Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 570–587 | Cite as

Crossing a Threshold: Collaborative Archaeology in Global Dialogue

  • Alison WylieEmail author
Research
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

If collaborative archaeology is crossing a threshold, as several contributors to this special issue attest, nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the kinds of critical scrutiny it is attracting from those who are sceptical about its aims, its ethical/political integrity and its practical efficacy. There is a striking difference between the overtly hostile critiques that early advocates of collaborative practice faced and the kinds of challenges they now address. Rather than anxiety that community-based collaborations pose an existential threat to archaeology as a discipline, current critics object that they have failed to make any significant break with a conservative status quo and the extractive modes of inquiry it perpetuates. I trace the trajectory of critical responses to collaborative archaeology since the early 1990s and use this as a frame for thinking with contributors about the nature of the threshold marked by this special issue.

Key Words

Collaborative research Critical archaeology Indigenous archaeology Politics of archaeology 

Résumé

Si l’archéologie collaborative aborde une nouvelle phase ainsi qu’en attestent plusieurs contributeurs à cette édition spéciale, ceci n’est nulle part ailleurs plus clairement évident que dans les types d’examen critique qu’elle suscite de la part de ceux affichant leur scepticisme quant à ses objectifs, son intégrité éthique/politique ainsi que son efficacité pratique. Il y a une différence frappante entre les critiques ouvertement hostiles auxquelles les premiers soutiens favorables à une pratique collaborative ont été confrontés et les types de défis qu’ils doivent aujourd’hui relever. Plutôt que l’expression d’une anxiété quant au fait que les collaborations communautaires puissent représenter une menace existentielle pour l’archéologie en tant que discipline, l’argument des critiques actuelles est qu’elles ont échoué à se démarquer de manière significative d’un statu quo conservateur et des méthodes extractives de recherche qu’il perpétue. Je m’attache à reconstituer la trajectoire des réactions critiques à l’archéologie collaborative depuis le début des années 1990 et je l’utilise avec des contributeurs comme un cadre de réflexion portant sur la nature de cette évolution soulignée par cette édition spéciale.

Resumen

Si la arqueología colaborativa está cruzando un umbral, como atestiguan varios contribuidores a este número especial, en ninguna parte queda más evidente que en la clase de escrutinio que atrae de los que son escépticos en cuanto a sus propósitos, su integridad ética/política y su eficacia práctica. Existe una diferencia notable entre las críticas abiertamente hostiles que enfrentaban los primeros promotores de la práctica colaborativa y los desafíos que abordan ahora. En vez del temor de que las colaboraciones basadas en la comunidad representen una amenaza existencial a la arqueología como disciplina, los críticos actuales plantean la objeción de que no han podido realizar una ruptura significativa con el orden conservador establecido y los modos de investigación extractivas perpetuados por ese orden. Sigo la trayectoria de las respuestas críticas a la arqueología colaborativa a partir de inicios de los años 1990 y utilizo esto como marco para pensar, junto con los contribuidores, acerca de la naturaleza del umbral marcado por este número especial.

Notes

References

  1. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atalay, S. (2019). Can archaeology help decolonize the way institutions think? How community-based research is transforming the archaeology training toolbox and helping to transform institutions. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09383-6.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, J. (2017). Narrative possibility and narrative explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,62, 31–41.Google Scholar
  4. Boghossian, P. (2006). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Britt, K. M. (2019). Collaborating on the federal level: Moving beyond mandated consultation in the section 106 process. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09381-8.Google Scholar
  6. Chesson, M. S., Ullah, I. I. T., Iiriti, G., Forbes, H., Lazrus, P. K., Ames, N., et al. (2019). Archaeology as intellectual service: Engaged archaeology in San Pasquale Valley, Calabria, Italy. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09376-5.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, B. J. (2019). Collaborative archaeology as heritage process. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09375-6.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, B. J., & Horning, A. (2019). Introduction to a global dialogue on collaborative archaeology. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09373-8.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, G. A. (1998). NAGPRA and the Demon-Haunted world. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin,16(5), 1–9.Google Scholar
  10. Colwell, C. (2016). Collaborative archaeologies and descendant communities. Annual Review of Anthropology,45, 113–127.Google Scholar
  11. Colwell-Chanthaphohn, C., Ferguson, T. J., Lipert, D., McGuire, R. H., Nicholas, G. P., Watkins, J. E., et al. (2010). The premise and promise of indigenous archaeology. American Antiquity,75(2), 228–238.Google Scholar
  12. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., & Ferguson, T. J. (2008). The collaborative continuum. In C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh & T. J. Ferguson (Eds.), Collaboration in archaeological practice: Engaging descendant communities (pp. 1–32). Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  13. Croes, D. R. (2010). Courage and thoughtful scholarship = indigenous archaeology partnerships. American Antiquity,72(2), 211–216.Google Scholar
  14. Dongoske, K. E. (1995). Letter to the editor: Working together. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin,13(2), 7.Google Scholar
  15. Dring, K. S., Silliman, S. W., Gambrell, N., Sebastian, S., & Sidberry, R. S. (2019). Authoring and authority in Eastern Pequot community heritage and archaeology. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09377-4.Google Scholar
  16. Ferguson, T. J. (1996). Native Americans and the practice of archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology,25, 63–79.Google Scholar
  17. González-Ruibal, A. (2019). An archaeology of the contempoary era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. González-Ruibal, A., González, P. A., & Criado-Boado, F. (2018). Against reactionary populism: Towards a new public archaeology. Antiquity,92(362), 507–515.Google Scholar
  19. Greenberg, R. (2019). Wedded to privilege? Archaeology, academic capital, and critical public engagement. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09374-7.Google Scholar
  20. Horning, A. (2019). Collaboration, collaborators, and conflict: Archaeology and peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09378-3.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchings, R. M., & La Salle, M. (2016). Why archaeologists misrepresent their practice–A North American perspective. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology,2(2), 11–17.Google Scholar
  22. La Salle, M. (2010). Community collaboration and other good intentions. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress,6, 401–422.Google Scholar
  23. La Salle, M. (2014). The trouble with ‘co-‘. ICHT Bulletin 2014-2. Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada: Institute for Critical Heritage and Tourism. http://criticalheritagetourism.wordpress.com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2019.
  24. La Salle, M., & Hutchings, R. M. (2016). What makes us squirm: A response to community-oriented archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology,40(1), 164–180.Google Scholar
  25. La Salle, M., & Hutchings, R. M. (2018). What could be more responsible? Collaboration in Colonial Contexts. In A. M. Labrador & N. A. Silberman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public heritage theory and practice (pp. 223–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lorde, A. (1984). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In A. Lorde (Ed.), Sister outsider (pp. 110–113). Freedom: The Crossing Pressm.Google Scholar
  27. Martindale, A., & Lyons, N. (2014). Introduction: “Community-oriented archaeology”. Canadian Journal of Archaeology,38(2), 425–465.Google Scholar
  28. Martindale, A., Lyons, N., Nicholas, G., Angelbeck, B., Connaughton, S. P., Grier, C., et al. (2016). Archaeology as partnerships in practice: A reply to La Salle and Hutchings. Canadian Journal of Archaeology,40(1), 181–204.Google Scholar
  29. McGhee, R. (2008). Aboriginalism and the problems of indigenous archaeology. American Antiquity,73(4), 579–598.Google Scholar
  30. McGuire, R. H. (1992). Archaeology and the first Americans. American Anthropologist,94(4), 816–836.Google Scholar
  31. McGuire, R. H. (1995). Working together on the border. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin,13(5), 8–9.Google Scholar
  32. McGuire, R. H. (2008). Archaeology as political action. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Menzies, C. R., & Butler, C. F. (2019). Redefining university research enterprises: Partnership and collaboration in Laxyuup Gitxaała. In I. Bellier & J. Hays (Eds.), Scales of governance and indigenous peoples (pp. 267–281). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Mrozowski, S. A., & Rae Gould, D. (2019). Building histories that have futures: The benefits of collaborative research. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09379-2.Google Scholar
  35. Shakour, K., Kuijt, I., & Burke, T. (2019). Different roles, diverse goals: Understanding stakeholder and archaeologists positions in community-based projects. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09380-9.Google Scholar
  36. Silliman, S. W. (2010). The value and diversity of indigenous archaeology: A response to McGhee. American Antiquity,75(2), 217–220.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, C., Burke, H., Ralph, J., Pollard, K., Gorman, A., Wilson, C., et al. (2019). Pursuing social justice through collaborative archaeologies in Aboriginal Australia. Archaeologies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09382-7.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, M. E. (1997). Archaeology in the middle of political conflict in Yautepec, Mexico. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin,15(4), 23–27.Google Scholar
  39. Supernant, K., & Warrick, G. (2014). Challenges to critical community-based archaeological practice in Canada. Canadian Journal of Archaeology,38(2), 563–591.Google Scholar
  40. Swidler, N., Dongoske, K. E., Anyon, R., & Downer, A. S. (Eds.). (1997). Native Americans and archaeologists. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wilcox, M. (2010). Saving indigeous peoples from ourselves: Separate but equal archaeology is not scientific archaeology. American Antiquity,75(2), 221–227.Google Scholar
  42. Wylie, A. (2015). A plurality of pluralisms: Collaborative practice in archaeology. In F. Padovani, A. Richardson, & J. Y. Tsou (Eds.), Objectivity in science (pp. 189–210). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations