Community archaeology explained

Community archaeology is archaeology by the people for the people. The field is also known as public archaeology. There is debate about whether the terms are interchangeable; some believe that community archaeology is but one form of public archaeology, which can include many other modes of practice, in addition to what is described here.^[1] The design, goals, involved communities, and methods in community archaeology projects vary greatly, but there are two general aspects found in all community archaeology projects. First, community archaeology involves communities "in the planning and carrying out of research projects that are of direct interest to them".^[2] Second, community archaeologists generally believe they are making an altruistic difference. Many scholars on the subject have argued that community collaboration does not have a pre-set method to follow.^[3] Although not found in every project, there are a number of recurring purposes and goals in community archaeology. Similarities are also found in different countries and regions—due to commonalities in archaeological communities, laws, institutions, and types of communities. It has also been suggested that public archaeology can be defined in a broad sense as the production and consumption of archaeological "commodities".^[4]

Community archaeology by country

Community archaeology in the United States

In the United States community archaeology can broadly be separated into three distinct types: projects that collaborate with indigenous peoples, projects that collaborate with other local and descendant communities, and outreach specifically for public education.

Indigenous peoples

Archaeologists have a long history of excavating indigenous sites without consulting or collaborating with indigenous peoples. Points of tension include, but are not limited to, the excavation and collection of human remains, the destruction and collections of sacred sites and objects, and archaeological interpretations that ignored or contradicted the opinions and beliefs of indigenous peoples.^[5] Even the so-called ‘father of American archaeology’ Thomas Jefferson excavated adults and sub-adults from a site still visited by indigenous people^[6] and Pilgrims plundered an indigenous grave days after anchoring at Cape Cod.^[7] Indeed, "American Indians tend to equate archaeologists with pothunters, grave looters, or, even worse, animals who feast off of the dead (i.e., the 'Vulture Culture'). Most do not trust the system supposedly designed to protect their heritage."^[8] Also, any prehistoric archaeological excavation in the Americas will involve the material products left by the ancestors of indigenous peoples of the Americas. For these reasons, community archaeology projects with both federally and non-federally recognized indigenous peoples are different from those that collaborate with local and other descent communities. Some have found that collaboration can be a means to "break down barriers" between American Indians and archaeologists, and that in collaboration "[e]ach side learns something from the other."^[9] There are many unique ways archaeological collaboration can benefit indigenous peoples. Kerber reports that:

. . . archaeology benefits American Indians and First People of Canada, respectively, by contributing important historical information; assisting in land claims; managing cultural resources and burial for protection from current and future impacts; promoting sovereignty; offering employment opportunities through field work, interpretive centers, and tourism; educating the young; aiding in nation (re-)building and self-discovery; demonstrating innovative responses of past groups to changing environmental and social circumstance; and providing populations themselves with skills and experience in doing archaeology. Clearly, collaborative archaeology is not a panacea for the difficulties facing indigenous groups, but in certain situations . . . it can be a powerful tool^[10]

Dean and Perrelli have noted that collaboration with indigenous peoples is only new "from the perspective of the dominant culture"^[11] and that "American Indian people have been cooperating and collaborating with their neighbors and visitors for hundreds of years."^[12] Some have argued that archaeologists should attempt to collaborate and repatriate materials to non-federally recognized tribes in addition to federally recognized ones.^[13] Blume has contended that when collaborating with indigenous peoples, projects should design "forms of public outreach specifically for" those audiences.^[14] Many recognized and non-recognized tribes have explicitly asked archaeologists for consolation and collaboration.^[15] Two particularly well known examples of indigenous collaboration are Janet Spector's book What does this Awl Mean and the Ozette Indian Village Archeological Site.^[16] Collaborations have occurred throughout the United States, including with indigenous peoples in Alaska.^[17] Many tribes have also begun hiring full-time tribal archaeologists.

Local and descendant communities

Many other community archaeology projects occur in the United States aside from those with indigenous peoples of the Americas. These projects focus on local communities, descendant communities, and descendant diasporas.^[18] A goal of some of these projects has been to recover and publicly present forgotten aspects of the race relations in local communities—such as histories of slavery and segregation.^[19]

Public education

As a form of public outreach and collaboration, many archaeology projects in the United States have taken steps to present their work in schools and to children. These projects vary from a "one time" presentation to local schools, to long-term commitments in which public education is an intricate part of the research design.^[20]

Community archaeology in the United Kingdom

History

Community archaeology in the United Kingdom has existed for many years, although only recently has it come to be known by that name. The roots of archaeology in the United Kingdom lie in the tradition of antiquarian and amateur work,^[21] and many county or locally based archaeology and history societies founded over a century ago have continued to enable the involvement of local people in archaeology. Up until the 1970s volunteers often had opportunities to initiate or take part in archaeological investigations. Since then the recognition that more investigations were required by the subsequent establishment of archaeological units eroded some of these opportunities; more significantly the introduction of archaeology to the legalities of the planning process through Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PPG16) and the full professionalization of archaeology, has made public participation in archaeology extremely limited.

Public participation

Archaeology (including historic buildings, landscapes and monuments, as well as ‘traditional’ archaeology) is about people and the discovery of the past. As a subject, archaeology in the United Kingdom has been increasingly brought into the public eye in recent years. The most common form of community archaeology in the United Kingdom has come from the grass roots level. Local groups are smaller than the large, county societies, and operate in their own area and at their own pace. The work produced is often of a high standard, reflecting the amount of time and effort local people are willing to put into local projects they themselves initiated. Increasingly, over the last two decades, public participation has been pushed aside by developer-led, commercial archaeology, with the bulk of work going to contracting units.^[22] The reasons behind this relate to the professionalization of the discipline and the implementation of PPG16, as discussed by Faulkner who proposed a return to community-led archaeology in his article entitled "Archaeology from below".^[23] A recent investigation carried out by the Council for British Archaeology^[24] identified the main perceived barriers to public participation, gave examples of good practice in encouraging public participation, and made several recommendations for future improvements. Its first recommendation was the establishment of full-time Community Archaeologist posts across the country, as it states, "such dedicated posts represent a very effective way of stimulating and guiding public participation at a local level."^[25] One of the longest running and most successful community archaeology projects is based in Leicestershire.^[26] Leicestershire County Council (which incorporates the museum service) established the project in 1976 and today they have 400 members within 20 local groups across the county. Peter Liddle (Keeper of Archaeology) is the Community Archaeologist and was probably the first to use the term ‘community archaeology’ as the title for his fieldworker's handbook.^[27]

The Valletta Convention

The Valletta Convention affects the work of non-official or amateur groups who have been, or are, investigating their local historic environment. The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) was signed in Valletta in 1992, and ratified by the UK government before coming into force on 21 March 2001.^[28] Article 3 of the document caused considerable debate as it stated that all archaeological work should be carried out by suitably qualified, authorized people.^[29] This form of ‘licensing’ for archaeologists already exists in the rest of Europe, where it has limited the work of voluntary archaeologists and local societies.

Community archaeology in Australia

Australian Archaeology has a long history of community archaeology, with established disciplines and laws.^[30] In her review of community archaeology, Marshall found that there is an "antipodean dominance" in field community archaeology, suggesting that Australian community archaeology may be more established as a discipline than in other countries.^[31] This is reflected in anthologies on community archaeology in Harrison and Williamson^[32] and Sarah Colley.^[33] Generally Australian community archaeology projects have involved collaboration between archaeologists and aboriginal tribes similar to archaeologists in the United States collaborate with American Indians.^[34]

Community archaeology outside of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia

Hundreds, if not thousands, of community archaeology projects have occurred throughout the world—including in Brazil,^[35] Canada,^[36] Egypt,^[37] Mexico,^[38] the People's Republic of Bangladesh,^[39] South Africa,^[40] Thailand (Praicharnjit 2006, www.archaeopen.com) and Turkey.^[41] Wikipedia would greatly appreciate if scholars, students, or members of communities affiliated with Community Archaeology projects would contribute to this page.

Communities

Definitions

In a reduced sense, communities are aggregations of people that "are seldom, if ever, monocultural and are never of one mind."^[42] "For understanding the goals of community archaeology projects it is helpful to classify these communities into three broad and overlapping types. That is local communities, local descent communities, and non-local descent communities or diasporas."^[43]

Local communities and non-local descent communities

Descent communities are those ancestrally linked to a site. Descent communities located within proximity of the site are local descent communities, and non-local descent communities "are groups that are linked to a site, but that live in another location, potentially hundreds or even thousands of miles away."^[44] Archaeological collaborations with local descent communities include those that focus on proto-historic sites and collaborate with American Indians ancestrally linked to them, or plantation excavations that incorporate collaborations with the local ancestors of slaves who worked at the plantation.^[45] Examples of community projects involving non-local descent communities include those where archaeologists set up museums for non-locals to come and visit.^[46]

Non-descent local communities

Local communities are simply communities that live "either on or close to a site"^[47] and non-descent local communities are those not believed ancestrally related to the site. This category includes landowners, local volunteers, local organizations, and local stakeholders. Some feel that many of the major issues in community archaeology are applicable to non-local descent communities, and that these collaborations are crucial for archaeologists seeking to understand the local social context of their work.^[41]

Major issues

Decolonization of archaeology

Archaeology is a practice whose history is entrenched in colonialism, and many archaeologists and communities contend that archaeology has never escaped its colonial past.^[48] A major goal of many community archaeologists and community archaeology projects is to decolonize archaeology.^[49] In decolonizing archaeology, archaeologists are trying to give communities more control over every stage in the archaeological process. For example, some programs have begun attempting to bring Indigenous leaders together globally to discuss shared methods for decolonization through archaeological collaboration.^[50] Community archaeology, the sharing of archaeological knowledge, and the below major issues have been viewed as a crucial parts of decolonization.^[51] Publishing with open access licenses to enable anyone to read archaeological literature without financial barriers is another aspect of decolonization.^[52]

Self-reflexivity

Community archaeology can alleviate or prevent violence towards communities that archaeology may cause. Self-reflexivity in archaeology can be thought of as looking into a metaphorical mirror, and includes attempts to make explicitly make visible the violence—such as colonization—archaeology has been implicitly part of.^[53] Self-reflexivity in archaeology can be part of community presentation, as a means of breaking down imbalanced power dynamics between non-academic communities and archaeologists.^[54] Self-reflection amongst archaeologists—such as discussion with community members, writing field journals, and professional writings about self-reflection—can also be a means for identifying unethical and violent aspects of archaeological projects.^[55]

Public outreach

Public outreach, in archaeology, is a form of science outreach that attempts to present archaeological findings to non-archaeologists. Public outreach is usually a crucial aspect of most community archaeology projects.^[56] Public outreach can take many forms, from a onetime presentation to a local school to long-term agreements with local communities in developing intricate public outreach programs.^{[57] [41]} Many feel that archaeology and archaeological findings have been greatly distorted by the popular media and through western associations, and that public outreach is the only way non-archaeologists will be able to understand what archaeologists actually do and find.^[58] On another level, public participation can mean local people taking part in training excavations, and this type of involvement results in a hands-on learning experience in archaeological techniques.

Approaches to community archaeology

Community interpretation

Interpretation of archaeological findings by the community is a quintessential aspect of community archaeology, and is viewed as an important aspect of "decolonizing archaeology" and giving non-archaeologists power to interpreting the past.^[59] Multiple community archaeologists have created projects that give the community a major role in the interpretation and dissemination of archaeological information.^[30] Community participation is not relegated to the interpretation of discoveries but includes contributions to any aspect of archaeology—such as theory^[60] and project goals.^[61] Community involvement ends the exclusive control that archaeologists have had over the material past, and gives non-archaeologists a chance to interpret the past.^[53] Many archaeologists now argue that the incorporation of local knowledge is important to archaeology's survival as an academic discipline.^[62] The degree of interpretive control communities have in archaeological projects vary from using interpretations garnered from interviews and consultations,^[63] to academic publication written by community members based on community identified research questions.^[64]

Long-term commitment

Ethnographers and development specialists have shown^[65] that a long-term relationship is necessary to develop a rapport and mutual respect with the local community, and argue that to succeed at collaboration archaeologists must make a long-term commitment^[66] in order to understand the dynamics of the social context of their research. Without this depth of knowledge archaeologists risk making decisions with unintended consequences.^[67] For example, collaborations and repatriations have been more successful where archaeologists and American Indians have met on a regular basis and developed both friendship and mutual respect.^[68] Versaggi found that "allowing the process to take time is what matters."^[69] Many community archaeologists now plan on conducting long-term collaborations from the outset of their project.^[70]

Ethnography and getting to know the community

As a method for knowing the community, archaeologists have advocated the use of ethnographic methods in community archaeology projects.^[67] While most scholars feel that it is not necessary for all archaeologists to become trained ethnographers, a degree of ethnographic knowledge is needed before initiating a project.^[65] Some community archaeology projects rely on ethnographic data conducted by members of their research team,^[71] while others have had some success beginning with published sources or collaborating with professionals already established in the focal community.

Museums and institutions

The construction of museums or other institutions as education centers, repositories for archaeological materials and, centers for scientific and socio-cultural collaboration with a community is a common long-term goal for many community archaeology projects, and one achieved with increasing frequency.^[72] Museums have become hubs for public outreach and collaboration to both local and non-local communities.^[73] One well known example of a museum created by a collaboration between American Indians and archaeologists is the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, which is "the largest Native American owned museum in the United States",^[74] has multiple laboratories and collections for scientific research, and a staff that includes five full-time archaeologists.^[75]

Publications for the community

Another method in community archaeology for the sharing and distribution of archaeological knowledge is the publication or presentation of materials specifically for the community. This includes books, pamphlets, children's stories,^[75] school-oriented workbooks,^[76] comic books,^[77] websites,^[78] public lectures, radio programs, television shows and news coverage, dramatic reenactments, artistic and literary creations, open access publications,^[79] and other forms.

Participatory action research

Participatory action research is another method archaeologists have used in community archaeology projects.^[80]

Critiques

Who speaks for the community?

In community archaeology, by definition decisions cannot be made based on the information from only a handful of members from a given community. Although the number of consultants needed will vary, it is rare that a small subgroup can speak for the community as a whole.^[81] Sometimes it is clear who should be contacted in a community. For example, archaeologists in the United States must contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) before attempting collaboration with federally recognized tribes.^[82] In places where the appropriate contacts and stakeholders are less obvious, community archaeologists attempt to identify as many interest groups as possible and contact them before research begins.

Top-down approach

A top-down approach to community archaeology is when archaeologists decide before consultation what the goals of the project will be, or what benefits will be provided to the community is not really community archaeology at all. The top-down approach creates a one-sided exchange of information from the archaeologists to the community and precludes real collaboration. Blume found the "archaeologist-informant relationship [to be] essentially exploitative and patronizing because it takes place on the archaeologist’s terms—the informant must address issues that the archaeologists understand—and it excludes participation by [community members] who are unable or unwilling to participate on those terms."^[83] To succeed at community archaeology, Archaeologists have begun to undertake more reflexive collaborations with indigenous communities.^[84]

Carrying through with long-term commitments

Some community archaeologists have had difficulty sticking to their original commitments to the community.^[85]

Consultation and collaboration

Some have argued that ‘consulting’ archaeologists do not relinquish control over the process of interpretation, and that consulting is a ‘top-down’ approach to collaboration.^[86] Also, some definitions of the word ‘collaboration’ make allusions to opposed and/or warring parties cooperating with one another during tense or bellicose times. Dean has proposed that the word cooperate be used instead.^[87]

See also

• Indigenous peoples of the Americas
• Applied anthropology
• Archaeological ethics
• Science outreach

References

• Atalay, S. (2006). Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(3 & 4), 280-310
• Atalay, S. (2007). Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 3(3).
• Baram, U. (2011). Community Organizing in Public Archaeology: Coalitions for the Preservation of a Hidden History in Florida. Present Pasts 3(1):12-18. http://doi.org/10.5334/pp.40
• Blume, C. L. (2006). Working Together Developing Partnerships with American Indians in New Jersey and Delaware. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. 197–212). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Breglia, L. C. (2007). Engaging Local Communities in Archaeology: Observations from a Maya Site in Yucatán, México. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 89–99). New York: Springer.
• Castañeda, Q. E., & Mathews, C. N. (2008). Ethnography and the Social Construction of Archaeology. In Q. E. Castañeda & C. N. Mathews (Eds.), Ethnographic Archaeologies (pp. 1–23). Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
• Colley, S. (2002). Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Indigenous people and the public. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
• De Cunzo, L. A., & Jameson, J., John H. (2007). Unlocking the Past: A Society for Historical Archaeology Public Awareness and Education Project. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 427–441). New York: Springer.
• Dean, R. L., & Perrelli, D. J. (2006). Highway Archaeology in Western New York: Archaeologists' Views of Cooperation between State and Tribal Review Agencies. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. 131–149). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Derry, L. (2003). Concluding Remarks. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologists and Local Communities (pp. 185–188). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.
• Doroszenko, D. (2007). Adventures in Archaeology at the Ontario Heritage Trust. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 265–279). New York: Springer.
• Edgeworth, M. (2006). Multiple Origins, Development, and Potential of Ethnographies of Archaeology. In M. Edgeworth (Ed.), Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice (pp. 1–19). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
• Fagen, B., & Rose, M. (2003). Ethics and the Media. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical issues in Archaeology (pp. 163–176). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
• Farley, M. (2003). Participating in the Past: the results of an investigation by a Council for British Archaeology Working Party, from www.britarch.ac.uk/participation/report.html
• Faulkner, N. (2000). Archaeology from below. Public Archaeology, 1(1), 21–33.
• Faulkner, N. (2001/2002). The Sedgeford project, Norfolk: an experiment in popular participation and dialectical method. Archaeology International Issue, 5, 16-20.
• Fredericksen, C. (2002). Caring for history: Tiwi and archaeological narratives of Fort Dundas/Punata, Melville Island, Australia. World Archaeology, 34(2), 288–302.
• Fry, B. (2007). Reaching Out to the Bureaucracy and Beyond: Archaeology at Louisbourg and Parks Canada. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 19–33). New York: Springer.
• Funari, P. P. A., de Oliveira, N. V., & Tamanini, E. (2007). Archaeology to the Lay Public in Brazil: Three Experiences. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 217–228). New York: Springer.
• Harrison, R., & Williamson, C. (2002). After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
• Hansen, D., & Fowler, J. (2007). Protect and Present—Parks Canada and Public Archaeology in Atlantic Canada. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 321–338). New York: Springer.
• Hemment, J. (2007). Public Anthropology and the Paradoxes of Participation: Participatory Action Research and Critical Ethnography in Provincial Russia. Human Organization, 66(2), 301-314.
• Herscher, E., & McManamon, F. P. (1995). Public Education and Outreach: The Obligation to Educate. In M. J. Lynott & A. Wylie (Eds.), Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s (pp. 42–44). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.
• Hollowell, J. (2006). Moral arguments on subsistence digging. In C. Scarre & G. Scarre (Eds.), The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice (pp. 69–93). Cambridge United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Hollowell-Zimmer, J. (2003). Digging in the Dirt—Ethics and "Low-End Looting". In L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical issues in Archaeology (pp. 45–56). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
• Jameson Jr., J. H. (2003). Purveyors of the Past: Education and outreach as Ethical Imperatives in Archaeology. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Archaeology (pp. 153–162). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
• Jeppson, P. L., & Brauer, G. (2007). Archaeology for Education Needs: An Archaeologist and an Educator Discuss Archaeology in the Baltimore County Public Schools. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 231–248). New York: Springer.
• Jones, B. D., & McBride, K. A. (2006). Indigenous Archaeology in Southern New England Case Studies from the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. 265–280). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Kerber, J. E. (2006a). Introduction. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. ixx-xxxi). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Kerber, J. E. (2006b). Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Knecht, R. (2003). Tapping into a Sense of Wonder: Community Archaeology and Museum Building in the Aleutian Islands. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologists and Local Communities (pp. 97–109). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.
• Kuhns, E. (2008). A participatory action research approach to collaborative archaeology, World Archaeological Congress. Dublin, Ireland.
• Labelle, J. M. (2003). Coffee Cans and Folsom Points: Why We Cannot Continue to Ignore the Artifact Collectors. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Archaeology (pp. 115–127). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
• Liddle, P. (1985). Community archaeology: a fieldworker's handbook of organisation and techniques. Publication 61, Leicester: Leicestershire Museums.
• Lynott, M. J. (2003). The Development of Ethics in Archaeology. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical issues in Archaeology (pp. 17–27). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
• Marshall, Y. (2002). What is community archaeology? World Archaeology, 34(2), 211-219.
• McDavid, C. (2002). Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: a pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology, 34(2), 303-314.
• McGuire, R. H. (2008). Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley, California/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
• Merriman, N. (2004). Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.
• Miller, D. (1980). Archaeology and Development. Current Anthropology, 21(6), 709-714.
• Moser, S., Glazier, D., Phillips, J. E., Nemr, L. N. e., Mousa, M. S., Aiesh, R. N., et al. (2002). Transforming archaeology through practice: strategies for collaborative archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeology, 34(2), 220 - 248.
• Moshenska, G. 2009. What is Public Archaeology? Present Pasts 1, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pp.7.
• Najjar, J., & Najjar, R. (2007). Reflections on the Relationship between Education and Archaeology: An Analysis of IPHAN's Role as Collective Educator. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 3(2), 169-178.
• Nicholas, G. P., & Hollowell, J. H. (2007). Ethical challenges to a postcolonial archaeology. In Y. Hamilakas & P. Duke (Eds.), Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics (pp. 59–82). Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.
• Pope, P. E., & Mills, S. F. (2007). Outport Archaeology: Community Archaeology in Newfoundland. In J. H. Jameson Jr. & S. Baugher (Eds.), Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups (pp. 169–186). New York: Springer.
• Pyburn, A. (2003). Archaeology for a New Millennium: The Rules of Engagement. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologists and Local Communities (pp. 167–184). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.
• Pyburn, A. K. (2004). Rethinking complex society. In A. K. Pyburn (Ed.), Ungendering Civilization (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Pyburn, A. (2007). Archeology as Activism. In H. Silverman & D. F. Ruggles (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and Human Rights (pp. 172–183). New York: Springer.
• Pyburn, A. K. (2008a). Public Archaeology, Indiana Jones, and Honesty. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 4(2), 201-204.
• Pyburn, A. (2008b). The Pageantry of Archaeology. In Q. E. Castañeda & C. N. Mathews (Eds.), Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices (pp. 139–155). Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press.
• Rodriguez, T. (2006). Conjunctures in the Making of an Ancient Maya Archaeological Site. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice (pp. 161–172). Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press.
• SAA. (2004, January 18, 2007). Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from https://web.archive.org/web/20081221203338/http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/committees/ethics/principles.html
• Sabloff, J. A. (2008). Archaeology Matters. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
• Sanger, D., Pawling, M. A., & G., S. D. (2006). Passamaquoddy Homeland and Language: The Importance of Place. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. 314–328). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Segobye, A. K. (2005). The Revolution Will be Televised: African Archaeology Education and the Challenge of Public Archaeology - Some Examples from Southern Africa. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 1(2), 33-45.
• Sen, S. (2002). Community boundary, secularized religion and imagined past in Bangladesh: archaeology and historiography of unequal encounter. World Archaeology, 34(2), 346–362.
• Shackel, P. A. (2007). Civic Engagement and Social Justice: Race on the Illinois Frontier. In Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement. In B. J. Little & Paul. A. Shackel (Eds.), Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, (pp. 243–262). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
• Sievert, A. K. (2003). Spiro Painted Maces and Shell Cups: The Scientific Use of Artifacts without Context. In R. J. Jeske & D. K. Charles (Eds.), Theory, Method, and Practice in Modern Archaeology (pp. 182–194). Westport, Connecticut/London: Praeger.
• Singleton, T. A., & Orser Jr., C. E. (2003). Descendant Communities: Linking People in the Present to the Past. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Archaeology (pp. 143–152). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
• Smith, L., Morgan, A., & van der Meer, A. (2003). Tapping into a Sense of Wonder: Community Archaeology and Museum Building in the Aleutian Islands. In L. Derry & M. Malloy (Eds.), Archaeologists and Local Communities (pp. 147–165). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.
• Smith, C., Watkins, J., Wobst, H. M., & Zimmerman, L. J. (2002). Forward. In R. Harrison & C. Williamson (Eds.), After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia (pp. xiii-xx). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
• Spector, J. D. (1993). What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society.
• Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-Based Research and Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Trigger, B. G. (2007). A History of Archaeological Thought (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Versaggi, N. M. (2006). Tradition, Sovereignty, Recognition: NAGPRA Consultations with the Iroquois Confederact of Sovereign Nations of New York. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. 18–31). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Watkins, J. (2003). Archaeological Ethics and American Indians. In L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Archaeology (pp. 130–141). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
• Watkins, J. (2006). Forward. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States (pp. xi-xvi). Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• Watson, S., & Waterton, E. (2008). Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation, World Archaeological Congress. Dublin, Ireland.
• Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
• Whittaker, J. C. (2004). American Flintknappers: Stone Age Art in the Age of Computers Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
• Wille, S. J. (2008). Museum Archaeology Education: Can Archaeology Be Socially Relevant In Urban School Settings?, World Archaeological Congress. Dublin, Ireland.
• Wiynjorroc, P., Manabaru, P., Brown, N., & Warner, A. (2005). We just have to show you: research ethics blekbalawei. In C. Smith & H. M. Wobst (Eds.), Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory (pp. 316–327). London and New York: Routledge.
• Wobst, H. M. (1978). The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity, 43(2), 303-309.
• Wobst, H. M. (2005). Power to the (indigenous) past and present! Or: The theory and method behind archaeological theory and method. In C. Smith & H. M. Wobst (Eds.), Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory (pp. 17–32). London and New York: Routledge.

Further reading

• Baram, U. (2015). Experiments in Public Archaeology as Civic Engagement: My Five Years with the New College Public Archaeology Lab in Sarasota, Florida. Public Archaeology 14(1):66-74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1465518715Z.00000000085?src=recsys&journalCode=ypua20
• Colley, S. (2002). Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Indigenous people and the public. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
• Derry, L., & Malloy, M. (2003). Archaeologists and Local Communities. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.
• Harrison, R., & Williamson, C. (2002). After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
• Jameson Jr., J. H., & Baugher, S. (2007). Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups. New York: Springer.
• Kerber, J. E. (2006). Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
• La Salle, M., & R. Hutchings (2016). What Makes Us Squirm—A Critical Assessment of Community-Oriented Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 40(1):164-180. https://www.academia.edu/26749929/What_Makes_Us_Squirm_A_Critical_Assessment_of_Community-Oriented_Archaeology
• Little, B. J., & Shackel, P. A. (2007). Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
• Marshall, Y. (2002). What is community archaeology? World Archaeology, 34(2), 211-219
• McGuire, R. H. (2008). Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley, California/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
• Merriman, N. (2004). Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.
• Pyburn, A. K. (2008). Public Archaeology, Indiana Jones, and Honesty. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 4(2), 201-204.
• Spector, J. D. (1993). What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society.
• Smith, C., & Wobst, H. M. (2005). Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory. London and New York: Routledge
• Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-Based Research and Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
• Zimmerman, L. J., Vitelli, K. D., & Hollowell-Zimmer, J. (2003). Ethical issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
• Todorović . M. . Wikimedia Movement's Importance for Public Archaeology . StES 2019 Proceedings . 2019 . 29–42 . 5 February 2020.
• Roberts . Hayley . 2020 . A Four Stage Approach to Community Archaeology, illustrated with case studies from Dorset, England . Internet Archaeology . 55 . 10.11141/ia.55.6 . free.

External links

• Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Voluntary and Community Group
• M.A.T.R.I.X. Resources for Community Archaeology
• National Park Service Technical Brief 22, Archeology and Civic Engagement
• National Park Service, Archeology for Kids
• National Park Service, Public Benefits of Archeology
• Society for American Archaeology, Public Archaeology for Archaeologists

Notes and References

1. The terms are interchangeable in McDavid (2002:304) and Marshall (2002:214)
2. Trigger (2007:260)
3. Kerber (2006a:xxx)
4. Moshenska (2009)
5. Watkins (2003, 2006)
6. Atalay (2006:286-288)
7. Watkins (2006:xi)
8. Watkins (2003:134)
9. Dean and Perrelli (2006:141-142)
10. Kerber (2006a:xxii)
11. Dean and Perrelli (2006:144)
12. Dean and Perrelli (2006:145)
13. Watkins (2003)
14. Blume (2006:198)
15. See Marshall (2002) and cases in Kerber (2006b)
16. See Marshall (2002:212-214); Spector (1993)
17. See Knecht (2003); Hollowell-Zimmer (2003); Hollowell (2006)
18. See Singleton and Orser (2003)
19. See McDavid (2002, 2003); Singleton and Orser (2003); Shackel (2007)
20. De Cunzo and Jameson (2007); Jeppson and Brauer (2007); Atalay (2007); Wille (2008)
21. Also see Trigger (2007)
22. 10.11141/ia.57.1 . 57 . Public Benefit: the challenge for development-led archaeology in the UK . 2021 . Internet Archaeology . Watson . Sadie . free .
23. See Faulkner (2000) and Faulkner (2001/2002)
24. See Farley (2003)
25. Farley (2003:14)
26. Schadla-Hall (forthcoming)
27. See Liddle (1985)
28. Web site: Council for British Archaeology | Home.
29. Current Archaeology (2001a; 2001b)
30. Marshall (2002)
31. Marshall (2002:212)
32. Harrison and Williamson (2002)
33. Colley (2002)
34. Marshall (2002); Fredericksen (2002); Clarke (2002)
35. Funari et al. (2007); Najjar and Najjar (2007)
36. Friesen (2002); Doroszenko (2007); Fry (2007); Hansen and Fowler (2007); Pope and Mills (2007)
37. Moser et al. (2002)
38. Breglia, (2007); Rodriguez, (2006)
39. Sen (2002)
40. Segobye (2005)
41. Atalay (2007)
42. Marshall (2002:215)
43. Marshall (2002:216); Singleton and Orser (2003:144)
44. Singleton and Orser (2003:144)
45. Hollowell (2006); Hollowell-Zimmer (2003); Singleton (2003); Shackel (2007); McDavid (2003); McDavid (2002)
46. Knecht (2003); Smith et al. (2003); Jones and McBride (2006); Wille (2008)
47. Marshall (2002:216)
48. See Pyburn (2003); Pyburn (2004); Atalay (2006); Trigger (2007); Pyburn (2008b)
49. Atalay (2006); Pyburn (2008a); Pyburn (2004); Spector (1993)
50. See Atalay (2006), Atalay (2007), Pyburn (2008b)
51. Atalay (2006); Pyburn (2008a); Pyburn (2004)
52. Marwick . Ben . Open Access to Publications to Expand Participation in Archaeology . Norwegian Archaeological Review . 29 October 2020 . 53 . 2 . 163–169 . 10.1080/00293652.2020.1837233. 228961066 .
53. Spector (1993)
54. Moser et al. (2002:234)
55. Edgeworth (2006)
56. Specter (1993); Herscher and McManamon (1995); Jameson (2003); Lynott (2003) Wille (2008)
57. Marwick . Ben . Pham . Thanh Son . Ko . May Su . Over-research and ethics dumping in international archaeology . SPAFA Journal . 15 December 2020 . 4 . 10.26721/spafajournal.v4i0.625. free .
58. Pyburn (2008a)
59. Atalay (2006)
60. See de-centering in Atalay (2006)
61. Clarke (2002); Moser et al. (2002); Kuhns (2008); Watson and Waterman (2008)
62. Miller (1980); Watkins (2003)
63. Sanger et al. (2006:325)
64. See Wiynjorroc et al. (2005); Dean and Perrelli (2006)
65. Pyburn (2007:177)
66. Pyburn (2003)
67. Pyburn (2007)
68. Versaggi (2006:30); Dean and Perrelli (2006:142-143)
69. Versaggi (2006:30)
70. Knecht (2003) Moser et al. (2002)
71. Bartu as cited Atalay (2007:257)
72. Moser (2002); Knecht (2003); Smith (2003); Jones and McBride (2006)
73. Wille (2008)
74. Jones and McBride (2006:275)
75. Jones and McBride (2006)
76. Moser et al. (2002:238-239)
77. Atalay (2007:260-261)
78. McDavid (2002, 2003)
79. Marwick . Ben . Open Access to Publications to Expand Participation in Archaeology . Norwegian Archaeological Review . 29 October 2020 . 53 . 2 . 163–169 . 10.1080/00293652.2020.1837233. 228961066 .
80. Strand et al. (2003); Hemment (2007); Pyburn (2007); Kuhns (2008)
81. Rodriguez (2008); also see Pyburn (2007); Wobst (1978)
82. Dean and Perrelli (2006:142)
83. Blume (2006:197)
84. Atalay (2006); Pyburn (2007); Pyburn (2008)
85. Marshall (2002:218); Singleton (2003); Rodriguez (2006)
86. Atalay (2006); Clarke (2002); Versaggi (2006);Watkins (2003); Blume (2006:210)
87. Dean and Perrelli (2006:145); also see Brown and Robinson (2006:62); Blume (2006:210)