Career In Archaeology Research Articles

ETHEL ANN BURTON-BROWN WITH BONI IN THE FORUM, 1898–1904

This essay has two objectives. First, it acknowledges and situates the contribution of Ethel Ann Burton-Brown (1868–1927) to the history of the archaeology of the Roman Forum as it was excavated between 1898 and 1905 under the direction of Giacomo Boni (1859–1925). Her English-language handbook on the discoveries, now overlooked in literature on Boni, showcased her education at Girton College, her experience with traditional cultures such as those of northern India, and her understanding of established and newly-emerging methods of classical archaeology. Unlike Esther van Deman and Eugénie Sellers Strong, who embraced careers in archaeology just years after Burton-Brown's publication, she did not pursue working in the discipline because of her personal situation. Secondly, it investigates the manner in which Burton-Brown received Boni's presentation of the excavations. Trained as an architect and experienced in architectural restoration, Boni brought innovative scientific methods to the task of uncovering Rome's archaic past. He did so while deliberately distancing himself from those scholars before him who applied traditional academic approaches, i.e., those reliant on classical literature, to archaeological practice. In large part, Burton-Brown's handbook echoes the descriptions and analyses of Boni's finds in the Roman Forum. However, a closer reading of her text reveals that her personal experiences shaped some of her explanations of the archaeological past in ways that differed from Boni's. In addition, their respective nationalities, British versus Italian, shade how they each value Rome's early history.

The War Years in Thebes: Ernest Mackay’s Work in Theban Tombs

The Mackay archive (now part of the larger manuscript collection of Alan H. Gardiner) kept at the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford, comprises excavation reports, photographs, and personal correspondence of Ernest Mackay, the British archaeologist who worked in the Theban necropolis from 1913–1916 on behalf of Robert Mond. Mackay’s notes fill in the gaps in the history of the exploration of Theban tombs, as well as add some additional information on the obscure years of the First World War in the Theban necropolis. The archive also sheds some light on the hitherto unknown beginning of the archaeological career of Dorothy Mackay. [Formula: see text]

Julien Poinssot and His Descendants

This paper discusses the scientific lives of Julien, Louis and Claude Poinssot (grandfather, father and son) and their important contribution to the study of ancient religions in North Africa, especially in Tunisia, including their intense engagement with the ancient Thugga. Julien, who had been trained as a notary, soon became a pioneering epigraphist of Proconsularis. As a result of the colonial context in which he worked and the bureaucratic problems he encountered, his archaeological career was brief, albeit intensive. Nevertheless, his vocation was inherited by his descendants, Louis and Claude, who eventually became Directors of Antiquities and of Museums. Their work left a remarkable legacy, including the Mahdia underwater excavations and the exploration of the Dougga Capitol.

Toward a Safe Archaeology Field School

AbstractArchaeology field schools provide unique opportunities for firsthand exposure, team-based learning, and pre-professional experience. A participant's decision to pursue a career in archaeology may reflect initial fieldwork group experiences and individual interactions with field school leaders and staff. Today, safety, security, and equity policies along with staff and operational procedures that support them are essential for instructing and inspiring all who wish to experience archaeological fieldwork. Drawing on three decades of field school participation and administration, the author describes specific examples of fieldwork learning contexts as well as insights into operating a safe, secure, and welcoming field school. Conclusions include general guidelines that are applicable and desirable for short-term, season-long, or special skills field schools.

‘In search of lost time’, ‘friendship and archaeology’: a personal reminiscence of Ludovic Mann, Joseph Harrison Maxwell and George Applebey – my father

In this paper, I will reflect on my personal memories of Ludovic Mann, friend and mentor to my late father George Applebey, whose archaeological career is also a focus of the paper. They both worked together on Mann's most famous excavations at Knappers Farm, and the nearby painting of the Cochno Stone rock-art panel. However, these are only two examples of their long-term collaboration and friendship, and this paper will explore the broader context within which they worked. This will include consideration of other collaborators, such as J Harrison Maxwell, part of the ‘Ludovic Group’ in the first half of the twentieth century. The important role that all three men played in the development of Scottish archaeology is noted. The paper concludes with developments following Mann's death in 1955 including George Applebey's emergence as a noted amateur archaeologist in his own right, and the fate of the Mann and Applebey collections.

'Casey did very good work for Wheeler and you are lucky to have him': Dermot Casey's under-appreciated importance in Australian archaeology

Dermot Casey (1897–1977) is known in Australian archaeology, if he is remembered at all, for being someone who assisted the premier prehistorian of Australia, John Mulvaney, in his excavations of the late 1950s and 1960s and whose collaboration Mulvaney greatly valued. But when Casey began his collaboration with Mulvaney he was already 58 years old and had had a continuing and significant archaeological career, involving work in England and South Asia with Mortimer Wheeler, as well as in Australia. He had been a key figure both before and after World War 2 in the development of Australian archaeology. His role is virtually unknown, however, not least because he was a man of independent means who did not need to work for a living. His selflessness was partly because that privilege gave him a keen sense of service to society, seen in both world wars and in his archaeological practice.

Affording Archaeology: How Field School Costs Promote Exclusivity

ABSTRACTField schools are essential for undergraduate students pursuing careers in archaeology, but they are expensive and, consequently, inaccessible to many. Although there have been efforts to rectify this through the creation of scholarships, there have been no systematic studies of the full cost of archaeological field schools. Here, we present a study of 208 field schools from 2019, including their tuition, room and board, and airfare, as well as the wages that students may lose by participating in them rather than working. We also explore how archaeologists interviewed for Heath-Stout's dissertation study of diversity issues in the discipline have navigated finding field experiences. We argue that scholarships are an ineffective and insufficient means of promoting equity and accessibility in the field because the root of the problem lies in institutionalized inequality and exclusivity. We provide strategies that students and faculty can use to address these problems on both individual and systemic levels. By making field schools affordable and accessible to a more diverse set of undergraduate students, we can create a more just and inclusive discipline.

A pedagogical approach to indigenous community-based archaeology in Hawai‘i: The north shore field school

ABSTRACTBecause Indigenous community-based archaeology in Hawai‘i is in its infancy, compared to other areas of the world, we decided to develop a pedagogical approach for the North Shore Field School that would foreground local cultural imperatives in tandem with the values of higher education. Engaging the local community in an archaeology that honours Hawaiian history and heritage was a major objective of our field school, as was our effort to train university students in research techniques. The focus of our field school on an ancient Hawaiian heiau (religious temple) was risky due to its profound cultural significance. Importantly, our early and frequent consultation with the community – along with the practice of cultural protocols that we created for the field school – facilitated its implementation. The field school was a life-changing experience for several students who are now developing careers in archaeology and heritage management or pursuing graduate degrees.

From Aegean, over Euphrates, to Indus: the life and the work of Harald Hauptmann

Harald Hauptmann (19 April, 1936 – 2 August, 2018), one of the most prominent representatives of world’s archaeological community, passed away at the age of 82. As representative of classical German archaeological school, H. Hauptmann has been very influential in shaping what Colin Renfrew calls ‘Great tradition’ of archaeology characterised by rigorous excavations carried out on a grand-scale, systematic inventory and careful categorization of artifacts, thorough and comprehensive publication of finds: this is a true archaeology carried out as a scientific experiment. In a dissertation concerning the history of the Keban Dam Rescue Project, in which H. Hauptmann played his great role, Laurent Dissard correctly writes (p. 24): ‘At Keban, H. Hauptmann who excavated at Norşuntepe can be placed alongside Winckelmann, Dörpfeld, Bittel and Blegen as some of the “great men” of German archaeology’. H. Hauptmann realised his scientific experiments in the time period between the Neolithic and the Iron Age and in a space stretching from South-Eastern Europe, particularly from Greece (during the first stage of his archaeological career), to the Near East, particularly to Asia Minor and Caucasia (during the second stage) and beyond to South Asia, particularly to mountainous regions of Karakorum (during the last stage).

A Russian Perspective on Theoretical Archaeology: The Life and Work of Leo S. Klejn. Stephen Leach. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2015, 221 pp. $79.00, cloth. ISBN 978-1-62958-138-5.

<i>A Russian Perspective on Theoretical Archaeology: The Life and Work of Leo S. Klejn</i>. Stephen Leach. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2015, 221 pp. $79.00, cloth. ISBN 978-1-62958-138-5.

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?

Off Course? A Career in Archaeology Outside of the Academy

Off Course? A Career in Archaeology Outside of the Academy

Alternative Careers in Archaeology: My Version

Alternative Careers in Archaeology: My Version

Scholarly Publishing as an Archaeological Practice

Scholarly Publishing as an Archaeological Practice

Help Wanted: Choosing an Alternative or Mainstream Archaeological Career?

Help Wanted: Choosing an Alternative or Mainstream Archaeological Career?

Success Strategies for a Career in Archaeology

This article offers career advice for students and early career practitioners in archaeology. It presents new data from a global survey on success strategies for careers in archaeology. The topics covered include fieldwork and laboratory experience, volunteering, publication, peer reviews, referees, conferences, international exposure, and grant writing. Of particular note is the relative value that archaeologists place on publication outputs that will nurture a career versus those that have long-term value for the discipline. This speaks to long- and short-term strategies in career building. By making explicit values and practices that are normalized by dominant groups and revealing structuring principles that underlie success in archaeology, this article fills a gap in research on the impact of colonialism on the employment of minority groups in archaeology.

John Beach Rinaldo: Quintessential Culture Historian

During an archaeological career that spanned four decades, John Beach Rinaldo (1912-1999) made substantive contributions to the delineation and definition of the Mogollon Culture, the culture history of west-central New Mexico and east-central Arizona, and the identification of material relationships between precolumbian cultures and modern-day Zuni. For a variety of reasons, Rinaldo is overshadowed by his Field Museum collaborator Paul Sidney Martin. As a result, historians of archaeology have failed to critically evaluate Rinaldo's career and contributions. This paper offers a controlled analysis and comparison of data in unpublished archives, artifact collections at the Field Museum, and the published record to illuminate previously unrecognized but important aspects of Rinaldo's many contributions to archaeological knowledge, method, and theory.

The Individuals Behind Contemporary Archaeology

Director of the Institute of Archaeology from 1989 until 1996 who had supported the very first PIA journal, passed away. In the journal’s first editorial, Harris (1990) spoke of research activity that reaches the archaeological community ‘by diverse and sometimes obscure routes, or not at all’ and how ‘more frequently the “best bits” find their way into scholarly journals’ but that much research remains unknown to colleagues around the world. The PIA was set up as a vehicle to disseminate the ‘breadth of research’ taking place as well as the ‘vigour and range of current research’ that may not find routes, or have the means necessary, to reach wider audiences. The PIA continues to run and each year publishes a journal, through the dedication of volunteers, in hope that it continues to provide a helpful platform for the up-andcoming archaeologist to publish their hard work as they pursue their career in archaeology. We hope to encourage less established researchers to get their work out to interested colleagues around the world, to grow with the help of constructive criticism and feedback that challenge their ideas, and help them to form stronger ones. There are many challenges faced by archaeologists in these changing times. We hear about them often, through the anecdotes of previous generations and the battles they fought; or through emerging research on profiling the profession, with statistics to support it. However, our young profession is transforming so rapidly that although old challenges may remain, different challenges have emerged, which are very real, but also obscure. These new concerns are spoken of in whispers and anecdotes on department steps or behind the vapours of a pint, or lost within the twittering ramblings of informal rants on social media. A few of these concerns are raised here in this journal, if not directly, then indirectly in their own obscure way. They include issues such as mental and physical health, low pay, hierarchical structures, exploitation, and glass ceilings. We have yet to address, let alone quantify, these issues and the personal impact they may have on individuals, and indeed, the discipline itself. However, lack of quantification should not suggest these matters are irrelevant: statistics are often used in ways akin to a drunkard with a street pole for support, but not illumination. It is my hope that this volume illuminates some of the underlying messages, in their various guises, of the challenges that a new generation in contemporary archaeology face. Before I introduce the volume, I would like – as ever – to give my unwavering respect and gratitude to the countless peer-reviewers who have gone out and beyond to produce very concise and constructive comments for each of these papers. There is no doubt that EDITORIAL

Under-Representation in Contemporary Archaeology

many forms: it can relate to gender and ethnic diversity, but it can also refer to different types of archaeology, such as academic versus contract, general versus specialist, or to types of research theme, such as ‘big issues’ versus more detailed studies. Issues of under-representation, in various guises, have taxed me through my career in archaeology. That career began as a female, prehistoric ceramics specialist working in UK Contract Archaeology, followed by various university teaching and/or research posts. With a knowledge of both commercial and academic archaeological employment contexts and traditions of enquiry, it seems to me that UK frameworks of archaeological employment, study and research remain retrograde in failing to evenly support the working lives of all archaeologists in equal ways. The spectrums of expertise and research frameworks that archaeology can potentially encompass are not all equally facilitated. Quite simply some approaches, styles of archaeology and skills tend to be more highly valued than others. Dominant modes of research and interpretative frameworks, be they choices of individuals, or relating to projects or institutional traditions, have some role in influencing what is traditionally supported by academic, grant-giving and professional structures. It is important to assess the extent to which such structures have differentially privileged specific forms of research and career trajectories. There has been a tendency to create binary oppositions such as between what might be characterised as focused, ‘big issue’ research that speedily accretes a clear trajectory and perhaps a career of diverse, albeit possibly complimentary pathways, which moves at a more patchy pace. Differing approaches should not be in competition with each other. Questioning prevailing assumptions and maintaining multiple perspectives should both sustain more diverse and nuanced career trajectories and be more accommodating of personal circumstances, diversity of skills, and different ways of ‘doing things’. Likewise, the co-existence of multiple interpretative strands and work traditions maximises the skills and situations of all contributors to archaeology and leads to a richer understanding of the human pasts that they are engaged in understanding. I would hope that these statements are self-evident, but such an ethos necessitates more than just ‘letting things be’. It requires alertness to what and who is underrepresented in the working structures, foci and interpretative frameworks of contemporary archaeology. It aims for a greater richness and diversity in practicing archaeology and in accommodating what archaeology can do. This is the basis of what is briefly touched upon below using only some selected areas of concern. I Forum

Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities by Sonya Atalay (review)

Reviewed by: Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities by Sonya Atalay Holly Cusack-McVeigh Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. By Sonya Atalay. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. xiv + 312 pp. Maps, tables, photographs, bibliography, index. $70.00 cloth, $29.95 paper. Community-Based Archaeology lays a foundation for future anthropological and archaeological research, and thus should be required reading for any student considering a career in archaeology or cultural anthropology. In fact, it may serve as a model for tribal communities, people in museology, academicians, and those in other natural and social sciences. Sonya Atalay clearly articulates the basic principles of community-based participatory research (cbpr), which, she argues, must be “done with, by, and for communities” (x). Atalay calls for a new kind of archaeological research based on genuine collaboration with the local community. This method, while often a longer process, will result [End Page 214] in research that is more accessible and sustainable. We know that for far too long, indigenous communities have seen researchers come into their communities, conduct their research, and then “take” their findings away. While the author acknowledges a history of tension, she urges us to find ways to combine indigenous systems of knowledge with Western scientific approaches. Some scholars have referred to this as the decolonization of older methodologies, but it shouldn’t be interpreted as a rejection of Western scientific theory. Instead, the author argues, we should approach our research questions and select our methodologies around community interests, concerns, and priorities. While this is admittedly complex, she reminds readers that these “palpable tensions exist alongside exciting possibilities” (9). The first several chapters are dedicated to an in-depth discussion of how community-based participatory research differs from traditional approaches to archaeological research. Drawing on the earlier work of several scholars, Atalay asks us to consider the relevance of our research beyond an academic audience. She urges her readers to think carefully about the process of collaboration and to position our analysis of community-based projects as existing on a continuum. She highlights several collaborative archaeological projects that have successfully embraced this approach, including five community-based archaeology projects that she participated in. One such case study highlights the research projects that Atalay has conducted with and for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe of Michigan’s Ziibiwing Center of Anishinaabe Culture and Lifeways. Her candid discussion includes those tensions that exist as we explore this new way of conducting research. Other excellent examples of this community-based methodology in action include the work Atalay has conducted at the Waapaahsiiki Siipiiwi site in Indiana and the site of Çatalhöyükh in south-central Turkey. Atalay’s observations are both theoretical and practical. In addition to its rich descriptive examples of community-based research, Community-Based Archaeology is filled with concrete examples of how researchers might best connect with community research partners in lasting, innovative ways. Sustainable projects entail not only new ways of creating a research design but also new ways of gathering and sharing our data. Ultimately, the author concludes that, while relatively new, community-based participatory research will yield mutual benefits for partners who engage in a truly collaborative approach. This is archaeology that matters, and, as she has set out to do, this will prove to be “the work of a good ancestor.” Holly Cusack-McVeigh Anthropology and Museum Studies Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis Copyright © 2014 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln