(Most of the) Readings for week of 9/21 (long notes)

"Responsible Archaeology is Applied Anthropology", Pyburn & Wilk
- archaeology needs to be both relevant and responsible if it hopes to maintain research opportunities and popularity
- excavation records cannot be considered private possessions, even though releasing some of this information could be dangerous to the archaeological record (locations of unlooted sites)
- but, if all information was protected and the preservation of all artifacts was put above all else, then many current excavations would be terminated; so there are obviously trade-offs
- collections of artifacts without accompanying documentation (i.e. looted) are still useful for archaeological research
- consequently, the archaeologist-looter relationship should be less critical and more objective (since looters have artifacts that could benefit research)
- there is a difference between genuine stewardship & collaboration with commercial interests (archaeologists should try not to collaborate with "sport diver" collectors)
- they should communicate: collected/looted artifacts leads to loss of information; we need to preserve this info!
- "salvage principle": some data are better than none (but this condemns archaeologists to "some")
- 2 groups that archaeologists must reach if they intend to get their message of preservation across:

1. hard core collectors: collectors like to invoke the "salvage principle" and they consider themselves "stewards of high culture"; archaeologists need to help associate artifact collecting with greed/selfishness; also need to show collectors that there is use for archaeological resource outside professional circles.
   
2. native peoples: keep in mind that an archaeologist's salary is more than that of the native people whose culture they are studying; archaeologists should stress the economic and cultural value of their work to local groups; archaeology can be used to reconstruct lost heritage, or to develop jobs, industry, self-respect, education, and public awareness; the desire to do something "nice" for the natives is not appropriate.
   

- ideas like "give them back their history" are actually colored by western values (I did not know that)
- archaeologists must not force western values on natives under the guise of "good deeds"
- archaeologists should not be passive about letting their research follow the agendas of the powerful
- they have more of an impact on the present than they might think, especially on the locals
- 3 ways archaeologists can affect locals/natives:

1. with their numbers: the more archaeologists (and students) are brought to a site, the more the local host community finds itself having to deal with people with an alien value system; outsiders are often seen (based on previous experience) as exploitative and patronizing, while the locals are branded as stupid and uncivilized (hippie vs. hick); local people do have an interest in archaeology, even if they see it in a different way from archaeologists.
   
2. with their money: an archaeologist's impact on local political economy can be profound; they can easily upset the local balance of power with unfair hiring practices.
   
3. with their interpretations: the native people must be the ones to decide what history they will reclaim (archaeologists shouldn't force it on them); archaeologists need to let local people teach them about their interest in the past; archaeologists also should be aware that things at the community level (like important archaeological/reclamation decisions) take a very long time; unfortunately, governments and foundations that fund archaeologists' work aren't very patient and aren't willing to give genuine control to the locals (but both of these are essential); cultural differences can prevent cooperation.
   

- Pyburn's 1990 trip to northern Belize for archaeological study was a success both in terms of research (locals showed her an undocumented Maya city) and in terms of archaeologist-native relations. Here are the "steps" she took to try and promote cooperation among the 2 cultures/classes:

1. lived in the village (her students did too)
2. worked with public school kids
3. gave constant lectures to anyone who was interested
4. used language that nonprofessionals could understand and relate to
5. spent many hours in village council meetings
6. worked and partied with the locals

- archaeologists can stop looting if they can change people's values in an ethical way
- applied anthropology: specifically geared to integrating positive cultural change and preventing the deterioration of cultural institutions (i.e. how to appropriately muck around in other cultures)
- archaeologists should advocate the inclusion of an applied anthropologist consultant at the start of their project; research should be done before, not after (no cleaning up messes)
- unfortunately, many "centers of power" (foundations, institutions, etc that fund archaeology) feel that an emphasis on ethical issues will distract from the scientific cause of an archaeological project ("it cannot be a principal goal of an archaeological institution")


"Archaeology Matters", Sabloff
- the good: people are intrigued in what archaeologists do
- the bad: most people don't understand the practice of archaeology and see it more as a form of entertainment
- the field is still failing to effectively tell the public about how modern archaeology functions and the huge gains associated with it
- archaeologists must find ways to make their research relevant to the modern world (this was proposed back in 1970, and still holds true)
- on the other hand, archaeology appears to be thriving: there has been a considerable increase in jobs, money spent, publications, and public fascination
- but, archaeology is failing to serve the public in a productive and reasonable fashion; getting the public interested is not enough
- the gap between amateurs and professionals keeps growing (ex: American Antiquity journal is incomprehensible to nonprofessionals)
- this "professionalization/academization of archaeology" has its benefits: advances in method, theory, cultural/historical knowledge (fewer inaccurate statements about cultural development/adaptation)
- but the rapid expansion of the field resulted in competition for university jobs and pressures to publish in quantity; this in turn led to the devaluation of writing/communicating with the general public; and here we are today, with archaeologists having little incentive to write for general audiences
- it's not good that the role models for archaeology are looters like Indiana Jones & Lara Croft
- professional archaeologists should be helping to write/host archaeology shows on TV
- the technical jargon has gotten so bad that scholars in different disciplines cannot read each others' work
- so why blame the general public for watching non-professional sources or off-the-wall publications; these sources of "information" are more frequent and easier to understand
- thus, archaeologists should help readers to become aware of standards of scientific research; they need to try and compete in the free market!
- how can archaeologists demonstrate that their research can help the contemporary and future world?

1. by applying lessons from the past to modern concerns
2. by helping communities around the globe ("action archaeology")

- action archaeology is difficult, though: the field has generally been conservative and slow (lots of unresolved debates), academic institutions do not reward outreach, applied work is seen by many scholars as less worthy than academic work, and many archaeologists are suspicious of natives causing problems if they were to be involved in the study of their own heritage
- action archaeology is also political
- but, action archaeology is necessary!


"Mixed Messages: Archaeology and the media", Finn
- archaeology in the media is usually classified under one of these extremes:

1. dull, with limited non-academic significance
2. blatantly sensational

- archaeologists should pay more attention to how they tell stories
- tabloid treatment of archaeological finds is usually based on truth-bending
- on the one hand, tabloids are entertaining (and funny to good-humored archaeologists)
- on the other, even a simple piece of news that's missing vital information or that conforms to a stereotype gives the public the wrong impression (for example, the "archaeologist as a hero" stereotype is damaging to the public's understanding of what archaeologists do)
- journalists and archaeologists are different in that the former has to work quickly and laterally to obtain components of a story (inevitably having to let go of the original story and take on another), while the latter works slowly and in depth (and are rarely disturbed or asked to change what they're doing)
- it's no wonder why the general public prefers the tabloid version over the scholarly report; reports aren't usually intended to be accessible outside the discipline!
- archaeologists have a moral duty to try and distinguish sensible interpretations of their data from irrational ones; otherwise, irrational interpretations can be used to justify injustice on other people
- journalism can afford to be less concerned with what is past; it focuses on the "new"
- this is why journalists tend to discard follow-ups on archaeological finds, in which interpretations of the evidence are clarified and corrected
- archaeologists can take advantage of this tendency by trying to find different ways to present their data
- new and innovative ways exist for presenting archaeology (computer animation, especially), but these "bells and whistles" don't necessarily lead to a good/understandable/relevant story
- another reason why newspaper journalists write inaccurate articles is due to the fact that journalists are on the scene of a find right away, when a lot of information still has not been recovered by the archaeologists (a lot of research and time is involved in the release of new evidence)
- not only are journalists provided with only the initial (often inconclusive) details of a find, but site security often prevents them from getting too close physically; as a result, journalists make due with any tidbit of information (accurate and not) until more information is released
- but, journalists aren't all bad: archeologists can learn how to reach the general public more efficiently by looking at how journalists convey it (for example, who? when? why? where? how? when? are much easier to convey and understand than scholarly jargon about trading networks)
- other topics that attract the general public: scandal, gender relationships
- needless to say, impatience rubs up against the slow pace of archaeological excavation
- a good story involves balance between jargon-free reporting and jargon-free archaeology (a good example is the old BBC show "Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral?", in which educational archaeology was also entertaining)
- advances in computer graphics (and the Internet) are actually making it harder to meet the expectations of TV viewers (oh no!)
- even documentaries (which you think would be better at handling facts) pay more attention to the mass entertainment aspect of archaeology than to accuracy and scholarly standards (especially those broadcast at prime-time)
- even if an archaeological excavation is unsuccessful, it should still be shared with the public (failure is part of the narrative); in this case, switch the focus of the story from findings to the personalities involved in the search
- news journalists should look at the big picture
- archaeologists should update regularly and give bright, yet succinct answers to journalists' questions