Archaeologists as Activists: Can Archaeologists Change the World?

By M. Jay Stottman, Jodi A. Barnes, Robert Chidester and 11 more

Examines the various ways in which archaeologists can and do use their research to forge a partnership with the past and guide the ongoing dialogue between the archaeological record and various contemporary stakeholders

Could archaeologists benefit contemporary cultures and be a factor in solving world problems? Can archaeologists help individuals? Can archaeologists change the world? These questions form the root of “archaeology activism” or “activist archaeology”: using archaeology to advocate for and affect change in contemporary communities.

Archaeologists currently change the world through the products of their archaeological research that contribute to our collective historical and cultural knowledge. Their work helps to shape and reshape our perceptions of the past and our understanding of written history. Archaeologists affect contemporary communities through the consequences of their work as they become embroiled in controversies over negotiating the past and the present with native peoples. Beyond the obvious economic contributions to local communities caused by heritage tourism established on the research of archaeologists at cultural sites, archaeologists have begun to use the process of their work as a means to benefit the public and even advocate for communities.

In this volume, Stottman and his colleagues examine the various ways in which archaeologists can and do use their research to forge a partnership with the past and guide the ongoing dialogue between the archaeological record and the various contemporary stakeholders. They draw inspiration and guidance from applied anthropology, social history, public history, heritage studies, museum studies, historic preservation, philosophy, and education to develop an activist approach to archaeology—theoretically, methodologically, and ethically.
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: University Alabama Press
• Release date: Jan 28, 2011
• ISBN: 9780817384425

Book preview

Archaeologists as Activists

Can Archaeologists Change the World?

EDITED BY

M. JAY STOTTMAN

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa

Copyright © 2010

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

Typeface: Caslon

∞

The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Archaeologists as activists : can archaeologists change the world? / edited by M. Jay Stottman.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8173-1712-6 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-8173-5622-4 (paper : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-8173-8442-5 (electronic) 1. Archaeology—Political aspects. 2. Archaeology—Social aspects. 3. Archaeology—Research. 4. Archaeologists—Political activity. 5. Political activists. 6. Social change. 7. Community life. 8. Archaeology—Philosophy. I. Stottman, M. Jay.

CC175.A7166 2010

930.1—dc22

                                                                                                             2010020152

Cover: Students from Portland Elementary School work with archaeologists at the Squire Earrick House on a community education program through the Portland Museum in Louisville, Kentucky.

Contents

List of Illustrations

Introduction: Archaeologists as Activists

M. Jay Stottman

PART I. Reconceptualizing Archaeology for Activism

1. Archaeology and Activism of the Past and Present

Kim Christensen

2. Public Archaeology, Activism, and Racism: Rethinking the Heritage Product

Carol McDavid

3. Activism as Archaeological Praxis: Engaging Communities with Archaeologies that Matter

David A. Gadsby and Jodi A. Barnes

4. Doing Our Homework: Reconsidering What Archaeology Has to Offer Schools

Patrice L. Jeppson

5. Movement Archaeology: Promoting the Labor Movement in Maryland

Robert C. Chidester

PART II. Becoming Archaeology Activists: Perspectives on Community Archaeology

6. Negotiating History, Slavery, and the Present: Archaeology at Farmington Plantation

Lori C. Stahlgren

7. Archaeology and the Creation of a Civil War Park: Experiences from Camp Nelson, Kentucky

W. Stephen McBride and Kim A. McBride

8. Reconnecting Community: Archaeology and Activism at the Portland Wharf

Matthew E. Prybylski and M. Jay Stottman

9. The Saratoga of the South Will Rise (or Be Razed) Again: Archaeologists Collaborating with Communities

Sarah E. Miller and A. Gwynn Henderson

Epilogue: Changing the World with Archaeology

Barbara J. Little

References Cited

Contributors

Index

Illustrations

FIGURES

I.1. A seniors' group tours the excavation of a slave house at Riverside, the Farnsley-Moremen Landing in Louisville, Kentucky

4.1. The themes of social studies education overlap with the research topics typically found in historical archaeology

6.1. Comparison of recovered nail categories at Farmington, Riverside, and Locust grove

6.2. Farmington Historic Plantation entrance sign

7.1. An 1866 U.S. Army map of Camp Nelson by A. B. Miller

7.2. Cottages at the Home for Colored Refugees

7.3. An interpretive sign at Camp Nelson Civil War Heritage Park

8.1. View of the levee and Interstate 64 toward the Portland Wharf from the Portland neighborhood

8.2. View of Portland Wharf Park from the levee

8.3. Cyclists and walkers participate in an archaeological site tour

9.1. An 1879 map of Crab Orchard, Lincoln County, Kentucky

9.2. Section of 1879 Crab Orchard map, showing the Crab Orchard Springs Hotel

9.3. Students and archaeologists survey the site of the Crab Orchard Hotel

TABLES

6.1. Nails' size distribution

9.1. Project schedule: Crab Orchard Archaeology Education Project

Introduction

Archaeologists as Activists

M. JAY STOTTMAN

INTRODUCTION

There comes a time in the career of most archaeologists when we ask ourselves the question, Why is archaeology important? For many of us, it is usually asked when we are making the decision to become archaeologists; when we try to reconcile the guilt of doing something we love with what is considered by many people to be a cool job.

Like many, I justified becoming an archaeologist with the typical historic preservation rhetoric: it is our mission to preserve, protect, interpret, and salvage the past for the future. We know this is indeed a very important mission and we are fully aware of the volumes of knowledge that we, as archaeologists, have contributed to the understanding of culture. However, I just can't help wondering sometimes about archaeology's value to the general public. A similar question was the focus of a recent Society for American Archaeology forum, which asked, Is archaeology useful? However, I don't think this is the question that we should be asking. We know that archaeology is useful. The question should be, How is archaeology useful? When I think about this question, there is that occasional idealistic notion in the back of my head that archaeology should be more than useful; I want my archaeology to make a difference in the world. Perhaps we should be asking another question.

Can Archaeology Save the World? This was the title of a session I organized at the 2004 Society for Historical Archaeology conference in St. Louis, Missouri. I used that cliché in the title because I wanted to draw attention to the session. However, in a small way, I really did feel that archaeology could be used to save the world. Could archaeologists benefit contemporary cultures and be a factor in solving our world's problems? Through archaeology, can archaeologists help people? Can archaeologists change the world? Although I really don't expect an answer to these questions, they do form the root of something that some archaeologists are calling archaeology activism or activist archaeology, using archaeology to advocate for and affect change in contemporary communities.

What is activist archaeology? Where does it come from? In this introduction, I will examine its development, present a more formalized concept of it, and suggest a strategy for its practice.

THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Changing the world with archaeology is not a new concept. Archaeologists around the world have benefited or changed the world in many ways since the inception of the field (Little, ed. 2002; Sabloff 2008). However, when we think of the contributions that archaeologists make to the world, it is the product of archaeological research that is foremost. The public benefits of archaeology are commonly seen as the products of research that contribute to our collective historical and cultural knowledge. The interpretations and stories that are created from archaeological research have helped reshape perceptions of the past. It has helped us understand the prehistoric past and better understand and interrogate written history. Certainly, the products of archaeological research and scholarship have made an impact on the world (Sabloff 2008).

However, archaeologists also have benefited and affected the communities in which they work, although usually as unintended consequences of their research projects. Such benefits and effects are often created through archaeology tourism, where exotic or famous archaeological sites have become tourist destinations. There is no doubt that the archaeological excavations conducted in places such as the Valley of the Kings in Egypt, the Maya Lowlands, Greece, or the former Roman Empire, to name just a few, have greatly impacted the contemporary communities that surround them by employing locals and creating heritage tourism opportunities (Ardren 2004; McDonald and Shaw 2004; McGuire 2008; Mapunda and Lane 2004; Smith 2006; Walker 2005).

Recently, archaeologists have begun to take interest in the relationship of their work to tourism and heritage sites. This interest has led to research into how archaeology articulates with heritage and the processes in the present that create and maintain it, as well as the archaeologist's role (Carman 2002; Rowan and Baram 2004; Shackel 2001; Smith 2004). Some archaeologists have become particularly interested in how that relationship to tourism and heritage can benefit the archaeology project or enhance tourist sites (Slick 2002; Walker 2005; White 2002). Although applied anthropologists have long been interested in studying the heritage and cultural tourism phenomena, archaeologists have yet to fully embrace archaeology tourism as a means to actively engage with or affect local communities (Chambers 2000; Wallace 2005). In other words, archaeologists have recognized that they affect contemporary communities through tourism and heritage sites; but, except for a couple of recent examples, they have typically not sought to use their archaeological research projects to advocate for or consciously affect contemporary communities (Colwell-Chanthaphohn and Ferguson 2008; Little and Shackel 2007).

Archaeologists also find themselves affecting present-day communities through the consequences of their research as they become embroiled in the controversy of negotiating the past and present with native peoples (Bray 2001; Kerber 2006; McNevin and Russell 2005; Smith 2004). The controversy over Kenniwick Man is an example that has made archaeologists stakeholders within a complex web of negotiations that impact many contemporary communities (Downey 2000; Smith 2004; Thomas 2001). This example and many others have forced archaeologists to acknowledge the effect that their research has on contemporary communities and the fact that they have to take an active role in working with many stakeholders. Several archaeologists have been prompted by such issues to take on the colonial baggage of archaeology's past with an examination of ethics and politics within archaeology and how they articulate with modern society (Hamilakis and Phillip 2007; McGuire 2008; Saitta 2007).

Aside from the benefits of research products and their consequential effects on contemporary communities and stakeholders, archaeologists also are beginning to use the process of their work as a means to benefit the public and even advocate for communities, such as investigating mass graves to help build a case for genocide or helping recover the remains of the victims of September 11, 2001 (Hagland et al. 2001; Gould 2002). In these cases, the skills of archaeologists have been sought and used outside of traditional archaeological research to advocate for or benefit contemporary communities.

While these examples illustrate that archaeologists, through their research and skills, can affect contemporary communities, they typically have not fully recognized the potential of archaeology to affect contemporary communities nor that it can be consciously used to do so. However, as archaeologists began to reach out to the public through public archaeology, they began to realize the potential of the archaeological process to benefit contemporary communities beyond the products of their research (Little, ed. 2002). Through public archaeology, an archaeology can be conceived that can consciously be used to benefit contemporary communities and perhaps create positive change or help solve modern problems. It is public archaeology that forms the origins of an activist archaeology.

FROM PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY TO ACTIVISM

Some form of public archaeology has been around almost as long as the field of archaeology. From the first public site tours and public-friendly books by the likes of Ivor Noël Hume (1969, 1970, 1982) and James Deetz (1977, 1993) to the coining of the term public archaeology by Bob McGimsey (1972), archaeologists have had an eye on the public's fascination with archaeology. There are many concepts of public archaeology, mainly archaeology for the public through government regulations and archaeology with the public through outreach and even the view that all archaeology is public in some form or another (Carman 2002; McGimsey 1972; Merriman 2004; Jameson 1997, 2004; Potter 1994).

It is not my aim here to define public archaeology, but I do intend to show that public archaeology and all its iterations form the foundation of an activist archaeology. It is through public archaeology, whether it is because cultural resource management issues force archaeologists to work with contemporary stakeholders or because public outreach has directly connected the public to our research, that archaeologists began to recognize their relationship to the present. Situating archaeology in the present is the first step in using it to advocate for and change communities. While all public archaeology has a role in activist archaeology, I will focus more on public archaeology as outreach and how archaeologists privilege public affinity for our field by thinking about the public as they design and conduct research.

Public archaeology as outreach has grown over the last several decades from simple site visits to full-blown educational programming and even public participation (Smardz Frost 2004; Smardz and Smith 2000)(Figure I.1). This development of public archaeology places an emphasis on the process of archaeology as a means to directly involve and educate the public in the discovery and experience of the past. It has become a vehicle for making the past tangible and relevant to the present. Archaeologists have constructed lessons and programs based on the multidisciplinary and multifaceted process of archaeological research, such as the Project Archaeology teacher workshops and curriculum materials (Moe 2002). Public archaeology is not just about inviting the public to watch us dig anymore. There are educational goals and objectives that we want to achieve when we interface with the public (Smardz and Smith 2002). Archaeologists are specifically trained to work with the public in positions such as archaeology education coordinator and public archaeology specialist. Not only do public archaeologists develop educational materials and programs, but they also work with education professionals to evaluate how well they are reaching the public and achieving their educational goals (Henderson and Levstik 2004; Levstik et al. 2005).

Over the last several decades, public archaeology has primarily developed theoretically within critical theory, which has placed a focus on self-reflexivity and social critiques in archaeology's relationship to the public (Leone et al. 1987). According to Parker Potter, critical theory, when applied to archaeology, has two expressions, one logistical and the other social (1994:217). The logistical expression is exemplified by his Archaeology in Annapolis public program, which consisted of the presentation of archaeological techniques, methods, and conclusions to the interested public. The social aspect was concerned with ideology, dominance, and resistance in the present and the ways in which these are tied to knowledge of the past (Potter 1994:218). Thus, a self-reflexive perspective is an important aspect of critical theory, in particular, with respect to the development of public archaeology. Through self-reflexivity, archaeologists began to understand the politics and agendas that often accompany their research. It is self-reflexivity in public archaeology that allows us to move beyond public archaeology into activist archaeology. Although most of the chapters in this volume see critical theory as an integral foundation for an activist archaeology, Kim Christensen (chapter 1), Carol McDavid (chapter 2), and David Gadsby and Jodi Barnes (chapter 3) explore in more detail the theoretical foundations of an activist archaeology within a variety of critical perspectives.

Although public archaeology has prompted archaeologists to become more attuned to the public and attempt to connect with them, we really have not truly connected with the public or the present. Potter, in reflecting on his time in Annapolis, realized that something was missing and that his work was some how incomplete. That something was the community. The Archaeology at Annapolis program had been so focused on developing an archaeological product for the visitor that it did not develop a relationship to the local community. Upon this realization, Potter states, The best I can hope for is that this book may serve as a small spark, a tiny catalyst for improving the clarity and the productivity of the local discourse on transience, visitation, and local identity (1994:234). Potter later proposed a historical archaeology of identity that was focused on the connection between the past and the present and archaeology's potential to affect the present. He states, While I have an appropriate level of concern with what people in Annapolis or New Hampshire did 100, 200, or 300 years ago, I am, in this essay, substantially more concerned about what people are doing today (Potter 1999:69).

Some archaeologists have taken that spark to the next step by realizing that they often inadvertently or even intentionally affect present culture and community with archaeology. This point is most evident in Linda Derry's revelations in the concluding remarks of Archaeologists and Local Communities (Derry and Malloy 2003). She states that archaeologists should really examine how they perceive the effect of projects and research. We, as archaeologists, should not look at ourselves as a separate entity that bestows upon or shares knowledge with the public: we should view ourselves as collaborators or, as Derry suggests, partners in the past. Barbara Little (ed. 2002:3) makes a similar point, but she calls it a shared vision. Whatever we call it, when we do archaeology, we are not alone. There is much more at stake than our research objectives. There are politics, economics, and a community context in which we work that we cannot ignore. We really should view ourselves as partners in a much larger web of community.

Some archaeologists have gone back to their anthropological roots as they seek to collaborate with contemporary communities (Derry 2003). Applied anthropology, in particular, can be helpful in our pursuit to connect contemporary communities with the past through public archaeology. Applied anthropologist Erve Chambers observed that public archaeology is participatory and collaborative (qtd. in Derry 2003:185). Derry sees the job of the archaeologist as one of diplomat, middleman, or interpreter in an ongoing conversation between the archaeological record and the various stakeholders (2003:187).

Derry's comments illustrate the fact that public archaeologists interested in working with contemporary communities now find themselves in a role similar to the ethnographer. Just as the participant-observer in ethnography cannot be naive enough to believe that his or her presence does not affect culture, archaeologists similarly must remember that our presence in a community has an effect. Intentionally or not, archaeologists affect the people and the places where they do their research in the present.

It is time for archaeologists to not only recognize impacts they have, but also plan for and guide the effects they have on communities. Little (2002:16) placed the benefits of archaeology under the title The Power of Archaeology. That is what I am really talking about, the power of archaeology to affect community. I think that we, as archaeologists, can move beyond public archaeology as just a relationship with the public to something that is different, something that requires us to view archaeology in a different way, to view it as something that is active and empowering rather than static and reactionary.

To go beyond public archaeology means to have an application of archaeology that interfaces with and advocates for present-day communities. What I am suggesting is the redefinition of applied archaeology from the mere application of archaeology in cultural resource management to include public and educational archaeology or what applied anthropologist Erve Chambers has called the public stage of applied archaeology (Shackel and Chambers 2004:146). This applied archaeology fosters an interest in contemporary communities that coexist with research projects. Archaeologists today often find themselves on the public stage, whether it is negotiating the protection of cultural resources, offering a field trip for schoolchildren, or giving tours to seniors (Figure I.1). Within this context, archaeologists interact as much with contemporary communities as they do past ones (Derry and Malloy 2003; Little, ed. 2002; Shackel and Chambers 2004). Thus, many archaeologists now, as exemplified by Pamela Cressey (2003:2), conduct archaeology with the public, not only for the public. They seek ways to better engage the public in the results of their research and collaborate with them to devise research questions (Matthews 2005; Sabloff 2008). Others have become civically and politically engaged, participating in contemporary dialogue about the past and present (Little and Shackel 2007). A few have even become activists, advocating for the communities in which they work or becoming engaged in present-day politics or movements (Colwell-Chanthaphohn and Ferguson 2008; Little and Shackel 2007; Saitta 2007).

DEFINING ACTIVIST ARCHAEOLOGY

As some archaeologists begin to move beyond public archaeology to activism, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about collaborative approaches in public archaeology with various contemporary stakeholders (Colwell-Chanthaphohn and Ferguson 2008; Derry and Malloy 2003; Little, ed. 2002; Little and Shackel 2007). How do we define it and what do we call it? Is it public archaeology, a redefined applied archaeology, civic engagement, or activist archaeology? It is clear that the term public archaeology is no longer enough to encompass all public interaction in archaeology. Like so many other facets of our field, I think that public archaeology is producing distinct specializations, such as those focused on education, museum exhibits, participatory excavation, and tourism, just to name a few. Although related and in some way dependent on each other, each specialization is distinct and varied in its approach and focus. Perhaps public archaeology refers to interaction with the public and applied archaeology is the application of archaeology within the public sphere. Public and applied archaeology both produce civically engaged archaeologists who collaborate with and consider the public to be stakeholders. However, archaeologists can do more than collaborate with communities and the public, they can use archaeology to affect change within an activist agenda.

So then, what is activist archaeology? Many examples of archaeologists as activists have been presented at various national conferences over the last several years, including the Society for American Archaeology, American Anthropological Association, Society for Historical Archaeology, and the Society for Applied Anthropology, of which many of the contributors to this volume were either organizers or participants. They include projects that focused on the archaeology of activists in history, public and educational programs, civic engagement, myth busting, etc. There seems to be many different ideas about what activist archaeology is. However, in most cases, activism is somewhat of an afterthought. I think an activist archaeology is more about intentionality and advocacy, which should be a focus for projects, not an aside.

Although an activist archaeology interfaces with the public and is engaged with contemporary communities, archaeologists also can advocate for the communities in which they conduct research. To use archaeology to affect change in and advocate for contemporary communities, not as the archaeologist sees it but as the community itself sees it, defines activist archaeology.

Being an activist archaeologist is about more than just interacting with the public or partnering with a community in which we work. It is about understanding a community and integrating its needs and wants into our work and using the process of archaeology and the knowledge it produces to help satisfy community needs. I want to emphasize that archaeology can be used as an agent for change to benefit society directly.

In order to accomplish this task, archaeologists must reconceptualize and broaden their view and use of archaeology. Archaeology is not just a tool to pursue the past but something that can be used to change the present and future. Archaeologists as activists can intentionally use their skills and research to advocate for the communities in which they conduct research.

THE PRACTICE OF AN ACTIVIST ARCHAEOLOGY

To this point, activist moments in archaeology have largely been a consequence of public archaeology projects. With a few exceptions, they have rarely been at the forefront of a project, a part of a project from the beginning, or figured into the planning and development