Advertisement

Essential Excavation Experts: Alienation and Agency in the History of Archaeological Labor

  • Allison MickelEmail author
Research

Abstract

Nineteenth-century archaeologists working in the Middle East managed local labor in ways that reflect capitalist labor management models. These archaeologists’ memoirs reveal both the similarities in how they managed their projects and the differences in how locally hired laborers responded. Focusing on such differences illustrates the agency that local workforces have historically exerted over the archaeological process, even under alienating working conditions. I argue that while there is some emerging recognition of contributions that local communities have made to archaeology, taking a Marxist and historical view reveals how much archaeological knowledge production has fundamentally relied upon site workers’ active choices.

Key Words

History of archaeology Labor Knowledge production Middle East 

Résumé

Les archéologues du 19e siècle qui travaillaient au Moyen-Orient géraient la main-d’œuvre locale selon les modèles capitalistes de l’époque. Les mémoires de ces derniers révèlent à la fois des similitudes dans leur façon de gérer leurs projets et des différences quant aux comportements des travailleurs embauchés sur place. Ces différences illustrent la capacité d’agir ou l’agentivité historique des mains-d’œuvre locales sur le processus archéologique, et ce, même si ces dernières étaient soumises à des conditions de travail aliénantes. J’avance que même si l’on commence à reconnaître les contributions des communautés locales sur l’archéologie, l’adoption de points de vue marxiste et historique révèle à quel point la production des connaissances archéologiques a fondamentalement dépendu des choix actifs des travailleurs sur place.

Resumen

Los arqueólogos que trabajaban en el Medio Oriente en el siglo 19 manejaban los asuntos laborales locales en formas que reflejan los modelos de gestión capitalista de trabajo. Las memorias de estos arqueólogos revelan tanto las similitudes en la forma en que gestionaban sus proyectos y las diferencias en la forma en que respondían los trabajadores contratados localmente. Al abordar tales diferencias, se ilustra la agencia que los trabajadores locales han ejercido históricamente sobre el proceso arqueológico, incluso bajo condiciones de trabajo alienante. Yo sostengo que, si bien ha surgido algún reconocimiento de las contribuciones de las comunidades locales a la arqueología, un punto de vista marxista e histórico revela el grado en que la producción del conocimiento arqueológico ha dependido fundamentalmente de las elecciones activas de los trabajadores de sitio.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ian Hodder, Barb Voss, Benjamin Porter, and Michael Shanks for their questions and thoughts on the topic of archaeological labor as I developed the ideas in this text. Their advice and feedback has pushed my own thinking about the matter much further, and I hope that they can see evidence of their contributions here. I am also grateful for the feedback and advice from the two anonymous reviewers for this piece. Any flaws or gaps, of course, remain my own.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abu El Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albright, W. F. 1954. The archaeology of Palestine (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Appiah, K. A. 2006. Whose culture is it? The New York Review of Books, 53(2), 38.Google Scholar
  4. Atalay, S., Clauss, L. R., McGuire, R. H., & Welch, J. R. (Eds.). 2010. Transforming archaeology: Activist prospects and practices. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bahrani, Z. 1998. Conjuring Mesopotamia: Imaginative geography and a world past. In L. Meskell (Ed.), Archaeology under fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (pp. 159–174). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Banaji, J. 2007. Islam, the Mediterranean, and the rise of capitalism. Historical Materialism, 15(1), 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baram, U. 2011. Community organizing in public archaeology: Coalitions for the preservation of a hidden history in Florida. Present Pasts, 3, 12–18.Google Scholar
  8. Belzoni, G. B. 2001. Narrative of the operations and recent discoveries within the pyramids, temples, tombs, and excavations, in Egypt and Nubia (A. Silotti, Ed., R. Pierce, Trans.). London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berggren, Å., & Hodder, I. 2003. Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernbeck, R., & Pollock, S. 2004. The political economy of archaeological practice and the production of heritage in the Middle East. In L. Meskell & R. W. Preucel (Eds.), A companion to social archaeology (pp. 335–352). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brodie, N., & Luke, C. 2006. Conclusion: The social and cultural contexts of looting. In N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, & K. W. Tubb (Eds.), Archaeology, cultural heritage, and the antiquities trade (pp. 303–319). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brugsch, E., & Maspero, G. 1881. La Trouvaille De Deir-El-Bahari. Cairo: Imprimerie F. Mourès.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, D. 1991. Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management. History and Anthropology, 5(2), 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceram, C. W. 1968. Gods, graves, and scholars: The story of archaeology (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  16. Coates, D. 2000. Models of capitalism: Growth and stagnation in the modern era. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Colla, E. 2007. Conflicted antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian modernity. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawdy, S. L. 2009. Millennial archaeology: Locating the discipline in an age of insecurity. Archaeological Dialogues, 16(2), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawson, W. R. 1995. Who was who in Egyptology (3rd ed.). London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
  20. Doyon, W. 2014. On archaeological labor in Modern Egypt. In W. Carruthers (Ed.), Histories of Egyptology: Interdisciplinary measures (pp. 141–156). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Drucker, P. 1954. The practice of management. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Dyson, S. L. 2006. In pursuit of ancient pasts: A history of classical archaeology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Everill, P. 2009. The invisible diggers: A study of British commercial archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  24. Fagan, B. 2004. The rape of the Nile: Tomb robbers, tourists, and archaeologists in Egypt, revised and updated (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  25. Foner, E. 2002. Who owns history? Rethinking the past in a changing world. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  26. Friedkin, W. 1973. The Exorcist, produced by William Peter Blatty. Warner Bros: Motion Picture.Google Scholar
  27. Friedmann, G. 1964. Industrial society: The emergence of human problems of automation. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fulcher, J. 1995. British capitalism in the 1980s: Old times or new times? The British Journal of Sociology, 46(2), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. García, M. D.-A. 2007. A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology: Nationalism, colonialism, and the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gillot, L. 2010. Towards a socio-political history of archaeology in the Middle East: The development of archaeological practice and its impacts on local communities in Syria. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 20(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goode, J. F. 2007. Negotiating for the past: Archaeology, nationalism, and diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919–1941. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gramsch, A., & Sommer, U. (Eds.). 2011. A history of central European archaeology: Theory, methods, and politics., Archaeolingua series minor 30 Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The nation and its ruins: Antiquity, archaeology, and national imagination in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hamilakis, Y. 2015. Archaeology and the logic of capital: Pulling the emergency break. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(4), 721–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamilakis, Y., & Duke, P. (Eds.). 2007. Archaeology and capitalism: From ethics to politics. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  37. Holtorf, C. 2007. Archaeology is a brand!: The meaning of archaeology in contemporary popular culture. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hume, I. N. 2011. Belzoni: The giant archaeologists love to hate. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  39. James, P., & Gills, B. (Eds.). 2006. Globalization and economy (Vol. 1). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Kehoe, A. B. 1998. The land of prehistory: A critical history of American archaeology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Kersel, M. M., Luke, C., & Roosevelt, C. H. 2008. Valuing the past: Perceptions of archaeological practice in Lydia and the Levant. Journal of Social Archaeology, 8(3), 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Killebrew, A. 2010. Who owns the past? The role of nationalism, politics, and profit in presenting Israel’s archaeological sites to the public. In R. Boytner, L. S. Dodd, & B. J. Parker (Eds.), Controlling the past, owning the future: The political uses of archaeology in the Middle East (pp. 123–141). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kletter, R. 2006. Just past? The making of Israeli archaeology. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  44. Kuklick, B. 1996. Puritans in Babylon: The ancient near East and American intellectual life, 1880–1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lance, H. D. 1981. The old testament and the archaeologist. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  46. Larsen, M. T. 1996. The conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an antique land 1840–1869. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Layard, A. H. 1849. Nineveh and its remains. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  48. Levy, T. E., Michèle Daviau, P. M., Younker, R. W., & Shaer, M. 2007. Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the archaeology of Jordan. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  49. Lipietz, A. 1982. Towards global fordism? New Left Review, 132, 33–48.Google Scholar
  50. Littler, C. R. 1978. Understanding taylorism. British Journal of Sociology, 29(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lloyd, S. 1963. Mounds of the near east. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lucas, G. 2001. Critical approaches to fieldwork: Contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maier, C. S. 1970. Between Taylorism and technocracy: European ideologies and the vision of industrial productivity in the 1920s. Journal of Contemporary History, 5(2), 27–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maisels, C. K. 1993. The near east: Archaeology in the ‘cradle of civilization’. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Majd, M. G. 2003. The great American plunder of Persia’s antiquities 1925–1941. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  56. Marx, K. 1887. Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1, S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.). Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Marx, K. 2012 [1844]. Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Mineola: Courier Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Meryon, C. L. 1846. Travels of Lady Hester Stanhope, forming the completion of her memoirs, narrated by her physician. London: Henry Colburn.Google Scholar
  59. Paynter, R. 1983. Field or factory?: Concerning the degradation of archaeological labor. In J. M. Gero, D. M. Lacy, & M. L. Blakey (Eds.), The socio-politics of archaeology (pp. 31–50). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  60. Petrie, W. M. F. 1904. Methods and aims in archaeology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  61. Pollock, S. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pollock, S. 2010. Decolonizing archaeology: Political economy and archaeological practice in the Middle East. In R. Boytner, L. S. Dodd, & B. J. Parker (Eds.), Controlling the past, owning the future: The political uses of archaeology in the Middle East (pp. 196–216). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  63. Quirke, S. 2010. Hidden hands: Egyptian workforces in petrie excavation archives 1880–1924. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  64. Rassam, H. 1897. Asshur and the land of Nimrod. Cincinnati: Curts & Jennings.Google Scholar
  65. Reid, D. M. 1985. Indigenous egyptology: The decolonization of a profession? Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105(2), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reid, D. M. 2002. Whose pharaohs?: Archaeology, museums, and Egyptian national identity from Napoleon to World War I. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  67. Reisner, G. A., Fisher, C. S., & Lyon, D. G. 1924. Harvard excavations at Samaria. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sabel, C. F. 1982. Work and politics: The division of labour in industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schlanger, N., & Nordbladh, J. 2008. Archives, ancestors, practices: Archaeology in the light of its history. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  70. Shanks, M., & McGuire, R. H. 1996. The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity, 61(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Silberman, N. A. 1982. Digging for God and country: Exploration, archeology, and the secret struggle for the holy land, 1799–1917. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  72. Silberman, N. A. 1989. Between past and present: Archaeology, ideology, and nationalism in the modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  73. Silberman, N. A. 1995. Promised lands and chosen peoples: The politics and poetics of archaeological narrative. In P. Kohl & C. Fawcett (Eds.), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology (pp. 249–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Steele, C. 2005. Who has not eaten cherries with the devil? Archaeology under challenge. In R. Bernbeck & S. Pollock (Eds.), Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical perspectives (pp. 45–65). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Stiebing, W. H., Jr. 1994. Uncovering the past: A history of archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tolliday, S., & Zeitlin, J. 2003. Between Fordism and flexibility: The automobile industry and its workers—Past, present, and future. In J. C. Wood & M. Wood (Eds.), Henry Ford: Critical evaluations in business and management (pp. 226–251). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Trigger, B. 2007. A history of archaeological thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Wylie, A. 2002. Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology & AnthropologyLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations