Blog – Page 14 – Hidalgo County Public Cemetery Project

Who are the stakeholders in the Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery Project?

Posted on October 17, 2017 by chaps2009

The articles assigned for this essay written by Agbe-Davies and LaRoche & Blakely discuss the elements of what guided their research and how their hypothetical and theoretical ideas structured and molded their respective projects. It is clear that those two projects displayed similar reasons for embarking on our endeavor that we call the Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery Project (HCPCP) but the discussion here will be focused on the stakeholders and what effects they can have on a project such as ours.

The level of community reaction which sparked contentious relationships throughout both the African American Burial Grounds Project (AABGP) in New York City and the Phyllis Wheatley Home for Girls Project (PWHGP) in Chicago does not quite exist here with the initiation of our project. Even though the AABGP was initiated because of plans for a 34-story office building to be erected above the burial site, what ensued as a result of the discovery of the African American burial ground speaks to what we have been discussing in previous blogs which is how public archaeology almost unavoidably involves multiple aspects of the local community. In these cases, several entities involved themselves in the process; most significant and vocal were the descendants of those in question. Both articles discuss the important role that descendants played in the evolution of these two projects. After four days in the field collecting data and mapping the site at the HCPCP, our experience with any community involvement has been via interaction with relatives of those buried in the cemetery or by those who are at the cemetery for a recent burial who are curious as to what we are doing there.

The stakeholders for the HCPCP are twofold at this time. The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley as the parent entity to our Anthropology class led by Assistant Professor and Fulbright Scholar Dr. Sara Rowe together represent one of the stakeholders as the designer and initiator of this project. Hidalgo County officials who have blessed this project during a recent council meeting are the other entity in this equation. Represented by Daniel Flores of the Hidalgo County Maintenance Department, the county has provided additional support in the form of drinking water and bathroom facilities while the UTRGV Anthropology students are working at the cemetery. Indirect stakeholders at this time are the family members who come to visit loved ones in the cemetery. It is our hope to utilize the memories of their loved ones who are buried in the cemetery perhaps by conducting oral history interviews to add to the data that we collect for this project. Perhaps as this project progresses, these descendants can take a more active role in our research and become true community partners?

As the project progresses, we begin to identify what communities and or individuals are included and represented in this cemetery. Low income and indigent communities are evident as this location was available to those who could not afford to pay much for a burial. This also could be a place where unclaimed bodies or those who were deceased without families were buried as well. As we have walked the cemetery, collecting data, we have found that there are several infants and young children who are buried there as well. Some of the students who are conducting the research can be considered to be part of the local community as many of them were born and raised in either Edinburg or in Hidalgo County. The professor and some of the other students, although not originally from the area, are very much vested in their interests anthropologically and historically to the region as a whole.

The point at which we are in our research might not indicate that we are ready to determine whether there is a cultural group or groups specifically represented in this cemetery. However, we can say at this time that several of the gravesites we’ve reviewed have Hispanic surnames. To date, we have only recorded data for less than one third of the total burials at this site. We estimate that there are over 700 burials in this cemetery. As time moves along, we can investigate what Agbe-Davis refers to as the importance of “fellowship with the underprivileged members of our community” as a form of civil and social welfare responsibility (579). We have not yet determined whether we have specific sections or eras within this potters’ field, however, throughout the entire cemetery as a whole, we know that there are three other cemeteries within the grounds known as Hillcrest (mainstream population), Brushwood (historic) and Restlawn (African American). That being said, it is possible that we can determine perhaps some racial or socioeconomic status motivation with regard to zoning decisions within the location of this cemetery property.

It is important to recognize other possible community partners as the project moves along. It is clear, based on our interaction with family members of those buried in this [Paupers’] cemetery, that descendants are aware of our project. As we move forward, we can also engage the assistance of the regional center that helps the indigent population. La Union del Publico Entero (LUPE) located on the border of San Juan and Alamo, Texas, is a potential source of information through which we develop a picture of those who have been buried in the cemetery over the years. Perhaps we will discover affiliation with the migrant farm worker community?

Our work will be compiled into a database of information that will identify the “cultural domains” of this community and will assist with further academic research. One of the interesting aspects that we have discovered with the data collected to date is that communities change over time as do some of the burials within this cemetery. When some of the descendants of the deceased have more money to spend, they have returned to make improvements to the gravesite, such as putting a nicer headstone in front of the original (perhaps wooden) structure. The shared characteristics of those buried in the cemetery could lead toward determination of burial sites of a particular ethnic background which would lead to questions that have to do with social justice and perhaps a need for change. Since this potters’ field was no longer used after the 1990s, perhaps that social change already occurred?

Communities and Stakeholders

Posted on October 17, 2017 by lilith1x

Though the data collected and the Cemetery is opened to the public, our class remains the stakeholders of this project for the time being. This project is still in the beginning stages, we still are contemplating on how we can spread the word of this massive project to the community.

Being on the Border, The Valley is home to a vast arrangement of people. I have seen individuals from many corners of the world here. Individuals residing here may not have a connection the Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery. Making our target community for the this project modest. The communities that I believe who would want to be included in this project are

1) Individuals that are curious about the history of the Valley.

2) Individuals who have family members resting in the cemetery.

3) Individuals who could use our data for future research.

Within those individuals I expect, Valley natives as well as others from around the world and the nation. Making the cemetery and its individuals, members of many different communities.

With that being said, as a class we each are part of these communities. We may all might not be part of each and everyone of these communities. Speaking for myself, I am part two of these communities. I am a Valley native, curious how the Valley residents of the past lived, to my knowledge I do not have family members but would like to take the opportunity to conduct research of the data collected.

It is possible to conduct investigations without culture affiliation within this project. But I believe, by involving individuals with cultural affiliation we would gain a substantial amount of insight to the members of the cemetery. Through the weeks of data collection, we have encountered many graves with little or no information. By allowing the community that does hold a cultural affiliation with the cemetery, we may gather the missing information for those graves. Furthermore they could provide first hand accounts of the individuals found in the cemetery.

It is hard to estimate what communities would be neglected or forgot about if we only chose to work with certain communities. If we were to choose to work with family members of the individuals of the cemetery, we would possibly close all the doors for the community who desires our data for research. Lacking of knowledge of how family members feel about our class conducting our fieldwork, it is hard to presume how those family members would feel about the class releasing the data to individuals who would use it for research. On the other hand, if we were to chose to work with solely individuals who would take part only for the benefit of data to used towards research. We could possibly neglect family members of the individuals of the cemetery.

By involving multiple communities a power dynamic may arise between the communities. By adding each community the goals of the project may shift, and finding the balance between the communities may be a tedious task.

Social Justice and Archaeology

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Dr. Sarah M. Rowe

The term social justice is generally used to connote a commitment to redressing social inequalities, such as poverty, racism, misogyny or other human rights issues. Within the field of archaeology, specifically, this means addressing the historical roots of these inequalities – exposing inequalities in the past with the hope of improving the future. Our readings for the week involve archaeology-driven investigations of historical context that explicitly grapple with issues of inequality related to race and class.

Paul Shackel (2007) shares social justice insights gained from the New Philadelphia project, a historical archaeology investigation of a 19th Century integrated frontier town. Shackel (2007, pp. 247-248) suggests that there are four components to archaeological investigation with social justice:

“(A)rchaeologists need to critically analyze and expose racism in the past and present and to dismantle the structures of oppression where we can.”
“(W)e need to explore diversity in the past and promote it in the present.”
“(I)t is important to build a multicultural organization” engaged in archaeological inquiry.
“(W)e should create a color-conscious rather than a color-blind past.”

His insights are specifically oriented towards race, as this was the most salient research feature of the historical town, but illustrate the general commitments of social justice that can be applied to other themes. Shackel further advocates for a radical transparency of archaeological information. In the New Philadelphia project, they shared all their work on the internet so that community members could see how archaeologists made their conclusions and develop their own interpretations as well.

Paul Mullins (2007) focuses on archaeological projects done in conjunction with communities at large, urban university contexts. His work is concerned with both race and class, and the ways in which land use has changed and disenfranchised communities as neighborhoods were cleared to allow the construction of universities that often catered to students quite different from the people in the surrounding communities.

