Emerging Consensus and Concerns in Collaborative Archaeological Research

Abstract

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...