Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
References
FAQs

Archaeology’s Ethics-Epistemology Crisis and the Recovery of the Pragmatic Sensibility

Profile image of Timothy WebmoorTimothy Webmoor
visibility

…

description

23 pages

Abstract

A consideration of ‘cultures of contact’ for contemporary archaeological practice necessarily involves engagements with non-archaeologists or local stakeholders. These discussions in the literature tend to revolve around ethics. That is, the ethical responsibility on the part of archaeologist to increasingly involve a public that has strong associations with sites that archaeologists study and work at. This paper assays the burgeoning literature devoted to the topic, and makes the claim that ethics is not the right trench to be digging in. This is because the fundamental issues which fuel the debate over whether to involve local stakeholders are at core epistemological dilemmas. Operating according to the deeply ingrained epistemological tradition of correspondence theory, archaeology faces a crisis of ‘doing the right thing’ ethically and incorporating ‘subjective’ values into archaeological representations or retaining objective representations and circumscribing non-archaeological participation. The paper fills out this assessment by examining two archaeological projects from two different contexts: a Traditional Cultural Property in the United States; and the UNESCO World Heritage site of Teotihuacán, Mexico. Pragmatic principles of knowledge justification, a ‘third-party’ philosophical tradition eschewing corres- pondence theories of objectivity, are discussed as a neither/nor solution to the current ethics-epistemology crisis.Implementing a symmetrical and ‘mediating archaeology’, based upon pragmatic justification of archaeological knowledge, is discussed in relation to an on- going project at Teotihuacan.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Archaeology is in an ethics-epistemology crisis, influenced by correspondence theory's limitations.
  2. Stakeholder engagement challenges traditional epistemological frameworks, necessitating a pragmatic approach.
  3. Two case studies illustrate the need for integrating local perspectives in archaeological practice.
  4. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates stakeholder consultation, influencing archaeological standards.
  5. A pragmatic sensibility can enhance archaeological inquiry by aligning diverse community goals with research objectives.

Related papers

When Past and Present Collide: The Ethics of Archaeological Stewardship
Daniel Shoup

Current Anthropology, 2008

The Archaeological Institute of America’s (1999) code of professional standards requires that archaeologists “work actively to preserve the [archaeological] record in all its dimensions and for the long term” and “give due consideration to the interests of others” in their work. At the AIA’s 2006 annual meeting in Montreal, participants in a session entitled “WhenPast and Present Collide: The Ethics of Archaeological Stewardship” explored the implications of these obligations for the conduct of archaeology and suggested ways for archaeologists to engage with stakeholder collaboration, site preservation, and political aspects of archaeology. Presentations by Lynn Meskell, Michael Galaty, Roger Atwood, Daniel Shoup, Ian Hodder, and Lyra Monteiro included case studies from South Africa, Peru, Albania, and Turkey. They examined when archaeologists should take sides in political conflicts over archaeology, how economic and social issues that are unrelated to archaeology can be decisive in site preservation efforts, whether acceptance of universal heritage values should be a precondition for inclusion of nonarchaeologists in stewardship planning, and when the actions of archaeologists themselves can be harmful to site preservation efforts. Rather than being prescriptive these contributions offered a variety of perspectives and suggestions for integrating stewardshipand collaboration into archaeological research.

View PDFchevron_right
ON THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PUBLIC
Sean Carroll

Public archaeology offers an opportunity for the archaeologist to be culturally holistic in the interpretation of archaeological sites. The archaeologist can look not just at the artifacts, but can delve deeper into such things as values, beliefs, cultural practices, land use, etc. that an archaeological site represents. However, while this opportunity is present, it is little, if ever, implemented. Instead, what exists is a disconnect between cultural groups and public archaeology with respect to values, beliefs, and other elements considered an integral part of history and culture to one and an impedance to the other. Re-evaluating this disconnect through a number of theoretical frameworks offered by cultural anthropology including functionalism, interpretive anthropology, power relationships, and political-economic perspective provides an opportunity to identify and address these issues. In order to do this the archaeologist must remove himself from his niche and look at both the cultural group and public archaeology from the standpoint of a participant observer. It is my hope that by looking at this disconnect through the theoretical frameworks offered by cultural anthropology, public archaeology may embrace the unique opportunity that it stands to offer.

