Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Claire Smith

Local Discourses in Archaeology

  • Kathryn H. Deeley
  • Beth Pruitt
  • Benjamin A. Skolnik
  • Mark P. Leone
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1556

Introduction

Archaeologists generally accept that they cannot leave their work to be used only by academics alone (e.g., Jeppson 1997; Little & Shackel 2007). Archaeologists also understand that there is a community outside of archaeology that has a vested interest in the outcomes of archaeological endeavors (e.g., La Roche & Blakey 1997; McDavid 1997, 2011; Leone et al. 2011). Many historical archaeologists support a responsibility to the public to meet their needs by explaining what they say about the sites and people being investigated (Edwards-Ingram 1997; Jeppson 1997). The difficulty, as an archaeologist, is developing a means to reach out to this community effectively. It may not be an easy task to identify this community and to draw the line between who is a part of it and who is not. Archaeologists engaging with stakeholders, which is how we define local discourses, consider these issues as they develop research designs for their projects.

Archaeology in Annapolis (AiA) has...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. African Burial Ground. 2007. Available at: http://www.africanburialground.gov/ABG_Main.htm (accessed 27 September 2011).
  2. Agar, M. 2005. Local discourse and global research: the role of local knowledge. Language in Society 34: 1-22.Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, J.C. 2008. Disparate diasporas and vindicationist archaeologies: some comments on excavating America’s metaphor. Historical Archaeology 42(2): 147-52.Google Scholar
  4. Dakroury A. & W.F. Birdsall. 2008. Blogs and the right to communicate: towards creating a space-less public sphere? in IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society. Proceedings ISTAS ’08 - Citizens, Groups, Communities and Information and Communication Technologies: 1-8. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=4558058.
  5. Edwards-Ingram, Y. 1997. Towards “true acts of inclusion”: the “here” and the “out there” concepts in public archaeology. Historical Archaeology 31(3): 27-35.Google Scholar
  6. Foucault, M. 1969 (2002). The archaeology of knowledge. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. 1981. The theory of communicative action, Volume 1, in Reason and the rationalization of society: 273-337. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jeppson, P.L. 1997. “Leveling the playing field” in the contested territory of South African past: a “public” versus a “people’s” form of historical archaeology outreach. Historical Archaeology 31(3): 65-82.Google Scholar
  9. La Roche, C.J. & M.L. Blakey. 1997. Seizing intellectual power: the dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Historical Archaeology 31(3): 84-106.Google Scholar
  10. Leone, M., J. Knauf & A. Tang. 2011. Frederick Douglass and the archaeology of Wye House. AnthroNotes: Museum of Natural History Publication for Educators 32(1): 15-18.Google Scholar
  11. Little, B.J. & P.A. Shackel. (ed.) 2007. Archaeology as a tool of civic engagement. Lanham (MD): AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  12. McDavid, C. 1997. Descendants, decisions, and power: the public interpretation of archaeology at the Levi Jordan Plantation. Historical Archaeology 31(3): 114-31.Google Scholar
  13. - 2004. From “traditional” archaeology to public archaeology to community action: The Levi Jordan Plantation project, in P.A. Shackel & E. J. Chambers (ed.) Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology: 35-56. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. - 2011. From “public archaeologist” to “public intellectual”: seeking engagement opportunities outside traditional archaeological arenas. Historical Archaeology 45(1): 24-32.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Blakey, M. 1998. The New York African Burial Ground project: an examination of enslaved lives, a construction of ancestral ties. Transforming Anthropology 7(1): 53-8.Google Scholar
  2. Gadsby, D.A. & R.C. Chidester. 2011. Heritage and “those people”: representing working-class interests through Hampden’s archaeology. Historical Archaeology 45(1): 101- 13.Google Scholar
  3. Jopling, H. 2008. Making a way out of no way: relations between Blacks and Whites in Annapolis, Maryland, from 1902 to 1952, Volume I. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
  4. Little, B.J. 2002. Public benefits of archaeology. Gainesville (FL): University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Patten, M.D. 1997. Cheers of protest? The public, the post, and the parable of learning. Historical Archaeology 31(3): 132-39.Google Scholar
  6. Praetzellis, M. & A. Praetzellis. 2011. Cultural resource management archaeology and heritage values. Historical Archaeology 45(1): 86-100.Google Scholar
  7. Potter, P.B., Jr. 1992. Critical archaeology: in the ground and on the street. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 117-29.Google Scholar
  8. Shackel, P.A. 2011. Pursing heritage, engaging communities. Historical Archaeology 45(1): 1-9.Google Scholar
  9. Silverman, H. 2011. Epilogue: perspectives on community archaeology. Historical Archaeology 45(1): 152-66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn H. Deeley
    • 1
  • Beth Pruitt
    • 1
  • Benjamin A. Skolnik
    • 1
  • Mark P. Leone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA