Conservation and community archaeology: the Capdella cardboard hospital project (Catalonia, Spain)

In this paper we investigate the pedagogy of archaeological field schools. Specifically, we explore the combination of tertiary level field schools and Indigenous community (or community-based) archaeology. Using a detailed case study of a rock art field school in Arnhem Land, Australia, we explore the processes and outcomes of combining archaeological field training with the ideas and methods of community archaeology. We discuss the relationship and unique challenges faced by such community archaeology field schools, particularly that of balancing the priorities of competing stakeholders. Our discussion illustrates the complexities of training students to work in an environment where cultural belief systems are still strongly linked to sites and landscapes. While the challenges are numerous, the outcomes, particularly for students, provide an unparalleled educational experience, one that cannot be obtained in any other learning format.

Archaeological heritage is under threat by climate change all over the world and its resulting impacts are happening so quickly and within so many different physical and socio-cultural contexts, that it is impossible for any single organization or discipline to combat. For this reason, researchers have developed various methods and options in engaging the public’s help through community-based and citizen science research, including community archaeology and community heritage projects to better preserve our cultural heritage. This paper presents five diverse case studies from Alaska, Scotland, Florida, Australia and Guadeloupe to highlight how collaboration and community archaeology are building better practices to manage coastal archaeological heritage. The case studies are compared and analysed based on underlying components they all share. In the end the most common factors attributing to a successful community archaeology project will be determined and reviewed.

War is an invasive spatial practice and naturally, these practices are detrimental for archaeological heritage. However, a form of war-related damage to archaeological heritage is hitherto unrecognised. This paper represents a first attempt to define, quantify and estimate the extent of war damage to archaeological heritage caused by deployment, placement and removal of landmines and various other explosive remnants of war (ERW). Three case studies from Croatia each demonstrate that estimated figures are staggering and that archaeological heritage is indeed gravely affected. We suggest that adequate reaction from various stakeholders is missing. This is unfortunate because the case studies also demonstrate that the loss of archaeological potential could be mitigated and controlled. Deployment and removal of explosive devices are activities which must be recognised managed as a form of war damage. Archaeological community should take a keener interest in the subject and become a relevant stakeholder in mine action.

Emerging Consensus and Concerns in Collaborative Archaeological Research Celeste Ray (bio) Archaeologists have taken a central role in pioneering collaborative research in anthropology, in part because of the types of resources they consult and the friction that can surround their study. While many anthropologists are just beginning to grapple with issues of intellectual property rights for cultural traditions, archaeologists have long negotiated conflicts over the study not only of material culture but of human remains. These conflicts have in many cases fostered positive dialogues in which social scientists actively seek to cooperate with descendant communities, so that in collaborative approaches, those whose ancestors are the subjects of research become partners in archaeological inquiry. Over the last three decades, reflections on the social and political dynamics of archaeological research, critiques of anthropological endeavors as themselves colonial exercises, and bitterly contested claims about ownership of "the past" have produced a parallel evolution in archaeological methods and theory. As previously disenfranchised people around the globe have reclaimed the right to interpret their own heritage, archaeologists in different research fields responded simultaneously by adopting new strategies for inclusion, dialogue, and "community archaeology" before their varied approaches became collectively thought of as "collaborative." By the late 1980s and early 1990s ownership of the past had become a regular theme of academic exchange (see, e.g., Gathercole and Lowenthal 1990), and in 1990 the World Archaeological Congress adopted a Code of Ethics indicative of the move to collaborative approaches. Among other "principles to abide by," archaeologists were enjoined to "establish equitable partnerships" with [End Page 1] "indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is being investigated" and to "seek, whenever possible, representation of indigenous peoples . . . in setting research standards, questions, priorities and goals" (World Archaeological Congress 1991). Scholars in the late 1990s and early 2000s pointed to the potential of public archaeology as applied anthropology (see, for example, Thornton 1998; Watkins 2000; Zimmerman, Vitelli, and Hollowell-Zimmer 2003; Shackel and Chambers 2004; Smith and Wobst 2005; Scarre and Scarre 2006). In the last three years archaeologists have published several instructive and theoretically innovative volumes on collaborative research that articulate its methodological challenges and advantages. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson's edited collection Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities (2008) offers international case studies that tackle perennially difficult issues such as repatriation, social class, sacred lands, and the politics of identity and that also offer insightful views of changing academic ethics. They present collaborative approaches as existing on a continuum from simply informing descendant communities about the research process to synergistic cooperation that yields results neither group could achieve independently. Also in 2008 Quetzil Castañeda and Christopher Matthews edited Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices. This thin volume considers the use of ethnographic methods in work with Indigenous populations who have an attachment to archaeological sites. Essays especially consider reflexivity for a critical engagement with heritage stakeholders and the use of ethnographic archaeology to inform public policy debates, archaeological study of ethnic groups, and public interpretations of the past. Julie Hollowell and George Nicholas (2008) offer a particularly strong essay commenting on the contributions of "archaeological ethnographies" in understanding the multiple meanings and implications of "the past" for living people and in the development of a political economy of archaeology. Jordan Kerber's 2006 edited volume Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States considers the challenges of maintaining fruitful dialogue and cooperation when academics and descendant communities have conflicting perspectives on research goals and site interpretation. Their collection particularly examines regulatory compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation [End Page 2] Act and the ways in which descendant communities and archaeologists can cooperate productively in the stewardship of archaeological sites and sacred places. Their examples are regional but yield applications relevant elsewhere. Other publications have already begun to take collaborative approaches for granted and stress civic activism. Jeremy Sabloff 's 2008 Archaeology Matters: Action Archaeology in the Modern World is perhaps less about collaboration than it is about subjects that can be addressed through collaborative archaeology. His message is about applying archaeological understandings of the past to improve the contemporary...

Archaeologists are giving increased attention to the social context of their research, often in a self-conscious effort to involve non specialists in their work. The papers submitted to a recent special issue of World Archaeology suggest that Australasian archaeologists have been among the first to reflect seriously on the public context of archaeology (Marshall, 2002). Canadian archaeologists are also experimenting with a more community-oriented archaeology, particularly in the Arctic, where indigenous stake-holders have forced researchers to reappraise conventional approaches (Lea and Smardz, 2000; Rowley, 2002). In Canada’s easternmost province of Newfoundland and Labrador (Figures 11.1 and 11.2), the situation is more complex. In our north, that is to say Labrador, the key issue is very much the ownership of the archaeological heritage, as elsewhere in arctic Canada (Figure 11.3). On the island of Newfoundland itself, community interest in archaeology is driven, to a great extent, by hopes of economic diversification. Several years ago, Memorial University’s Archaeology Unit set up the Newfoundland Archaeological Heritage Outreach Program (NAHOP) in response to burgeoning community interest. This article reports our experience and suggests that the concept of “community archaeology” can be more broadly applied than it has been. From the Newfoundland point of view, one of most important articles in the World Archaeology survey volume is a discussion of a project in the ancient port of Quseir, Egypt, which sets forth key aspects of community archaeology (Moser et al., 2002: 229–242):

This paper seeks to initiate a conversation about methodology in public and community archaeology through an examination of the use of case studies. Case studies enable the exploration of situations that are, by their nature, not easily reduced to statistical data. The challenge is that unless they are carefully structured, case studies may contribute little beyond anecdote to the field. Other disciplines that rely on case studies have addressed the methodological challenges aggressively. This paper explores these issues in four sections: First, the rationale for methodology in public archaeology is examined. Second, actual practice—through analysis of papers published in Public Archaeology and, to a limited degree, in the ‘grey literature’—is reviewed. Third, alternative case study methods, gleaned from diverse disciplines, are presented. Finally, the potential for method-based case study research is illustrated through an example of the use of one such method.

Introduction

ABSTRACTArchaeologists often perceive community archaeology as an inclusive space where the presence of multiple voices drawn into this space through a shared interest in recovering and understanding the past broadens the discourse of archaeology and related heritage. While this work provides access for diverse stakeholders, certain routines seem embedded that limit the potential for community archaeology to produce something new. I suggest that rethinking the point of engagement, by shifting it from stakeholders to the discursive assemblages that cohere as stakeholders come together, allows for a deeper ethnographic reading of the engaging communities and the possibility that they will learn about others as well as themselves. The approach I describe draws from Gilles Deleuze's concept of transcendental empiricism, such that what we do in becoming engaged, even in the most routine way, requires consistently analysing how those we engage with come into view and why they become open to collaboration.

Transformative or Tokenistic?

The development of archaeology in Greece has been determined by the central role classical antiquity played in the European and Greek imagination. Classical archaeology, with its aesthetic view of the material culture, has dominated the discipline and its popular perception ever since. The state has been entrusted with the exclusive authority on archaeological heritage because of its national importance. This paper argues that the combination of the classical and state monopoly has led to the isolation of Greek archaeology from the world and from the Greek people. The aim is to critically assess Greek archaeology and introduce community archaeology as a means to make archaeology relevant to the Greek people.

This paper discusses community archaeology in the Egyptian context and the importance of the stakeholders’ involvement in the specific case study of Tell Timai, a Graeco-Roman settlement (the ancient city of Thmuis) in the Northeast Egyptian Delta. This article examines the results of two small, yet interconnected projects conducted with the help of the local community, and their effects on it. These two projects include archaeological data, oral histories, and public outreach focusing on the interaction between community, archaeological heritage, and public perception of archaeology. Additionally, this paper critically analyzes the preliminary outcomes of the project and discusses how the project team faced and overcame the different challenges.

The general perspective within the archaeological community is that ethics codes in and of themselves are good things meant to protect “archaeological heritage”. The discipline argues that it is the responsibility of the archaeologist to work towards stewardship of the resource, but that stewardship places the wishes and views of the archaeologist foremost and generally fails to consider the views of the marginalized populations whose ancestors may have created that heritage. In this regard, this paper questions what direction archaeological ethics in the United States will turn in the near future and whether legal challenges such as Kennewick Man and concerns over the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains seem to indicate a growing movement towards more limited sharing of the past with contemporary cultures.

Purpose– This paper aims to argue that one of the ways of enabling tourism to become sustainable is for archaeologists to relate archaeology to poverty, while being aware of the process of heritage production. It proposes that one way to engage with issues of poverty is to talk to people who are trying to get out of poverty. Many archaeologists are already at work using a similar perspective not just to integrate international scholarship with local interests, but to hand over authority relating to aspects of research to the local community.Design/methodology/approach– This paper reviews literature about and archaeological study in the Bolivian Amazon region. Here, all-weather roads are scarce and unreliable. Scholars are beginning to document and analyze the archaeological record of this region, and as lowland Bolivians develop tourism, the article considers how archaeology could help connect the Bolivian Amazon to an international audience.Findings– An anthropological perspective suggests that projects in which local people are connected to decision-making will have long-term effects. Without such integration, cycles of boom and bust are likely to repeat. The article cites two examples: the inscription of the Ichapekene Piesta Moxos on the UNESCO Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, and the Museo Yacuma, in Santa Ana del Yacuma. Community archaeology, in which the community makes decisions about how research will proceed, is a developing trend, which stands to benefit local people, archaeologists and tourists.Originality/value– The paper outlines how community archaeology in the Beni region of Bolivia can be built on a strong foundation: first, by a community of Benianos that are ready, willing and able to be a part of both the development of tourism and of archaeology and second, via its long and varied archaeological record, providing plenty of material for the development of heritage. The question is whether a community archaeology can generate and sustain archaeological heritage as part of a tourism industry?

Community archaeology aims to involve communities in investigations of their tangible heritage, with the aim of conferring a benefit on the individuals involved, the community, and the archaeological resource. Community archaeology developed gradually in places such as the United Kingdom but more abruptly in places where new approaches to archaeological investigation were imported by colonial incomers with no connection to indigenous sites or people. Nowhere has the development of community archaeology been entirely smooth, with social, political, economic, and academic factors frequently determining the extent to which communities have been able to engage with their tangible heritage. Now, however, the basic principles—that communities should have the right to take part in the initiation, design, consultation, execution, management, interpretation, and presentation of investigations into their tangible archaeological heritage—are increasingly widely enshrined in legislation and professional practice across the world.

ABSTRACTArchaeological heritage tourism has been critical in historic cultural revival, archaeological knowledge dissemination, environment upgrading, and local community improvement. Little has been undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of archaeological heritage projects in China from the tourist perspective. This study of the Daming Palace Heritage Site in Xi’an illustrates how archaeological and cultural resources have contributed to tourists' experiences. Through investigating an array of approaches that have been applied to advance tourists' understanding of archaeological and cultural resources, the paper proposes that more versatile methods and creative works are to be integrated to develop effective interpretative methods for both education and entertainment purposes. Local government needs to change its top-down approach to a more inclusive one, to establish strong networks among state and non-state stakeholders, and to promote their collective involvement in archaeological heritage tourism. Heritage site packaging strategies and partnerships among heritage resources citywide are advocated. More attention should be given to how to integrate various resources of local communities into heritage tourism. The current organization of government-run archaeological heritage in China calls for more opportunities for archaeologists to contribute actively with their expertise to enhance interpretive programmes and general tourist experience.