Blog

The Ethics of puplic archeology

Posted on by spaiz1995

Jameson and McGhee differ in their approach to involving the communities that they are in contact with when doing research. Jameson  seeks to “arm the public” with the  historically accurate knowledge and to help the public understand the truth about cultures who Hollywood and the media has inaccurately represented by ” over sensationalizing depicions of tresure hunts (Indiana  Jones) ” . But Jameson also states that the media is not inherintly bad and  should be used as a teaching  tool “convey archeological information “We can no longer be detached from the mechanisms that convey archeological information to the public” (Jameson Pg 158). McGhee is different his  Participant action research  (PAR)  approach which seeks to directly involve the public in the research that is being conducted  and to include cultural information in identifying and interpreting the archeological record with the ultimate goal being the betterment of the coomunity. One example of the is NAGPRA which through the combined efforts of both archeologists and native tribes have successfully returned the remains of many to their people. Our project would probably fall under this category even more so if we manage to get more community support. Despite this both Jameson and McGhees would be considered highly outside the norm few years ago McGhee more so. Through out its history it has always been only archeologist more specifically the professionally trained archeologists the have interpreted the archeological record with very little input from the local communities “The would probably also object to the notion that ingenious forms of knowledge and understanding should have equal or near-equal standing to .the positive epistemologies employed by properly trained archeologists.”(McGhee pg 214). Even now archeologists will  quickly dismissed the information given to them by the native peoples . Another controversy is both Jameson and McGhee involving themselves with the public and the political I’m pact that it causes . Both Jameson and McGhee agree that archeologist can no longer be distant but must start both involving  and informing the community actively not only relying to published articles.

To some archeologist this is a breech of ethics in which PAR makes the “Researcher” subordinate themselves  to the governments of the communities. Such as wheat happen in private archeology when archeologists are given free reign over the area despite what locals want in the interest of business.

But I believe that by involving communities , researchers can hopefully disprove the many misconceptions about these peoples histories portrayed by both the media and past anthropologist  in order to be truly ethical and inform people of the truth.  Both McGhee and Jameson where as ethical as a researcher can be when involving humans both seek to inform and involve locals in their research only in different ways.  In going  forward in our own project I believe that its paramount that we keep the community informed about what exactly our research in tells especially since we are not working with inanimate objects but the graves of loved ones. We as researchers must be willing to accept help and information from the community and in turn do our best to not only inform but to better the community as a whole through our project.

Data Collection Day

Posted on by Dr. Sarah M. Rowe

We had our first day out at the cemetery on Friday, starting to collect information on the burial markers visible at the site. We began by placing a numbered flag next to each visible marker. We only brought 100 flags with us, and managed to mark perhaps a quarter of the graves.

Once each grave is marked students use their cell phones to collect information on a special form that we developed, via KoBoToolbox. They record information about the individual being commemorated, any epitaph, the shape and condition of the headstones, and any mementos left at the grave site. The students also take a picture of the grave that is linked to the form.

In about two hours our group of 15 students, working in pairs or small groups, recorded 35 grave sites. That means we’re about a 10th of the way through. Unfortunately, we only have about 6 more sessions out at the cemetery. The pace of data collection should pick up, but it’s possible that a single semester won’t be enough time to record every grave. Perhaps with some additional volunteers we’ll get through it all before the semester ends.

Though data collection is just beginning, I think we were all struck with the number of infants and children buried at the cemetery. Perhaps it was a factor of the section we were recording, but I think those small graves made a big impression on all of us.

Ethics of Public Archaeology

Posted on by befreebutterfly22

The difference between Jameson’s and McGhee’s approaches to Public archaeology are different because while one focuses more on building communities, as McGhee states on page 213 “Participant action research (PAR) refers to a research methodology which aims to transform communities fro the better and where positive social change is and explicit goal.” Jameson’s description of public archaeology attempts to use the community that they are given to help with whatever it maybe that they need help with, this can be seen especially within the first few paragraphs of his chapter/article. While they are both different, it is also apparent that they do attempt to use ethical practices during their work, however because they are working with human beings, being wholly ethical can sometimes be challenging. In McGhee’s work, he gives some ideas/guidelines as to how we should go about doing public Anthropology. These guidelines are extremely helpful in  giving ideas and ways to include communities and really make it public archaeology. While these guidelines are helpful, it is also important to keep in mind that each group of human beings is different and therefore they are going to require different things, and want to know about different things.

Public Archaeology, the PAR approach and project collaboration that responds to public needs

Posted on by chaps2009

The readings for this week’s assignment consisted of articles written by John H. Jameson, Jr. and Fred L McGhee; two experienced archaeologists with valuable insight into working within the public sector. Their views reflect their depth of experience as public archaeologists and contain many valid points.

Jameson stated that his “colleagues are firmly committed to finding engaging and innovative ways to reach out to national and local communities and involve them in the rich diversity of human experience”. If there ever was a place where a rich diversity of human experience exists, it is here on the North American continent. Just the varied and numerous Native American tribes (each unique and different from each other) that once roamed this territory we know today as the United States is a testament to this idea. When people from the community get involved, the items uncovered help curb the romantic imagination and preconceived notions with solid ideas and actual images, therefore increasing public buy in and personal interest in seeing a project to completion.

Jameson also talked about the “development and expansion of educational archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s” and how entities such as private and public universities have “placed a high priority on establishing and promoting effective education and outreach programs”. This trend was captured here in the Rio Grande Valley during the 1990s by a group called Los Caminos Del Rio. Working in conjunction with the Texas Historical commission and supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, this group developed and educational program designed to preserve the history of the Rio Grande Valley along both sides of the Rio Grande. Their goal was to encourage preservation through the creation of a bi-national heritage tourism corridor. Approximately 20 years after that, the CHAPS Program was initiated at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley’s legacy institution the University of Texas Pan American. The goals of the CHAPS Program reflect many that are followed by public archaeologists. The CHAPS mission is to cover the same 200 mile stretch between Laredo to Brownsville as they help to create archaeologically and historically literate citizens who are aware of their local cultural and natural history and of its importance to the future of the Rio Grande Valley.

Both authors talk about Cultural Resource Management (CRM) and their experiences with public interaction with archaeological projects. Jameson feels that “public archaeology has evolved from a definition synonymous with cultural resource management to a broader scope that included educational archaeology, and other issued which bring us closer to our anthropological roots” (154). As the 19th century and early 20th century represents an era of conservation into history preservation, I see a trend into the 21st century of folks who are interested in embracing their “anthropological roots”. As public archaeology branches out from its more privately run CRM mantra, Jameson discussed trends toward a “broader scope that included educational archaeology, public interpretation of archaeology, and a new era of Native American Archaeology” (154). As we watch present-day TV commercials such as those for services such as Ancestry.com and 23 & Me, we see that this idea is motivating people to obtain a clear definition of exactly who they are. This will surely spark a trend of more sympathetic approaches to discovery, interpretation and preservation into presentation, public education and awareness.

McGhee discussed an experience he had with an archaeological project in Houston that pertained to an African American neighborhood called the Fourth Ward and what resulted when the project turned into a public archaeology project. Participatory Action Research (PAR) has three main goals; the most desired (it seems) of which is to achieve social change. The benefits of following this practice is that there are clear “decisional points” in the “research process”. Following these points helps the project achieve results that benefit both the community and the intended research questions.

Our project, the Hidalgo County Paupers Cemetery Project (HCPCP) is designed to develop an understanding of who and/or what type of person is buried in this particular cemetery and why. Our professor, Dr. Sarah Rowe has gone to great lengths to create this project and to lay the foundation via which her students will conduct and gather the data needed for analysis. In accordance with processes that McGhee promotes in his essay, Dr. Rowe has “partnered with communities during the research design and implementation” and will continue during the “analysis phases” as well. She has utilized local officials as advisors and made sure that we are working together for a mutually beneficial outcome.

With regard to McGhee’s experience with the Houston project, there were some old and lingering bad feelings with some of the community members that caused conflict within the project as a whole. This can be viewed as a problem with getting the public involved as “memories of an old injustice can surface and individual agendas of outside activists can derail even the best conceptualized research efforts”. I found it fascinating how toward the end of the Fourth Ward Neighborhood project, McGhee was viewed as an ‘Uncle Tom’ figure when his intentions were always sincere and clear and unfortunately this project only continued to become more difficult to complete. So essentially, getting the public involved in this case turned into a negative. We don’t expect that to be the case with the HCPCP. Our efforts are to record the number of burials in this potter’s field, to identify those buried there, and to uncover who they were, where they were from, and why were they buried in this particular field. Once more community members become involved, we hope to obtain oral history interviews and other primary source documents to help us fill our canvas with the names and faces of those who are resting in peace in the Hidalgo County Paupers Cemetery.

 

The Ethics of Public Archaeology

Posted on by Dr. Sarah M. Rowe

The Society for American Archaeology’s “Principals of Archaeological Ethics” were originally developed in the early 1990s. These outlined nine principles that archaeologists are to use “in negotiating the complex responsibilities they have to archaeological resources, and to all who have an interest in these resources or are otherwise affected by archaeological practice (Lynott and Wylie 1995:8).” The nine principles are as follows:

  1. Stewardship
  2. Accountability
  3. Commercialization
  4. Public Education and Outreach
  5. Intellectual Property
  6. Public Reporting and Publication
  7. Records and Preservation
  8. Training and Resources
  9. Safe Educational and Workplace Environments (this principle was added in 2016)

(It should be noted that this is just one set of archaeological principles developed by a professional organization. SHA, AIA, and RPA each have their own, but with some commonalities.)

Public archaeology projects speak to a number of these ethical principles, including Stewardship, Accountability, and Public Education and Outreach, and this ethical relevance has always been one element in favor of conducting archaeological projects with a public component. Recent examinations of archaeological practice, however, have challenged archaeologists to think more critically about how they apply these ethical principals or assume archaeologists to be the only ones who can reasonably care for or adjudicate meaning of archaeological resources.

The principal of stewardship, in particular, can become problematic in so much as some archaeologists interpret it to mean that only they have the right to interpret or care for sites and artifacts. Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach to inquiry that recognizes local knowledge has value and argues that research should be conducted with a goal of positive social change. Though developed in the fields of adult education and public health, this approach aligns quite well with the more engaged forms of public archaeology, including indigenous archaeology and collaborative archaeology.

The question for you, then is: How does the public archaeology described by Jameson differ from the PAR approach described by McGhee? Do these different approaches suggest that ethical principals are commonly embraced or applied in projects, or does a differential importance given to ethics shape the nature of a public archaeology project? How might we take the criticisms and categories outlined by McGhee (see in particular pp. 216-219) to make our project more collaborative and responsive to public needs? Feel free to think radically and critically.

Lynott, M. J. and A. Wylie, editors (1995). Ethics and Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s. Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.

What is public archaeology to me?

Posted on by 1laracroft1

Richardson, Lorna-Jane and Jaime Almansa-Sanchez, “Do you even know what Public Archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics,” World Archaeology, Vol. 47 (2):14-211
From what I understand about public archaeology, it is a connection between the professional world and the public. There is no right definition for public archaeology, it is such a wide field with many different interpretations of what public archaeology is to people. Public archaeology makes archaeological finds and information more readily available and understandable for the general publics knowledge. According to Sir Mortimer Wheeler it is the duty of archaeologists to make their findings available to the public (Wheeler 1956.) The term public archaeology is also used to talk about publicly funded and supported excavations. I believe that public archaeology is any form of contributing the science and knowledge of findings and excavations in archaeology to the general public in hopes of educating people. I believe a great example of public archaeology is making your research or finds available through a blog or some sort of internet site. If the public is interested then they have easy access to the information and can even help out if they choose too.

What is Public Archaeology To Me?

Posted on by criticalmistake

Walking into the concept of Public Archaeology is not one I was once aware of. I was set to ponder what Public Archaeology is to me and my best interpretation would be viewing Public Archaeology as a connection between a profession and a community. I thought through it as a concept of bringing a community together to find solid research while keeping the public in the loop with what will and has been discovered. Our project aligns with my concept of public archaeology due to our goals of communicating with the community about their loved ones. Through this, I am interested in solving the unknown and bringing  peace to those that lost touch of a deceased individual. I am interested in bringing the community along our journey of working towards solving unanswered questions and sorting through any complications that may have surfaced within a burial.

Reflection on Public Archaeology

Posted on by chaps2009

Richardson, Lorna-Jane and Jaime Almansa-Sanchez, “Do you even know what public archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics”, World Archaeology, Vol 47(2): 14-211.

The authors of this article are having somewhat of a challenge defending the practice of public archaeology through various segments of this piece.  They are quite thorough in listing a wide variety of applications that range from cultural heritage management, indigenous rights, historiography, heritage tourism and education, ethics and popular culture.  A list such as this is quite broad and to the outside reader; seems like a mountain to overcome.  What an inclusive list like this says is that with very little creativity, it is easy for an anthropologist to outline valid reasons for embarking on a public archaeology project.  There seem to be more pros than cons within the world of possibilities.  Always one to pump the positive, it has been my experience that through place-based learning and application, a student and/or community member often has more interest in a project and/or subject matter if he/she can personally relate to it.  One step beyond that would be to say that he/she is more apt to remember and recall the information as well.

The authors also claim that the article will “further extend the debate around the definition and application of public archaeology from a global perspective”.  I found it interesting how they implied that archaeologists seemingly have patience issues with dealing with public community volunteers who are not as thoroughly educated as they are when it comes to archaeological methods.  As an outsider, it appears a bit harsh, but perhaps as I study more, I may just find it to be true.

That being said, it is important to translate opportunities for public archaeological excavations into a project that is relevant to modern world issues.  This needs to be done on multiple levels for multiple reasons.  Since there seems to be a growing interest in public archaeology, the time is now to catch the wave and ride it a far as it goes.  Even though the two approaches “deficit model” and “multiple perspectives model” were outlined clearly, I think the latter is more practical in the 21st century as public interest grows in archeological projects.  They outline three other models of public archaeology that pertain to education, public relations and democracy. One way to gain momentum is to focus on education and the community.  When the opportunity to “enrich lives, enhance cultural heritage, stimulate thought, emotion and creativity” arises, they warn us not to get overexcited and get too many parties involved who have opposite or non-complimentary agendas.  Focus and keep it simple.  Appeal to the public but don’t try to please the entire population.

As the authors continue to describe other models and approaches to this discipline, they mention that there is a “transformative impact on the discipline” when the public is involved in archaeological projects and when “non-experts have access to archeological resources and data” it appears to result in loss of respect by the old guard for the project altogether.  I believe that this should be viewed as a positive trend and that perhaps the “old guard”, if you will, be more receptive to change and advancement in all forms.

One quality a public archaeologist must have is patience.  Identifying, planning, and developing reasonable goals for a project are key.  In other words, don’t rush into anything. In addition, communication among all parties involved is also required in order to guarantee seamless project launch, productivity and completion.  The article often discusses the consequences of that may occur as a result of efforts during a public archaeology project. I fully agree with the author’s comments with regard to embracing the role of a public archaeologist by “engaging people in a positive way and helping them to understand and value the profession and result of the work”. (204)  The fastest way to get a project cancelled is to create conflicts within the community as a result.  The potential outcomes should be outlined so as to highlight the benefits to the community on levels where it will benefit the community as a whole.  Perhaps the uncovering of a site and the excavation of its contents could bring tourism (and therefore tax dollars) to the region?  We are also fighting against time in many areas of the country that are developing at a very rapid rate.  It is important that public archaeology as a discipline grows since soon some potential sites will be buried under macadam and cement; either by a parking lot or a strip mall.  Projects need to be identified and activated before it is too late and they are gone forever.  Since there seems to be a positive upswing in interest in public archaeology, it is important to ride the wave now and create the best options for optimal results that would impress social, political and economic outcomes.

 

 

What Public Archaeology is to Me

Posted on by befreebutterfly22

Public Archaeology is a complex field, where there is no one right definition that can encompass all that it stands for and all that it stands to accomplish. Due to this intricate nature, the only answer to the question what is Public Archaeology to me is also complex and intricate in nature. The simplest way in which I can define this is, public archaeology is archaeology done within a community, as well as archaeology that is done outside of a community. What I mean by this is, like most archaeology’s, public archaeology is done with the intent of learning more about any given community and/or environment. Once the excavating, surveying, and learning is done, all the knowledge that was gathered during this time is then spread around in articles, journals, books, etc. The difference between the way public archaeology and other more scholarly types of archaeology spread their data around is that, one is meant to be understood by a general public as well as other scholars, and the other is meant to be read by scholars. This to me is a key example of what separates public archaeology from other forms of archaeology. The project that is beginning in  Hidalgo County’s Pauper Cemetery is a prime example of showing how the data from this will made easily accessible for the general public. What I am hoping to learn more about is how exactly will our data be seen and interpreted by the public, as well as how learning to gather all the data and putting it together to make a cohesive public study.

Public Archeology to me

Posted on by spaiz1995

Public archeology  is when  professional archeologists and community organizers come together to engage members of their community in the preservation and protection of local heritage and cultural sites. With more and more archeology sites put in danger every year it becomes a necessity to get locals active and informed about their local sites in order to protect them for future generations. With out the input and care of local governments many sites are either left to ruin or completely destroyed, such as the Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery after years of being let alone the cemetery was in shambles over run with weeds , drugs and a site of ritualistic ceremonies before it was cleaned up.

Our project aims to hopefully not only to study this site for educational and professional purposes as students , but to also provide information to the community and local governments in order to  promote the preservation and sustainability  of this historical site .

By identifying those who where buried here we can provide comfort and closure to relatives of the deceased. This will hopefully lead to new information on why and when said person was buried in this particular cemetery  and in time compose a complete history of the Hidalgo County Pauper Cemetery .