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond Ethics: Considerations in Problematizing Community Involvement and Outreach in Archaeological Practice
Timothy Matney

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeological Ethics
Dru McGill
View PDFchevron_right
Ethical Issues in Indigenous Archaeology: Problems with Difference and Collaboration
Alfredo González-Ruibal

Canadian Journal of Bioethics, 2019

The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity-how archaeologists conceptualize difference-and collaboration-how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies. La critique de l'archéologie dans une perspective autochtone et postcoloniale a été largement acceptée, du moins en théorie, dans de nombreuses colonies de colons, du Canada à la Nouvelle-Zélande. Dans le présent texte, j'aimerais développer cette critique de deux façons : d'une part, je soulignerai certaines questions qui n'ont pas été résolues ; d'autre part, j'aborderai les expériences autochtones et coloniales qui sont différentes de celles des colonies de colons britanniques, qui ont façonné massivement notre compréhension de l'indigénéité et de la relation entre l'archéologie et celle-ci. Je m'intéresse particulièrement à deux problèmes clés : l'altérité-comment les archéologues conçoivent la différence-et la collaboration-comment les archéologues imaginent leur relation avec des personnes d'un autre milieu culturel. Mes réflexions sont basées sur mes expériences personnelles de travail avec des communautés d'Europe du Sud, d'Afrique subsaharienne et d'Amérique du Sud qui diffèrent sensiblement de celles que l'on retrouve habituellement dans les archéologies autochtones.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethics, Use, and Inclusion in Managing Archaeological Built Heritage: The Relationship Between Experts and Visitors/Users
Maria Germanà

Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

View PDFchevron_right
Decoupling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage
Harald Fredheim

Norwegian Archaeological Review, 2020

In this article I caution the assertions made in the 2018 volume of NAR on the future of archaeology that archaeology is well on its way to decolonising itself and that ‘open’ archaeologies that invite public participation and utilise new digital technologies are inherently ethical. I begin by critiquing the exclusively positive connotations of archaeology, digital technologies and public participation, before drawing on critiques of the ‘simple deficit model’ within science communication, which I argue are equally applicable to public archaeology. I use the ‘simple deficit model’ and a review of shifting perspectives on legitimate heritage expertise to lay the foundation for an archaeology that is both ‘open’ and ‘ethical’. I conclude that, as in science communication, such an archaeology requires archaeologists to develop more accurate understandings of both archaeology and publics.

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeological Theory in Dialogue: Situating Relationality, Ontology, Posthumanism, and Indigenous Paradigms (Crellin, Cipolla, Montgomery, Harris, and Moore; Routledge 2021)
Oliver Harris, Craig N Cipolla, Lindsay Montgomery

Archaeological Theory in Dialogue: Situating Relationality, Ontology, Posthumanism, and Indigenous Paradigms (Routledge), 2021

Archaeological Theory in Dialogue presents an innovative conversation between five scholars from different backgrounds on a range of central issues facing archaeology today. Interspersing detailed investigations of critical theoretical issues with dialogues between the authors, the book interrogates the importance of four themes at the heart of much contemporary theoretical debate: relations, ontology, posthumanism, and Indigenous paradigms. The authors, who work in Europe and North America, explore how these themes are shaping the ways that archaeologists conduct fieldwork, conceptualize the past, and engage with the political and ethical challenges that our discipline faces in the twenty-first century. The unique style of Archaeological Theory in Dialogue , switching between detailed arguments and dialogical exchange, makes it essential reading for both scholars and students of archaeological theory and those with an interest in the politics and ethics of the past.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethics in the Practice of Archaeology and the Making of Heritage: Understanding beyond the Material
Artur Ribeiro, Gustav Wollentz

