Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:42:41.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology, communication, and multiple stakeholders: From the other side of the Big Pond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Janet E. Levy
Janet E. Levy*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reviews discussions and debates about effective communication within North American archaeology. The development of cultural resource management and the expansion of Native American control over archaeology have both influenced the practice and communication of archaeology. The concept of diverse stakeholders derives from discussions about ethics in archaeology, but is relevant to understanding the complexities of archaeological communication. Rather than focus on criticisms of archaeological communication, various examples of effective communication are provided.

Cet article reprend les discussions et débats sur une communication effective au sein de l'archéologie nord américaine. Le développement de la gestion des ressources culturelles et l'expansion du contrôle indigène de l'archéologie ont l'un et l'autre influencé la pratique et la communication de l'archéologie. Le concept des diverses parties prenantes découle de discussions sur l'éthique en archéologie, et en même temps est pertinent pour la compréhension de la complexité de la communication archéologique. L'article fournit de nombreux exemples de communication effective plutôt que de focusser sur des critiques de la communication archéologique

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel behandelt Diskussionen und Debatten über die effektive Kommunikation innerhalb der nordamerikanischen Archäologie. Die Entwicklung der Pflege der kulturellen Ressourcen und der Ausdehnung der Kontrolle indigener Amerikaner über die Archäologie haben beide die Praxis und Kommunikation der Archäologie beeinflusst. Das Konzept diverser Teilhaber erwächst aus den Diskussionen über die Ethik in der Archäologie, doch ist es notwendig, um die Komplexität der archäologischen Kommunikation zu verstehen. Mehr als die Kritiken zu archäologischer Kommunikation zu reflektieren werden verschiedene Beispiele effektiver Kommunikation vorgestellt.

Keywords

archaeological communicationNorth Americastakeholderscommunication archéologiqueAmérique du Nordparties prenantesarchäologische KommunikationNordamerikaTeilhaber
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 10 , Issue 2-3 , 2007 , pp. 167 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AAS, n.d. URL (accessed July 2008: www.arkarch.org Google Scholar
Aia Outreach, 2008. Archaeological Institute of America, TV & movies. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10260 Google Scholar
Aia TV and Movies, 2008. Archaeological Institute of America, TV & movies. URL (accessed July 2008: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10143 Google Scholar
Archaeological Conservancy, n.d. URL (accessed July 2008: http://www.americanarchaeology.com/aaabout.html Google Scholar
Archaeology in Annapolis, 2001–2008. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.bsos.umd.edu/anth/aia/index.htm Google Scholar
Ardren, T., 2002. Conversations about the production of archaeological knowledge and community museums at Chunchucmil and Kochol, Yucatan, Mexico. World Archaeology 34(2):379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, R., 1960. Archaeology and the public image. American Antiquity 25(3):402–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaudry, M. and Elster, E., 1979. The archaeology film festival: Making new friends for archaeology in the screening hall. American Antiquity 44(4):791–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, S.J. and Smith, G.S., eds, 2000. Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
CDA, n.d. Center for Desert Archaeology. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.cdarc.org/ Google Scholar
Clarke, A., 2002. The Ideal and the real: Cultural and personal transformations of archaeological research on Groote Eylandt, Northern Australia. World Archaeology 34(2):249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, A., 2002. Archaeology and vanua development in Fiji. World Archaeology 34(2):363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, B., 1974. Impact of another new archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 1(3/4):365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCicco, G., 1988. A public relations primer. American Antiquity 53(4):840–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dongoske, K.E., Aldenderfer, M. and Doehner, K., eds, 2000. Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
Fagan, B., 2002. I am so tired of jargon and narrow teaching… The SAA Archaeological Record 2(2):5–7.Google Scholar
Feder, K.L., 1984. Irrationality and popular archaeology. American Antiquity 49:525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, K.L., 2007. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology (6th edition). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Fort Bragg Cultural Resources, 2008. The Preservation Post. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.bragg.army.mil/culturalresources/ Google Scholar
Goodyear, A.C., Raab, L.M. and Klinger, T.C., 1978. The status of archaeological research design in cultural resource management. American Antiquity 43:159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumerman, G.J., and Phillips, D.A. Jr., 1978. Archaeology beyond anthropology. American Antiquity 43:184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hantman, J.L., 2004. Monacan meditation: Regional and individual archaeologies in the contemporary politics of Indian heritage. In Shackel, P.A. and Chambers, E.V. (eds), Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology: 19–34. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hegmon, M., 2003. Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, J.H., 1963. Some thoughts on amateur archaeology. American Antiquity 28:394–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, T.F., 1971. A conflict of values in American archaeology. American Antiquity 36:255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, ROBERT D., 2002. Archaeology under a microscope: CRM and the press. American Antiquity 67(2):195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M.P., 2005. The Archaeology of Liberty in an American Capital: Excavations at Annapolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lynott, M.J., 1997. Ethical principles and archaeological practice: Development of an ethics policy. American Antiquity 62:589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDavid, C., 2002. Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology 34:303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDavid, C., 2004. From ‘traditional’ archaeology to public archaeology to com-munity action: The Levi Jordan Plantation Project. In Shackel, P.A. and Chambers, E.V. (eds), Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology: 35–56. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGimsey, Charles R. III, 2003. The four fields of archaeology. American Antiquity 68:611–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meighan, C.W., 1992. Some scholars' views on reburial. American Antiquity 57:704–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michlovic, M.G., 1990. Folk archaeology in anthropological perspective. Current Anthropology 31(1):103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, S., D., Glazier, J.E., Phillips, L., Nasser el Nemr, M.S., Mousa, R.N., Aiesh, S., Richardson, A. Conner, and Seymour, M., 2002. Transforming archaeology through practice: Strategies for collaborative archaeology and the community archaeology project of Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeology 34(2):220–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, M.L., 2005. Rifts in the theoretical landscape of archaeology in the United States: A comment on Hegmon and Watkins. American Antiquity 70:581–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North Carolina Archaeology, 2006. URL (accessed July 2008): www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/ncarch/ncarch.htm Google Scholar
NPS, 2008. National Park Service archaeology program. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.nps.gov/archeology/public/index.htm Google Scholar
Orser, Jr., C.E., 2004. Archaeological interpretation and the Irish diasporic community. In Shackel, P.A. and Chambers, E.V. (eds), Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology: 171–192. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokotylo, D. and Guppy, N., 1999. Public opinion and archaeological heritage: Views from outside the profession. American Antiquity 64:400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quick, P. McW., ed., 1985. Proceedings: Conference on Reburial Issues. Newberry Library, Chicago, June 14–15, 1985. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
Ramos, M. and Duganne, D., 2000. Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology. Prepared for the Society for American Archaeology by Harris Interactive. Electronic document: URL (accessed 29 June 2007): http://www.saa.org/pubEdu/nrptdraft4.pdf Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1980. The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as anthropology? American Journal of Archaeology 84(3):287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1983. Divided we stand: Aspects of archaeology and information. American Antiquity 48:3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RLA, 2003. Research Laboratories of Archaeology. URL (accessed July 2008): http://ibiblio.org/r1a/dig/ Google Scholar
Rla Lessons, n.d. URL (accessed July 2008: http://www.rla.unc.edu/lessonsI Google Scholar
Rosen, L., 1980. The excavation of American Indian burial sites: A problem of law and professional responsibility. American Anthropologist 82(1):5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RRC, n.d. Randell Research Center. URL (accessed July 2008): http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/rrc/index.htm Google Scholar
SAA Committees, 2008. URL (accessed July 2008): www.saa.org/aboutSAA/committees/network.shtml Google Scholar
SAA Fun, 2008. URL (accessed July 2008): www.saa.org/public/fun/movies.html Google Scholar
SAA Home, 2008. Society for American Archaeology. URL (accessed July 2008): www.saa.org Google Scholar
SAA Public, 2008. URL (accessed July 2008): www.saa.org/public/home/home.html Google Scholar
Sabloff, J., 1998. Distinguished lecture in archeology: Communication and the future of American archaeology American Anthropologist 100(4):869–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackel, P.A., 2004. Introduction: Working with communities — heritage development and applied archaeology. In Shackel, P.A. and Chambers, E.V. (eds), Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology: 1–18. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackel, P.A. and Chambers, E.V. (eds), 2004. Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smardz, K. and Smith, S.J. (eds), 2000. The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
SRI, n.d. Statistical Research, Inc. URL (accessed July 2008: http://www.srifoundation.org/index.html Google Scholar
Thomas, D.H., 2000. Kennewick Man, Archaeology and the Battle for Native American Identity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Watkins, J.E., 2000. Indigenous Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, J.E., 2003. Beyond the margin: American Indians, First Nations, and archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68:273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S., 1991. Fantastic Archaeology: the Wild Side of North American Prehistory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, J., 1980. Archaeology in the future: An evolving discipline. American Journal of Archaeology 84(3):279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, L.J., 2003. Presenting the Past. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar