Abstract
The major challenge of our generation is breaking down global divides, especially as these relate to inequities of wealth, power, and access to knowledge. Related to this is the impact of globalization on cultural diversity. Using the example of the World Archaeological Congress as a case study, this paper explores how scholarly organizations can impact upon, and be impacted by, these divides. This study identifies measures that narrow the gap between richer and poorer and which enhance global diversity, as well as measures that act in a converse direction. Finally, this paper identifies challenges for the future of archaeology that arise from this discussion.
Résumé
Le grand défi de notre génération est de faire disparaitre les fractures mondiales, notamment dans la mesure où elles se rapportent à des inégalités de richesse, de pouvoir et d’accès aux connaissances. Il faut ajouter à cela les conséquences de la mondialisation sur la diversité culturelle. À l’aide de l’exemple du Congrès archéologique mondial comme étude de cas, le présent article examine comment les organismes de recherche universitaire peuvent jouer un rôle dans ces fractures et être touchés par elles. Cette étude identifie les mesures qui réduisent l’écart entre les riches et les pauvres et qui améliorent la diversité mondiale, ainsi que les mesures qui agissent en sens inverse. Enfin, cet article identifie les défis pour l’avenir de l’archéologie qui découlent de cette discussion.
Resumen
El principal desafío de nuestra generación es derribar las divisiones mundiales, especialmente cuando se refieren a desigualdades de riqueza, poder y acceso al conocimiento. Relacionado con esto está el impacto de la globalización sobre la diversidad cultural. Utilizando el ejemplo del Congreso Arqueológico Mundial como un estudio de caso, el presente documento explora cómo las organizaciones académicas pueden influir en, o verse influidas por, estas divisiones. El presente estudio identifica medidas que reducen la brecha entre los más ricos y los más pobres y que aumentan la diversidad global, así como también medidas que actúan en dirección contraria. Finalmente, el presente documento identifica los desafíos para el futuro de la arqueología que surgen de este debate.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barrabi, T. 2015. Read Charlie Hebdo’s New Issue Online, Right Now (in French). International Business Times. http://www.ibtimes.com/read-charlie-hebdos-new-issue-online-right-now-french-1783426. Accessed 24 February 2015.
Bradshaw, E., K. Bryant, T. Cohen, D. Brereton, J. Kim, K. Gillespie, and I. Lilley 2011. Why Cultural Heritage Matters. A Resource Guide for Integrating Cultural Heritage Management into Communities Work at Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto, Melbourne.
Foloruso, C. A. 2012. Putting the Records Straight: What is up with WAC? Archaeologies 8(2):188–195.
Golson, J. 1995. What Went Wrong with WAC-3 and an Attempt to Understand Why. Australian Archaeology 41:48–54.
Haber, A., and H. Burke 2004. Worlds of Archaeology. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015
Hodder, I. (2004) Theory and Practice in Archaeology, RoutledgeLondon.,
Hollowell, J., Herrera, A. 2012. “Terms of Engagement”, A WAC Drama in Multiple Acts and Scenes: Acts Three Through Five and a Call for Public Discussion. Archaeologies 8(1):18–40.
Ireland, T., Gnecco, C. (2014) Ethical Archaeologies. The Politics of Social Justice, SpringerNew York.,
Johnson, M. (2010) Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, BlackwellOxford.,
Khomani, N., and L. Erikson 2015. Copenhagen Attacks: What we Know so Far. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/15/copenhagen-shootings-timeline-of-events. Accessed 24 February 2015
Lorenz, E. N. 1969. Three Approaches to Atmospheric Predictability. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 50:345–349.
Ollman, B. 2014. Historical Studies, Dialectical Marxism and “C.F.U.G Studies”. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 18(2):361–373.
Rooney, A., C. Smith, and J. Ralph 2013. Getting WAC-7 Online. http://www.pozible.com/project/12860/88609. Accessed 15 March 2015
Sands, A. 2012. Scholarly Publication and WAC: The Need for a Critical Response. Archaeologies 8(1):12–17.
Shaheen K. 2015. ISIS Fighters Destroy Ancient Artefacts at Mosul Museum. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq. Accessed 23 March 2015
Shepherd, N., Haber, A. 2011. What’s up with WAC? Archaeology and Engagement in a Globalised World. Public Archaeology 11(3):96–115.
Shepherd, N., Haber, A. 2012. Counter-Practices of Global Life: A Response to Claire Smith. Public Archaeology 10(2):144–150.
Smith, C. 2003. Outlook for the World Archaeological Congress. Antiquity. http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/wac5297/smith.html. Accessed 15 March 2015
Smith, C. 2006. Executive News. World Archaeological Congress E-Newsletter. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/publications/e-newsletters. Accessed 15 March 2015
Smith, C. 2011. Errors of Fact and Errors of Representation: Response to Shepherd and Haber’s Critique of the World Archaeological Congress. Public Archaeology 10(4):224–235.
Smith, C. 2012. Von Nutzen und Risiken einer Kritischen Archäologie (The Benefits and Risks of Critical Archaeology). Electronic Journal Forum Kritische Archäologie. http://www.kritischearchaeologie.de/fka/article/view/13. Accessed 22 March 2015
Stone, P. (2006) ‘All Smoke and Mirrors’: The World Archaeological Congress, 1986–2004. In A Future for Archaeology: The Past in the Presentpp. 53–64, edited by R Layton, S Shennanand P Stone, UCL PressLondon.,
Ucko, P. (1987) Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of the World Archaeological Congress, DuckworthLondon.,
World Archaeological Congress 1989. Vermillion Accord on Human Remains. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015
World Archaeological Congress. 1990. Statutes. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015
World Archaeological Congress. 1991. First Code of Ethics. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015
World Archaeological Congress. 2009. Guidelines for Preparing a Proposal for a World Archaeological Congress Inter-Congress. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015
World Archaeological Congress. 2012. Guidelines for a Bid to Host WAC Congresses. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015
Acknowledgments
I thank all the people who worked with me in WAC, mentors, peers, students, and critics. I thank my colleagues at Flinders University who supported my participation in WAC over a period of 10 years, at times to their own detriment. Photos for this article were kindly provided by María Florencia Becerra, Gabriel Cooney, Joan Gero, Eleanor Jenkins, Stephen Loring, Caroline Phillips, Gustavo Politis, and Peter Stone. While a range of people commented on the sections of this paper that were pertinent to them, only Gary Jackson and Heather Burke provided comments on the full draft. I thank them both. Any mistakes—error, judgement, or omission—are solely my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, C. Global Divides and Cultural Diversity: Challenges for the World Archaeological Congress. Arch 11, 4–41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-015-9267-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-015-9267-x