Past Societies: Human Development in Landscapes, 2020

One of the most popular current trends in archaeology and heritage studies is New Materialisms. This trend has shifted the attention of scholars from a human and subject centred perspective of reality, to one focusing on objects in-themselves and the complex networks in which these objects navigate. Despite the interesting research that New Materialisms has generated, this trend has done little to engage in political and ethical critique, largely due to two central tenets of New Materialisms: that of distributed agency and essentialism. With regards to agency, according to New Materialisms, it is argued that agency is distributed across a network of both humans and non-human objects, all mutually affecting each other. As pointed out by some critics, this conception of agency leads to problems concerning how we can ascertain responsibility, especially in sensitive contexts such as war contexts or political corruption. The risk of essentialism, on the other hand, is that it may recognise objects in-themselves, such as monuments, as containing within themselves aspects like beauty and inspiration, that in turn make them 'heritage'. However, recognising heritage as inherent hides the (seldom innocent) negotiation that makes heritage 'heritage'. This negotiation includes silences that are not valued as heritage and it is often built upon unequal power relations. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate through the Gazimestan monument in Kosovo that both the idea of distributed agency and essentialism obscure complex problems when it comes to recognising responsibility for how heritage is recognised and managed in postwar environments. Rather than distributed agency and essen-tialism, this paper argues for the acceptance of heritage as a meaning-making process, where value associated with heritage is constantly negotiated. 192 PAST SOCIETIES

View PDFchevron_right
The Philosophy of Archaeology
Robert Preucel

Archaeology is a common theoretical hat-rack for all our parochial hats.

View PDFchevron_right

References (78)

  1. Anyon, Roger and T.J. Ferguson. "Cultural Resource Management at the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, USA." Antiquity 69 (1995): 913-30.
  2. Anyon, Roger, et al. "Native American Oral Traditions and Archaeology." Society of American Archaeology Bulletin 14, no. 2 (1996): 1-6.
  3. Anyon, Roger, Ferguson, T.J., Loretta Jackson, Lillie Lane, and Philip Vicenti. "Native American Oral Tradition and Archaeology, Issues of Structure, Relevance, and Respect." In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by N. Swidler, et al., 77-87. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 1997.
  4. Bender, Barbara. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg, 1998.
  5. Bray, Tamara, ed. The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation. London: Garland Publishing, 2001.
  6. Callon, Michel and John Law. "After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society." Canadian Journal of Sociology 22, no. 12 (1997): 165-82.
  7. Carmichael, David L., et al., ed. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge, 1994.
  8. Cowgill, George. "Beyond Criticizing New Archaeology." American Anthropologist 95, no. 3 (1993): 551-73.
  9. Davidson, Donald. "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme." In Post-Analytic Philosophy, edited by John and Cornel West Rajchman, 129-44. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
  10. Deloria, Vine Jr. "Anthros, Indians, and Planetary Reality." In Indians and Anthropologists, edited by M. and Larry Zimmerman Biolsi, 209-21. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1997.
  11. Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. London: Open Court Publishing Company, 1925.
  12. Dewey, John. Reconstruction in Philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1957[1920].
  13. Echo-Hawk, Roger. "Ancient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Traditions and the Archaeological Record in Deep Time." American Antiquity 65, no. 2 (2000): 267-90.
  14. Ferguson, T.J., J. Watkins and G.L. Pullar. "Native Americans and Archaeologists, Commentary and Personal Perspectives." In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by N. Swidler, et al. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 1997.
  15. Flannery, Kent. "Archaeology with a Capital 'S'." In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by C.L. Redman, 47-58. New York: Wiley, 1973.
  16. Flannery, Kent. "The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 1980's." American Anthropologist 84 (1982): 265-78.
  17. Fotiadis, Michael. "Regions of the Imagination: Archaeologists, Local People and the Archaeological Record in Fieldwork, Greece." Journal of European Archaeology, no. 1 (1993): 151-70.
  18. Gaffney, C. F. and V. L. Gaffney, ed. Pragmatic Archaeology: Theory in Crisis? Vol. 167, Bar British Series 167. Oxford: BAR, 1987.
  19. Gnecco, Carlos. Multivocalidad Historico: Hacia Una Cartografia Postcolonial De La Arqueologia. Bogota: Universidad de Los Andes, 1999.
  20. Goldstein, Lynne and Keith Kintigh. "Ethics and the Reburial Controversy." American Antiquity 55, no. 3 (1991): 585-91.
  21. Green, Lesley F., David Green, and Eduardo Góes Neves. "Indigenous Knowledge and Archaeological Science: The Challenges of Public Archaeology in the Reserva Uaca." Journal of Social Archaeology 3, no. 3 (2003): 366-98.
  22. Hacking, Ian. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
  23. Hacking, Ian. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  24. Hale, Charles. "Does Multiculturalism Menace? Governance, Cultural Rights and the Politics of Identity in Guatemala." Latin American Studies 34 (2002): 485-524.
  25. Harley, J.B. "Deconstructing the Map." In Writing Worlds: Discourse, Texts and Metaphors in Representation of Landscape, edited by Trevor and James Duncan Barnes, 231- 47. London: Routledge, 1992.
  26. Hemming, Steve. "Ngarrendjeri Burials as Cultural Sites: Indigenous Heritage Issues in Australia." World Archaeological Bulletin 11 (2000): 58-66.
  27. Hodder, Ian. "Archaeological Reflexivity and the 'Local' Voice." Anthropological Quarterly 75, no. 4 (2002).
  28. Hodder, Ian. Archaeology Beyond Dialogue. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2004.
  29. Hodder, Ian. "Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role." American Antiquity 56 (1991): 7- 18.
  30. Hodder, Ian. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
  31. Ihde, Don and Evan Selinger. "Merleau-Ponty and Epistemology Engines." Human Studies 27 (2004): 361-76.
  32. James, William. The Philosophy of William James. New York: Modern Library, 1907.
  33. King, Thomas. Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2003.
  34. Latour, Bruno. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  35. Law, John and John Hassard, ed. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
  36. Lynot, Mark and Alison Wylie. Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990's. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 1995.
  37. Marshall, Yvonne. "What Is Community Archaeology?" World Archaeology 34, no. 2 (2002): 211-19.
  38. Mason, Ronald. "Archaeology and Native North American Oral Traditions." American Antiquity 65, no. 2 (2000): 239-66.
  39. McGuire, Randall. "Archaeology and the First Americans." American Anthropologist 94, no. 4 (1992): 816-36.
  40. Meighan, Clement. "Some Scholars' View on Reburial." American Antiquity 57, no. 4 (1992): 704-10.
  41. Meskell, Lynn. "The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology." Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002): 279-301.
  42. Mihesuah, Devon, ed. Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
  43. Mulvaney, D.J. "Past Regained, Future Lost: The Kow Swamp Pleistocene Burials." Antiquity 65 (1991): 12-21.