Mullins (2007, pp. 92) suggests that “rather than aspire to a very specific form of political engagement or community, engaged scholarship might most profitably probe how social groups were marginalized and how specific contemporary discourses reproduce and justify their marginalization.” In this way he also links study of the past with action in the present. By addressing the history of marginalization, archaeologists are uniquely positioned to speak to present inequalities.

What are the particular forms of marginalization or inequality that HCPCP can or should address? How should we address these? Are any of our practices (inadvertently) reproducing these inequalities? As always, please be reflective and critical in your responses.

Bibliography

Mullins, Paul R. (2007) Politics, Inequality, and Engaged Archaeology: Community Archaeology Along the Color Line. In Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, edited by Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel, pp. 89-108. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MA.

Shackel, Paul A. (2007) Civic Engagement and Social Justice: Race on the Illinois Frontier. In Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, edited by Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel, pp. 243-262. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MA.

Communities and Stakeholders

Posted on October 6, 2017 by criticalmistake

The stakeholders for the HCPCP is us- the team that is working on the project. With our interest in the cemetery, the data we collect will become the public’s knowledge of the cemetery. I often see clear communities existing throughout the Valley are without a doubt religious groups. Religion is a large way of life in the Valley that church goers often consider themselves a part of the community for the church they go to. Additionally, I have also seen there are some communities that are established when the individuals feel a sense of being an outsider. For instance, there is a Deaf community that many individuals may not know about and that is perhaps due to Deaf individuals not associating much with other communities in the Valley of not much observation is being expressed throughout this Geography.

My initial thought upon pondering the question of which communities include the cemetery and the individuals as members was none. Then I continued to think and I remembered Cinco de Mayo. Individuals that celebrate Cinco de Mayo certainly do include members of the cemetery as a part of their community as they continue to involve them in their lives as much as possible.

In the sense where individuals are constant church goers and very active in their community I believe the proper response would be, “yes, we are a part of the communities we work with.” However, in the debate questioning if archaeologists and anthropologists are a member of the community they performed ethnographic projects with, I may then declare that the researcher is a member of the community if they implement the emic approach.

Researching without cultural affiliation is likely not ideal, for the ancestors may be offended if the research team does something unintentionally offensive. Though, I do believe that if the team conducts their research with a clear display of caution and no intent of being offensive to the individuals buried at the site then perhaps investigating without cultural affiliation is acceptable.

In the possibility that we choose to work with certain communities we simultaneously risk neglecting the communities we did not choose as well as the individuals at the cemetery. The cemetery may be a community in itself thus by deciding to work with one community there may be the possibility of overlooking what the cemetery is in need of. However, when there is a larger team working together to gather information on one project it provides more insight from different fields benefiting the project in all aspects. For example, gaining volunteers and/or individuals in similar professions to archaeology will increase productivity as well as contribute to the final outcome of the project.

Stakeholders and Complexities

Posted on October 6, 2017 by alexr11

The stakeholders for the HCPCP consist of anyone within the Hidalgo County who may have a vested interest in the Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery. Many communities exist in the valley, though this does depend on what one would consider a ‘community’, as discussed in the blog prompt. The prompt asks, “How might these changing conceptions of community implicate how we identify those we should work with – the publics in our public archaeology?” To this I would answer: In Hidalgo County, cultural diversity plays a large role. While community may at one point have referred simply to those one might live in close proximity with or see at local social spots, it can in this situation refer also to others within the same cultural circle. This does not necessarily refer to racial groups, but groups of individuals who engage in similar cultural practices. In addition to this, groups of a particular financial status may become inadvertently lumped together by society.

Communities which may include the cemetery and individuals within as members might be: the Mexican-American community of Hidalgo County (as many individuals buried in the cemetery were more than likely local, Mexican-American residents), the Mexican community residing within Hidalgo County (as some individuals in the cemetery may have originally arrived from Mexico), the community of individuals living below the poverty line in Hidalgo County (as the Rio Grande Valley deals with issues of financial inequality) and the Hidalgo County as a whole (because the cemetery is located within the county and should therefore be a concern of the county). Of the individuals working on this project, some may consider themselves to be a part of the communities we are working with. Speaking for myself, I can claim to be a resident of Hidalgo County, but having lived here for only the last three years, I am not fully immersed in the community.

The prompt also asks, “Should we be conducting investigations without cultural affiliation?” I would say, yes, so long as the investigations are done in a thoughtful, educated and respectful manner. In La Roche and Blake’s (1997) article, “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground”, the reasoning behind the resistance of the “African American descendant community” in part, “ensured that the spiritual aspects of the site would not be lost in the face of scientific inquiry (Laura 1992; S&S Reporting 1993)”(p. 1). Potential power dynamics between communities with interest in this project would primarily exist between those (our class included) interested in identifying and preserving archaeological knowledge found within the cemetery and the communities which may be unsure or questioning of our motives. La Roche and Blake’s (1997) article discusses the complex history between African-Americans and Euroamericans, stating, “The potential for stereotypical, sterile, and denigrating interpretations of the site based on morphometric analysis became increasingly apparent to the African-American community”( p. 6). In this particular project, it is imperative that we are aware of historical, cultural and social interpretations and remain sensitive and respectful of the complexities involved in this work. Keeping these communities informed of our motives and involved in the process is key.

Reference:

La Roche, C., & Blakey, M. (1997). Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Historical Archaeology, 31(3), 84-106. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezhost.utrgv.edu:2048/stable/25616551

Communities and Stakeholders

Posted on September 28, 2017 by Dr. Sarah M. Rowe

The readings this week dealt with the concepts of communities and stakeholders. They revolve around the central questions of: Who are the publics in public archaeology? Who are we are doing this work for?

Agbe-Davies (2010) explores the use and meaning of the term “community” in two different contexts related to her archaeological work. She finds that the meaning of “community” has changed over time – from a term connoting shared interests, distinctiveness and proximity to an abstract one seemingly divorced from place or scale. Community can be used to connote shared economic, religious, or ethnic affiliation and more. She further finds that the definitions of community that you will find also depend on the group of people you ask, and what sorts of issues brought them together in the first place. How might these changing conceptions of community implicate how we identify those we should work with – the publics in our public archaeology?

Agbe-Davies further asks whether archaeologists can become parts of the communities that they work with. While recognizing that an archaeologist may not be the first person that a community turns to when they need something,

“(A)n archaeologist with her ears and eyes open, in the right fora, can begin to appreciate what members of a community might require, and how the skills and knowledge of our discipline can be brought to bear. In addressing these needs, the archaeologist has acted as a responsible member of a community, conceivably one overlapping in its membership with the kinds of bounded communities that the ideology of community keeps foremost in our minds” (Agbe-Davies 2010, p. 590).

While Agbe-Davies asks if archaeologists can become members of the communities they work alongside, La Roche and Blake (1997) argue that affiliation should be one of the characteristics that archaeologists possess before beginning a project. La Roche and Blake (1997) relate the history of archaeological investigation of the African Burial Ground in New York City. Actions of initial project archaeologists and government agencies demonstrated little concern for the unique relationships that descendant populations or affiliated communities might have for that place and the individuals buried there. After significant community mobilization the investigating archaeologists were changed, and research questions were developed to reflect the particular knowledge and interests that intersected in this special place.

Investigations of burial places are frequently contentious (as seen in the African American Cemetery example this week, as well as the entire discourse and reason for NAGPRA, among other examples). Such work must be done with respect and sensitivity, and an awareness of the historical inequalities that characterized the lives of those buried in these places. Additionally, researchers must be aware of the history of anthropological and archaeological inquiries into the lives of people who have been portrayed as Others – we do not just pay for our sins but for the mistakes and missteps of those who came before us.

As we move forward with this project and reflect upon this week’s readings, a few key questions stand out: Who are the stakeholders for the HCPCP? What communities exist in the Valley? What communities include the cemetery and the individuals as members? Are we part of the communities we work with? Should we be conducting investigations without cultural affiliation? Who are we forgetting or neglecting if we chose to work with certain communities? What power dynamics exist between communities that may have interest in the cemetery?

Ethics of Public Archaeology

Posted on September 28, 2017 by criticalmistake

Jameson describes public archaeology as allowing individuals of the community to be offered the opportunity to develop a basic understanding of archaeology through various multimedia platforms as well as involving them in archaeological projects. Participatory Action Research (PAR), described by McGhee, is shaping the social structure of the knowledge process as well as becoming self-sufficient activists.

When applying ethical principles to projects, both Jameson and McGhee give the impression that they are undoubtedly considered, however the ethical principles are not entirely implemented on projects. Public archaeologist, at an entry-level, are given standards such as maintaining basic knowledge of techniques to convey archaeological information to the public, ability to work as a team to design and implement effective public interaction, and public speaking knowledge. Public archaeologist remains hopeful the community will be involved in the projects they are invested in, though there are situations in which members of the community do not meet the same requirements, thus the data collected is interpreted differently from archaeologist to member of the community. Given this, there is potential that when community members engage in archaeological projects then this may be influential on the direction of the research with no intent of such direction.

To meet public needs, our project could implement the ideas offered by the public but continue to view our data from an archaeological standpoint. Then, not only are we allowing the public to express their opinion and assist in our research but we are also staying true to the roots of archaeological research.

What Public Archaeology Means To Me.

Posted on September 28, 2017 by lilith1x

When I signed up for this Pubic Archaeology class I asked myself, what exactly does “Public Archaeology” mean? With our syllabus in hand, I read over the purpose of this class. The first purpose listed, “..Link students to the broader community by giving them the opportunity to provide service and learn at the same time”, supporting my theory that we would be involved with the community. Hints “Public” but I still lacked the knowledge of what Public Archaeology truly meant. Thankfully our first reading assignment was ” Do you even know what public archaeology is? Treads, theory, practice, ethics” by Lorna-Jane Richardson & Jamie Almansa-Sanchez.

What is Archaeology? According to Richardson & Almansa-Sanchez, Archaeology is “influenced by emerging trends, especially with regard to theoretical approaches to interpretation”. Now, how does placing “Public” in front of “Archaeology” change their definition? The theoretical factor of the term remains accurate, but the definition remains open. We find yourself still searching for the correct terms to label this fairly new approach to Archaeology. By adding “Public” we also granted new and multiple perspectives and opportunities to enter, in doing so Richardson & Almansa-Sanchez suggested we must “situate our work socially, politically and economically”.

Public Archaeology is defined as both a disciplinary practice and a theoretical position by Richardson & Almansa-Sanchez. With communication and involvement with the public, Public Archaeology becomes a sub-discipline. With fifteen contrasting contexts listed by Richardson & Almansa-Sanchez they point out there is not a definitive answer to the question what does a public archaeologist do? The World Archaeological Congress in 1986 had an early manifestation established to promote “the exchange of results from archaeological research; professional training and public education for disadvantaged nations, groups and communities; the empowerment and support of Indigenous groups and First Nations peoples; and the conservation of archaeological sites”.

On our first day of class this data was evident, our institution will be assisting our local county in a project at a long-forgotten Cemetery in hopes of recovering part of the native history. The Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery was founded in 1913 and was operational until approximately 1990. Being a Pauper Cemetery majorly of the individuals who were laid to rest there were indigent, and a fraction were unidentified individuals. Sadly, the documents belonging to the cemetery are no longer available, this is where our class springs in to action. As a class, we will be providing information of the individuals who were laid to rest here. Through the help with modern technology we will be proving names, date of births, date of deaths, descriptive details of each individual’s headstone’s, details of grave offerings provide by loved ones, imagery of the graves, as while as a GPS location of each grave. By using our handheld devices to do the majorly of the data collection we will providing this information with minimal distress to the graves.

As a percipient in this project, I am hopeful to learn about how these individuals lived and died. As a native to this area, it is a pleasure to find out how life was in the area I call home. My thoughts on public archaeology are full of wonder and pride. The wonder if our community as well as the archaeological community will embrace our work or disregard it do to the title we find ourselves under. And the pride of helping a community, which I am a member of. Through the discipline of archaeology, we will remain professional and complete our goals throughout the semester.