation. This article explores 15 years of experience at the Mitchell Prehistoric Indian Village in South Dakota. An “Archeodome” covering part of the site represents a non-traditional excavation and preservation environment that presents considerable benefits and challenges for archaeologists. The structure provides the basis for evaluating the nature of indoor excavation within its archaeological and educational context and provides a cautionary note for archaeologists, heritage groups, tourist boards, and others interested in the preservation of archaeological sites. Though this article focuses on the Mitchell site, the information reported has broad implications for sites where structures cover archaeological deposits.     

数字近景摄影测量在秦始皇陵百戏坑考古中的应用研究

既要保留遗迹在不同阶段的信息资料,又不影响发掘研究工作的继续进行,一直是考古工作者探索研究的问题。为配合秦始皇陵百戏俑坑的考古发掘工作,为后续考古研究和文物遗迹的保护提供必要的基础信息资料,针对大场景考古发掘现场,通过数字全站仪对文物挖掘现场布设的一定数量控制点进行观测获取其三维点位坐标。利用非量测数码相机获取现场多航带序列影像,通过数码相机检校、自动空中三角测量、影像特征提取与影像匹配、数字微分纠正等数字近景摄影测量方法,获取反映发掘现场文物分布情况的数字高程模型(DEM)和正射影像(DOM)数据。在生成的正射影像图上进行文物轮廓线条的提取,获得发掘现场文物的正射投影矢量图。实现文物位置、形状及分布的平面量测。实验证明:该方法不仅可大面积、快速获取文物挖掘现场文物分布的正射投影平面图,实现考古数字制图,而且能保证一定的精度。具有较高的推广应用价值。     

Un-Disciplining Archaeology

We can think of a kind of archaeological colonialism in terms of the exportation of metropolitan theories and/or methodologies to peripheral countries/regions, or in the way metropolitan academic institutions/archaeologists conduct archaeology in peripheral countries/regions. But even if we manage to stop those kinds of colonial bonds, archaeology would remain being an imperial weapon. And, moreover, it can be said that colonialism is not dependant on the overseas provenance of archaeologies and/or theories. Beyond theoretical and methodological variability, it is archaeology itself what happens to recapitulate colonialist relationships; and this seems to happen even when archaeology is openly and deliberately oriented towards indigenous peoples?? empowerment, social justice, and peace. It seems that theoretical and methodological paradigms and political intentions operate at a surface level, while colonialism is equipped with stronger streams operating below the floor where archaeologists stand. What is there below our feet, making us move in one direction even when we walk in the other? Neither being the theories, neither the methods, nor the political intentions and nationality, what is that hidden force that govern the sense of archaeology in the contemporary post-colonial world? My argument is that the hidden force it is not hidden at all, but remains unseen because it is too obvious. The disciplinary framework of archaeology itself -that is, its basic subject matter and method??beyond the theoretical and methodological paradigms and the political orientation in which we aim to proceed, or our nationality or whatever, recapitulates coloniality. Without implying that theoretical and methodological debate within archaeological discipline is in vain, I dedicate this piece to write not within, but about the discipline. In short, this will include talking about disciplining, its recapitulation in post-disciplinary contexts, and the implied proposal of un-disciplining archaeology.     

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.     

Questioning Whether Thomas Jefferson Was the “Father” of American Archaeology

In Notes on the State of Virginia (1787 [1954]), Thomas Jefferson described a systematic investigation he conducted of a Native American burial mound near his home at Monticello. Based upon this early excavation and Jefferson’s report of the contents of various layers he observed in the mound, authors of introductory archaeological textbooks frequently refer to Jefferson as the “father” of archaeology in the United States. While Jefferson’s methods anticipated modern archaeological techniques, this essay questions the extent to which he was a disinterested observer of what his dig uncovered. Because his conclusions were rooted less in understanding Native American cultures than they were in extinguishing them, perhaps archaeologists should look for another person to be accorded the title of “father” of their discipline.     

Units of Archaeological Stratification

The excavating archaeologists’ methodological set ‐ excavation, recording, analysis and publication ‐ rests on the notions and principles of the stratigraphic succession of archaeological deposits. Since 1954 when Sir Mortimer Wheeler published Archaeology From the Earth, there has been a dearth of published discussion on the stratigraphie theory in archaeology. This paper examines some of the background of the stratigraphie notion in archaeology and a revised model for archaeological stratigraphy based on ‘units of stratification’ is presented. Re‐evaluations of stratigraphie configurations in archaeology arc perhaps long overdue and this article is an attempt to engender discussion on this fundamental archaeological tenet.     

The Cave Who Never Was: Outsider Archaeology and Failed Collaboration in the USA

Abstract

The alleged 1982 discovery of a phantasmagorical Late-Antique necropolis in southern Illinois has largely escaped the attention of professional archaeologists, despite thousands of artefacts having been sold to naive collectors and would-be revolutionary scholars for more than a quarter of a century. The site (named Burrows Cave after its notorious finder) is a staple of outsider archaeology, like 10,000-year-old pyramids and ancient astronauts. Burrows Cave flourishes in the extra-disciplinary realm of hyperdiffusionist archaeology, terra incognita outside the bounds of the traditional science and thus not considered worthy of examination by scholars. This essay explores the significance of US archaeologists’ failure to critically yet respectfully engage with a public who is extremely interested in archaeological discoveries but sceptical of scholarly elitism. Professionals’ disinterest has resulted in a dismissal of outsider archaeology en masse, leaving the worst abuses unchecked. This leaves the public with few clues to distinguish the impossible from the improbable, unorthodox, or iconoclastic. Audacious enterprises such as Burrows’ are left to flourish, driving wedges between archaeologists and the interested public, preventing effective collaboration and dialogue. Burrows Cave is a lesson for aspiring archaeologists: proof of what happens when professionals turn up their noses at opportunities for engagement with community interests.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

More than Meets the Eyes?: Archaeology Under Water,Technology, and Interpretation

Abstract

Archaeology has had a long and interesting relationship with technology. Technology has arguably allowed us to move from antiquarian interest to the robust academic institution that we now are. The importance that technology plays within archaeology is perhaps best exemplified within the increasingly popular/populist 'sub-discipline' of underwater archaeology. After all, contemporary underwater archaeology could not exist if it was not for the invention SCUBA. Alongside the 'day-to-day' use of technology there is also a rush to latch on contemporary technologies within the sub-discipline. The reasons for this are examined within this work, however, what is argued to be more important is the implications this has had on our discipline.

This paper examines these implications on and as part of underwater archaeology. The impact of its use on interpretive thinking within the sub-discipline are analyzed by assessing the very nature of theoretical thinking within our work. This paper raises the difficult and perhaps controversial question — are underwater archaeologists merely substituting technology for theory and as such offering, admittedly impressive, complex and sound scientific computer models as interpretation, rather than the data that they really are?     

Community Archaeology in Proto-Historical Tel Bareqet,Israel: School Children and Agency for Active Public Engagement in Cultural Heritage Projects

Abstract

Community archaeology has become very popular over the past decade, and community archaeology projects are yielding interesting results in many regions around the globe (Merriman, 2004). These projects seem to be gaining academic importance as well, and are considered by some people to be vital to the survival of archaeology as a whole (Marshall, 2002: 218).

Still, community archaeology projects often stir debate regarding their importance, role, and existence. A major theme of these discussions is the role played by the community. In particular, the question is often raised of what role, if any, should be given to non-professional local populations in a project's scientific decision-making.

The current article aims to present the controversy between two types of archaeological practices, 'archaeology from above' and 'archaeology from below' (Faulkner, 2000) through the examination of a community archaeological project in which schoolchildren constitute the community participants. The site of the excavation is Tel Bareqet, a 5000-year-old (Early Bronze Age II, c. 3050–2700 BCE) urban settlement located in central Israel. On the one hand, the excavation strives to maintain the highest scientific standard; on the other hand, it depends upon the participation of unskilled young people in the excavation process.

This article presents obstacles that have been encountered in this excavation, and describes the methodological framework that has been developed in order to overcome these obstacles and continue carrying out a successful community archaeology project.     

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.     

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.     

Framing the past: situating the archaeological in photographs

Archaeology continually reproduces its own images. Speaking archaeology’s visual language is one way we prove membership in the discipline. Many aspects of this visual language have become so naturalized within archaeological representation as to be almost unquestionable: the cleaning of the site, the use of scale, and particular framings and perspectives. How, then, is the production of particular photographic images of archaeology related to the practice of archaeology? Does archaeology look a certain way (in photographs) or are archaeologists reproducing an archaeology according to the way it is thought it should look? Using examples of early photographs from Latin American archaeological expeditions, this article investigates not only photography as an applied technology for scientific recording, but also its power to situate archaeological knowledge. Drawing on recent reflective and critical developments in both the history of archaeology and visual anthropology, it uses five focal points – trace, objectivity and authenticity, sight/site, still lifes, and still lives – to argue that early-twentieth-century archaeological photographs of Latin America participated in the generation of an ‘authentic’ past rather than simply paid testament to it.     

Lest the Lowliest Be Forgotten: Locating the Impoverished in Early Medieval Ireland

In early medieval Ireland (ca. a.d. 400–850), every person's rank in society was codified in documents and visibly apparent by their material possessions. Early Irish literature is overwhelmingly concerned with the negotiation of status, but it is focused primarily on the rights and responsibilities of the nobility and wealthy farmers. Those of lower status are often ignored, and it has been difficult as archaeologists to agree on what constitutes a lower class site or artifactual assemblage. This paper addresses these arguments and challenges the belief that the lowest members of medieval Irish society are invisible to archaeology due to their impoverished existence.     

Teaching the Craft of Archaeology: Theory, Practice, and the Field School

Field schools are a rite of passage for archaeologists, the first experience of what for many is the defining activity of the discipline: fieldwork. While teaching competence in practical techniques is the minimum goal of any field school, this technical training must be situated within the broader goals that drive the fieldwork. The University of Denver Archaeological Field School provides the fieldwork for the Colorado Coal Field War Archaeological Project. This project is an experiment in archaeology as political action in the present. It explores the possibility of an emancipatory archaeology through engagement with contemporary audiences and struggles. In this paper we discuss some of the ways we try to link technical training with the admittedly unusual theoretical and political goals of the project, teaching not only skills but an awareness of the responsibilities these skills should bring.     

State Archaeology and the Private Museum: An Integrated Approach to Archaeological Site Management for Local People in China

During the emergence of Chinese archaeology, the legislative system of cultural heritage in China included archaeological excavations and investigations as being the ‘exclusive right of state’. This mode of state archaeology has proved its worth by increasing the authority and quality of archaeological research and excavations, as well as enhancing the social values and benefits at the state level. The local communities, however, have hardly been embedded into the archaeological projects, nor have the archaeological projects been employed to improve local and regional economic development. This paper considers private museums as embodying regional values and beneficial to projects under the mode of state archaeology. With a case study outlining collaborations between archaeologists and local agents under the excavation and conservation of ancient kiln sites at the town of Zichuan, I argue that private museums could be relatively prominent platforms for public engagement in activities of state archaeology. It might contribute to a reconsideration of the following: indirect archaeological concerns, local economic benefits, identities and alternative interpretations of locality.