  44. NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) 1990: 101 st Congress of the Unites States, 04 STAT. 3048 PUBLIC LAW 101-601-NOVEMBER 16, 1990.
  45. Nelson, S.M. and A.B.Kehoe, ed. Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archaeology. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association, 1990.
  46. Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews, ed. At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Burnaby: Archaeology Press, 1997.
  47. Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto, A. Anaya, C.G. Elera, and L.M. Valdez. "Social Archaeology in Latin America?: Comments to T.C. Patterson." American Antiquity 62, no. 2 (1997): 365-74.
  48. Parker, P.L. and Thomas King. "National Register Bulletin 38. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Properties." edited by Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C: National Park Service, 1990.
  49. Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications, 1955.
  50. Politis, Gustavo. "On Archaeological Praxis, Gender Bias and Indigenous Peoples in South America." Journal of Social Archaeology 2, no. 1 (2001): 90-107.
  51. Powell, Shirley, et al. "Ethics and Ownership of the Past: The Reburial and Repatriation Controversy." Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5 (1993): 1-21.
  52. Putnam, Hilary. Pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
  53. Putnam, Hilary. "Pragmatism and Nonscientific Knowledge." In Hilary Putnam: Pragmatism and Realism, edited by James and Urszula Zeglen Conant, 14-24. London: Routledge, 2002.
  54. Rescher, Nicholas. Realism and Idealism in Pragmatic Perspective. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005.
  55. Rockmore, Tom. "On the Structure of Twentieth-Century Philosophy." Metaphilosophy 35, no. 4 (2004): 466-78.
  56. Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.
  57. Rorty, Richard. "Universality and Truth." In Rorty and His Critics, edited by Robert Brandom, 1-30. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
  58. Schmidt, Peter R. and Thomas C. Patterson, ed. Making Alternative Histories, the Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1995.
  59. Shepherd, Nick. "When the Hand That Holds the Trowel Is Black..." Journal of Social Archaeology 3, no. 3 (2003): 334-52.
  60. Swidler, Nina, Kurt Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan Downer, ed. Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. London: AltaMira Press, 1997.
  61. Trope, Jack and Walter Echo-Hawk. "The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History." In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, edited by Mihesuah Devon, 123-68.
  62. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
  63. Vitelli, Karen, ed. Archaeological Ethics. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1996.
  64. Watkins, Joe. "Beyond the Margins: American Indians, First Nations, and Archaeology in North America." American Antiquity 68, no. 2 (2003): 273-85.
  65. Watkins, Joe. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2000.
  66. Watkins, Joe. "Yours, Mine, or Ours?: Conflicts between Archaeologists and Ethnic Groups." In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans and Repatriation, edited by Tamara Bray, 57-68. New York: Garland Publishing, 2001.
  67. Watson, Patty Jo, Steven. LeBlanc, and Charles Redman. "A Parochial Primer: The New Dissonance as Seen from the Midcontinental United States." In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Robert Preucel. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, 1991.
  68. Webmoor, Timothy. "Mediational Techniques and Conceptual Frameworks in Archaeology: A Model in Mapwork at Teotihuacán, Mexico." Journal of Social Archaeology 5, no. 1 (2005): 52-84.
  69. Webmoor, Timothy. "Re-Presenting Multiple Engagements with Traditional Cultural Properties in North America." A paper presented at the World Archaeology Congress. Washington, D.C., 2003.
  70. Webmoor, Timothy. "Reconfiguring the Archaeological Sensibility: Mediation at Teotihuacán, Mexico." Unpublished dissertation, Stanford University, 2007.
  71. Webmoor, Timothy and Christopher Witmore. "What Is Gathered under the Banner of the Social? On the Deprivation of Dialectics in Understanding Humanity through a 'Social Archaeology' " Norwegian Archaeological Review (2007(in press)).
  72. White Deer, Gary. "Return of the Sacred: Spirituality and the Scientific Imperative." In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina Swidler, Kurt Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan Downer, 37-43. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 1997.
  73. Wylie, Alison. "Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practice for Bernstein's 'Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism'." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19 (1989): 1-18.
  74. Wylie. Alison. "The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender." American Antiquity 57, no. 1 (1992): 15- 35.
  75. Wylie, Alison. Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
  76. Zimmerman, Larry. "A New and Different Archaeology? With a Postscript on the Impact of the Kennewick Dispute." In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, edited by Devon Mihesuah, 294-306. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2000.
  77. Zimmerman, Larry. "Usurping Native American Voice." In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation, edited by Tamara Bray, 169- 84. New York: Garland, 2001.
  78. Zimmerman, Larry, Karen D. Vitelli, Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, ed. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2003.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the key ethical implications of NAGPRA on archaeological practices?add

NAGPRA mandates the consideration of folklore and oral history in repatriation cases, leading to significant shifts in archaeological evidence standards for site significance, as noted in legal contexts since 1990.

How does stakeholder participation reshape archaeological epistemology?add

The paper reveals that stakeholder inclusion necessitates reevaluating traditional archaeological epistemological frameworks, leading to complex interactions between differing knowledge systems.

What are the proposed benefits of integrating non-archaeological insights into archaeological methodology?add

Incorporating non-archaeological insights can enhance the robustness of interpretations, as demonstrated through empirical studies highlighting local community values and perceptions in sites like Teotihuacán.

How does the concept of 'mediating archaeology' function within ethical debates?add

Mediating archaeology aims to bridge divides between established archaeological practice and local knowledge frameworks, proposing a more inclusive and pragmatic approach to archaeological inquiry.

What role does pragmatism play in addressing archaeology's ethics-epistemology crisis?add

Pragmatism shifts focus from strict representational theories of truth to practical efficacy and stakeholder engagement, thereby re-defining ethics and knowledge in archaeology.

About the author
Timothy Webmoor
University of Colorado, Boulder, Faculty Member

PhD anthropology Stanford | material culture studies University College London | science and technology studies (STS) Oxford | | My legacy academic site | Find me over at LinkedIn |

Papers
59
Followers
624
View all papers from Timothy Webmoorarrow_forward

Related papers

(2011) Beyond Ethics: Considerations in Problematizing Community Involvement and Outreach in Archaeological Practice
Melissa S. Rosenzweig

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(2): 59-70, 2011

It is important sometimes to break away from traditional methods of scientific and archaeological writing to consider the broader social implications of our research activities. This paper is an attempt to do so by considering not the ancient subjects of our investigations, but rather the living participants of communities in which we labour. In so doing, many of the details of usual concern—site names, dates and periods, precise locations, artefacts, footnotes, and scholarly references—are not particularly important. Rather, what is of significance in considering the ethics (and beyond) of doing fieldwork are the relationships that we forge within the contexts of our scientific teams, local communities, and the broader public. This paper will focus on the second of these three contexts, namely the local community in which we work. In order to protect the identities of all involved, many of the details of our work have been edited; in any case they were secondary to our main thesis: that archaeological ethics are flexible rules, negotiated as part of daily practice, and largely dependent upon the context in which conflict and resolution reside.

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeological Ethics (Karen D. Vitelli & Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Editors), 2006. 2nd Edition. AltaMira Press, Lanham. 2006 & The Ethics of Archaeology. Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. (Chris Scarre & Geoffrey Scarre, By & Edited)., Cambridge U P,
Alicia J . M . Colson

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 32: 135-141, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Is a Shared Past Possible? The Ethics and Practice of Archaeology in the 21st Century
Ian Hodder

I take it for granted that archaeological stewardship should be based on dialogue between stakeholder groups. Some form of collaboration and consultation is at the heart of most attempts today to deal with long-term stewardship issues, whether it is the consultancy involved in the development of the Stonehenge management plan or the dialogues involving archaeologists, governments, and indigenous peoples throughout the world (e.g., . I also take it for granted that many guidelines and procedures have been discussed for such stewardship collaboration dealing with a wide range of issues, including the need to identify all potential stakeholders, provide time for consultation, evaluate varying cultural values regarding heritage, and assess economic implications (e.g., de la Torre 1997). U n c o r r e c t e d P r o o f

View PDFchevron_right
Dissard, L., Rosenzweig, M.S. and Matney, T., 2011. "Beyond Ethics: Considerations in Problematizing Community Involvement and Outreach in Archaeological Practice," Archaeological Review of Cambridge 26(2): 59-70.
Melissa S. Rosenzweig, Laurent Dissard

Archaeological Review of Cambridge, 2011

It is important sometimes to break away from traditional methods of scientific and archaeological writing to consider the broader social implications of our research activities. This paper is an attempt to do so by considering not the ancient subjects of our investigations, but rather the living participants of communities in which we labour. In so doing, many of the details of usual concern—site names, dates and periods, precise locations, artefacts, footnotes, and scholarly references—are not particularly important. Rather, what is of significance in considering the ethics (and beyond) of doing fieldwork are the relationships that we forge within the contexts of our scientific teams, local communities, and the broader public. This paper will focus on the second of these three contexts, namely the local community in which we work.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethics, Objectivity and Emancipatory Archaeology
Dean Saitta

Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, 2008

Part of the challenge facing an ethical and socially responsible archaeology is to square traditional, time-honored commitments to 'objective' scholarly inquiry with the politically interested motivations of an emancipatory archaeology. Emancipatory archaeology has been defined in different ways (eg, Duke and Saitta 1998;. In the view taken here, emancipatory archaeology is dedicated to expanding the conversation about what it means to be human by illuminating variation in the forms and consequences of social relationships that have organized human life across time and space. By 'expanding' I mean taking archaeological knowledge to audiences -native peoples, the working poor -who historically have had little use for archaeology as traditionally practiced. The organizational variation at issue in this conversation is, of course, contingent; that is, it is shaped by time, place and circumstance. Things could always have turned out differently. Emancipatory archaeology aims, through its conceptual frameworks and public outreach initiatives, to foster critical thought about the determinants of contemporary lived experience in hopes of impelling positive social change. Emancipatory archaeology is an archaeology of hearts and minds; it is a moral as well as scientific enterprise.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved