Sixth World Archaeological Congress
Ireland 2008
29th June – 4th July
WAC-6 Themes
To view the WAC-6 Themes in Irish, please CLICK HERE.
The WAC-6 Programme will be organised into large themes, each
containing several sessions that relate to the same overall issue. Papers can
be proposed for existing sessions, OR independently, to be placed into the
programme as it develops.
Session formats:
0. Working
sessions
0. Large
plenary panels
0. Position
papers
0. Forums
0. Debates
0. Demonstrations
and workshops.
Congress themes:
Below is a PROVISIONAL list of Themes
for WAC-6 - click on these to view the sessions therein. Sessions where the
abstract is not yet clickable are still under review by theme organisers or the
Programme Committee. Sessions will be timetabled after February 22nd, when all
papers have been submitted. If you wish to submit a paper (due: Feb 22nd 2008)
please complete the online form
accessible via the Submit Proposals page of this website. If you
have queries regarding a session or theme please contact the relevant
organisers.
Theme and Session
abstracts can be searched here >>
0. Archaeological Theory? Legacies,
Burdens, Futures
0. Archaeologists, War and Conflict:
Ethics, Politics, Responsibility
0. Archaeology in the Digital Age 2.0
0. Archaeology of Spiritualities
0. Archaeology, Development and Quality
Assurance: An International Perspective
0. Critical Technologies: the Making of
the Modern World
0. Developing International
Geoarchaeology
0. Emerging Global Archaeologies
In association
with ICOMOS Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM)
0. Engaged and Useful Archaeologies
0. Exploring WACÕs Approach(es) to
Ethics
In association with The WAC Committee on Ethics
0. Getting the Message Across -
Communicating Archaeology
0. Indigenous Archaeologies: New
Challenges
0. Intimate Encounters, Postcolonial
Engagements: Archaeologies of Empire and Sexuality
0. Issues in Historical Archaeology
0. Maritime and Underwater Archaeology
0. Materializing Identities I:
personhood, politics and the presentation of identity
0. Materializing Identities II:
materials, techniques, practice
0. Memory, Archaeology, and Oral
Traditions
0. Moving Beyond the Meal: The Economics
and Politics of Communal Foraging
0. Our Changing Planet: Past Human
Environments in Modern Contexts
0. Peopling the Past, Individualizing
the Present: Bioarchaeological Contributions in a Global Context
0. Provisional Independent Sessions
0. Reflections on Archaeology and
Politics
Wetland Archaeology Across the World
Archaeological Theory? Legacies, Burdens, Futures
Andrew Cochrane (Cardiff University)
Ian Russell
(University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Timothy Webmoor(Stanford University,
Stanford Archaeology Center)
Christopher
Witmore (Brown University)
Abstract
What is archaeological theory? Where is archaeological theory?
Opening many contemporary books on archaeological theory it
becomes apparent there is little internal debate between differing theoretical
positions. Instead, one is presented with the shoring up of alternate 'camps'
operating without significant interaction. While branding ÔlabelsÕ proliferate,
and are often taken for developed theories, the inter-relationships between
various agendas are seldom interrogated; e.g. agency theory, cognitive
archaeology, embodiment, evolutionary archaeology, feminism, materiality,
middle range theory, phenomenology, thing theory, etc. The fragmented terrain
of this 'hyperpluralism' characterises the field world-wide and has been
embraced generally as a positive development. Within this climate, however,
there are arguments that archaeological theory is no longer at the heart of archaeology
as a coherent enterprise, and even that Òtheory is deadÓ. Reasons for these
concerns are multiple, in part relating to transforming definitions of theory
itself. With few exceptions, this situation derives from a lack of intellectual
debate and disciplinary negotiation. Additionally, a host of other factors also
come into play—from the explosion of the heritage industry and CRM to the
fluctuations of the academy; from behind-the-doors networking to the media
economy of popular archaeology. Recognition of these concerns does not form the
end point for this Congress Theme, but rather it constitutes a point of
departure.
We encourage sessions to engage questions of archaeological
theory relating to:
0. Legacies;
what has become of these Ôtheoretical campsÕ?
0. Burdens;
can we avoid the theory/practice bifurcation while exploring the edge of
thoughtful practice?
0. Futures;
what are the new agendas? What are the obligations, energies, and concerns
which form common grounds beneath the fragmented terrain of archaeological
theory?
0.
In
a period of radical transformations within the discipline, we hope sessions
will take stock and further explore a range of interests and applications.
0. What
are the very long term implications of theoretical, pedagogical and
institutional changes for the practices of archaeology?
0. Will
careful and critical thought in archaeology be sidelined as irrelevant in a
climate of politically correct, open inclusion and popular opinion-driven,
production of heritage for all?
0. Do
the very activities of discerning evaluation and debate inherent to theory make
theory elitist?
0. Who
is included and excluded from archaeological theorizing?
0. And
more importantly, how are the standards of evaluation and reasoning changing as
a consequence of the new climate? Or is theory no longer needed?
Furthermore, we encourage panelists to consider the
investigation of stimuli that prompt bold questions. What does an
archaeological sensibility contribute to the understanding of humanity? What
are the unique contributions of archaeology in its collaboration with other
disciplines? Can archaeology contribute to cutting-edge agendas and debates in
a transdisciplinary arena? We aim to foster a rich series of exchanges
addressing where we are and what is at stake. Simultaneously we seek to reframe
or even undercut the current state of affairs—a hyperplural
stagnation—by identifying collective concerns for understanding
humanity's location within the intra-relationships of this shared world.
Sessions
Archaeologies of Art
InŽs
Domingo Sanz (Flinders University of South Australia, Department of
Archaeology,)
Sally May (Flinders University of South
Australia)
Muiris
O'Sullivan (University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Sven Ouzman
(University of Pretoria, Department of Anthropology & Archaeology)
Ian Russell
(University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Abstract
Archaeologies of Art encourages the creative interplay of
various approaches to ÔartÕ. This theme attempts to free the archaeological
encounter with ÔartÕ from its special interest niche so that it can make a more
collaborative and critical contribution to the vanguard of archaeological
theory and artistic practice. Established topics such as rock art, monumental
architecture and land art will be featured in multiple sessions. These topics
have previously been considered archaeological ÔCinderellasÕ, but the past 30
years has seen them reach a maturity of thought and action that needs to be
presented so that practitioners may chart future areas of interest and
application – all while being mindful of the history of each of these
approaches.
Responding to these established topics, we encourage the
exploration and expansion of the frontiers of traditional research and
practice. Sessions on the materiality and context of contemporary art and the
interplay between archaeologists and artists in all its manifestations and
temporalities are thus welcome. Similarly, discussions on the social lives of
artworks will help bridge and even reconfigure the ÔpastÕ – ÔpresentÕ
bifurcation. Foundational questions such as what is ÔartÕ, who or what can be
an artist, and the roles of art in the world also fit within this themeÕs
gambit. Archaeologies of Art will also offer a forum for responses to the
programme of the çbhar agus Meon / Materials and Mentalities exhibition (www.amexhibition.com) and mark the 10th
anniversary of the excavation and reconstruction of Francis BaconÕs studio, now
located at the Dublin City Gallery, the Hugh Lane (www.hughlane.ie/fb_studio).
Archaeologists, War and Conflict: Ethics, Politics,
Responsibility
Reinhard Bernbeck (Binghamton
University)
Yannis Hamilakis
(University of Southampton)
Susan Pollock
(Binghamton University)
Abstract
The ÒArchaeologists and WarÓ Taskforce, established in the
aftermath of WAC-5 is charged with investigating the ethical and political role
of archaeologists in armed conflicts around the world. Taking as its starting
point the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent media focus upon the
archaeology of ÔMesopotamiaÕ, the taskforce was established to
"investigate the role of archaeologists in situations of armed conflict
around the world, and explore the ethical dilemmas and the social and political
consequences and effects arising from that involvement". Given the
perceived increasing involvement of archaeologists with the military in many
parts of the world, and other phenomena that appear to testify to the
militarization of archaeology (recalling perhaps the distant past in the
history of archaeology when archaeologists formed an integral part of military
imperialistic campaigns), this theme invites sessions which will confront the
ethics and politics of this phenomenon. It also aims to explore possible
stances and practices by archaeologists and others who oppose militarization
and colonialists/imperialists wars, but find themselves working amidst such
situations. More specifically, we welcome sessions with a thematic, historical,
or geographical focus but which address questions such as:
0. Can
archaeologists use their expertise to foster cultural understanding and thereby
work against militarization and military ÒsolutionsÓ?
0. Is
it possible to reconcile an anti-war stance with an archaeological involvement
(advice, contribution with scholarly expertise, scientific investigations) in
military conflicts?
0. When
should archaeologists opposed to the war become involved in ÔreconstructionÕ
efforts or forensic investigations?
0. Does
the desire to ÒrescueÓ antiquities justify the collaboration of archaeologists
with military structures or the exclusive focus on sites and artefacts as
opposed to human lives?
0. What
is the nature of links between imperial/colonial wars and financial profit
through archaeological activity?
0. Is
there a need for a new code of ethics that takes into account the notion of the
Ôembedded archaeologistÕ (that is, the archaeologist who is embedded in
military structures, adopting the role of an Òobjective professionalÓ)?
0. Can
there be, in contexts of armed conflict, a role for an archaeology that is both
politically engaged and neutral, in the sense that it takes an ethical stance
that is opposed to any and all violence?
0. What
should the role of forensic archaeologists and anthropologists be when asked to
investigate existing or assumed mass graves?
0. Should
we accept the participation of serving army personnel in archaeological
conferences and publications?
0. How
can we resist a further militarization of archaeology?
0. How
can anti-war archaeologists in opposing camps of a conflict but with similar
ethical stances collaborate and bridge the dividing line?
Archaeology and the Museum
Sonia Archila Monta–ez (Andes University)
Sally May (Flinders University of South
Australia)
Abstract
This theme highlights archaeological research relating to, or
coming from within, the museum sphere. The theme will focus on the shifting
role of archaeology and anthropology museums in our contemporary societies, a
society which is increasingly multicultural, multivocal and global. In particular,
this theme will explore the changing power relations within the museums sphere
of influence and the role of social memory and social history in influencing
perceptions of the past.
The session organizers will be guided by the following
questions:
0. What
role do museums play in the development of the discipline of archaeology both
in theory and practice?
0. How
are museums of anthropology and archaeology contributing to debates surrounding
heritage management?
0. How
have museums of archaeology and anthropology engaged with notions of
decolonization and the growing recognition of the political implications of
their activities?
0. How
have/could museums contribute to the debate surrounding the inclusion of social
groups that have traditionally been excluded from the museological discourse?
0. How
have museums of anthropology and archaeology modified their procedures to
engage with their increasingly (or increasingly recognised) multicultural
societies?
0. How
are museums of anthropology and archaeology contributing to the re-shaping of
memory?
Archaeology in the Digital Age 2.0
Michael
Ashley (University of California, Berkeley)
Cinzia Perlingieri
(University of Naples "l'Orientale", Centro Interdipartimentale di
Servizio di Archeologia)
Steve Stead
(Paveprime Ltd.)
Abstract
"We are witnessing the transformation to a society where
instantly available, reliable and credible information will be as indispensable
as electricity, water and transportation.Ó Dr. James H. Billington, The
Librarian of Congress before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch,
March 20, 2007.
Our world has transformed since the theme, ÔArchaeology in the
Digital AgeÕ was held at WAC-5 in 2003. Google organizes our information (9
million hits for ÔarchaeologyÕ), Flickr captures our vision (over 40,000), and
social networking keeps us in touch with friends around the world virtually.
The Internet allows for global sharing never before possible, and digital
capture techniques put the power of Hollywood-style visualizations in the reach
of archaeologists internationally. However, with great power comes great
responsibility, and the tremendous advances of digital technology have led to
substantial, potentially severe challenges for the stewardship of the
archaeological record.
How archaeology is responding to the challenges of the digital
age, and how the digital revolution is impacting our discipline is the focus of
this theme. Digital technology and the creation of Ôborn digitalÕ content are
indispensable aspects of cultural heritage efforts today. From low-tech
documentation - Microsoft Office, html websites, video, PDF, digital
photography - to cutting edge technologies – laser/lidar scanning, GIS,
3D modeling, distributed databases, semantic ontologies and faceted browsing
– there is a spectrum of opportunities, dependencies and challenges that
did not exist even 30 years ago.
We are at a unique point in history, where cultural heritage
professionals must work to care for the physical past while assuring that there
will be a digital record for the future. Peter Brantley, Executive Director of
the Digital Library Foundation, thinks, Òthe problem of digital preservation is
not one for future librarians, but for future archaeologists.Ó If one imagines
that the well-intentioned efforts of researchers and scholars in the modern era
could be unreadable only fifty years from now, there is tremendous
responsibility on individual cultural heritage professionals to insure a future
for their digital work.
The most critical factor for digital heritage sustainability is
to Òplan for its re-use.Ó (ADS web 2007). Fortunately, recent phenomena in
intellectual property law such as Creative Commons and GPL, are making it
easier than ever to share content while protecting the rights of contributors.
But the challenge of assuring sensible privacy, such as locations of
archaeological sites or individual identities in the world of instant messaging
by mobile phone to Google Earth or Facebook is considerable, even when well
intentioned.
We see this theme as a dialogue on the present and future of
archaeology in the 21st century. The sessions, papers, forums and workshops
will explore the wealth of opinions and expertise on this vast topic, ranging
from nuts-and-bolts practical information on geographical information systems
to producing non-linear narratives and multi-vocal visualizations of the past.
We wish to deliberate the challenges for ethics and 'authenticity' - 'who owns
the past' and who owns the 'virtual heritage' we create? We hope to develop
strategies for education, both online and in the classroom, as well as for
educating ourselves on the promises and pitfalls of digital technology.
We welcome contributions that extend the discussion to embody
multi-national perspectives and creative as well as sensible approaches to
digital technologies.
Please visit the
Archaeology in the Digital Age 2.0 blog for futher details
Archaeology of Spiritualities
Alan Peatfield (University College
Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Christine Morris
(Trinity College Dublin, Department of Classics)
Kathryn Rountree (Massey University,
School of Social and Cultural Studies)
Tonno Jonuks
(University of Tartu, Department of Archaeology)
Abstract
Archaeology of Spiritualities is an attempt to resolve the
impasse within the Archaeology of Religion, which has crystallised the debate
about definitions and interpretations as primarily about beliefs in deities (an
intellectualisation) or about rituals (a materialist, rationalist approach).
Such approaches are essentially based on western paradigms, e.g.
Judaeo-Christian belief systems, or academic rationalisations. This does not
allow for the immense variety of religion as human spiritual experience and its
cultural expression. It particularly does not account for those non-western
religions, where it is human spiritual insight which dominates, rather than
theistic beliefs. This debate further fails to address the fundamentally experiential
nature of religion, and works against interpretative methods which explore this
experiential nature of human spirituality.
In keeping with the spirit of WAC, the aim of Archaeology of
Spiritualities is to provide a forum for a multiplicity of methodologies in the
study of religion, in order to engage the varieties of different cultural
expressions of spirituality. The aim is to provide points of encounter between
western and non-western approaches to the archaeology of religion, both in
terms of ideas of deity (monotheistic and polytheistic) and their connections
with landscape and sacred space, and in terms of how the cognitive abstractions
of spiritual experience might be discerned in the archaeological record.
Within this context, Archaeology of Spiritualities particularly
welcomes sessions which explore the encounter between archaeology and the
varied expressions of spiritual and religious experience. Examples of pertinent
issues include: the interaction between archaeology and both world religions and
religions in traditional/tribal cultures; the dialogue between archaeology and
contemporary spiritualities (including the Goddess movement, contemporary
paganism and shamanism); landscapes and sacred space in multi-religious
traditions; the insights of experiential and experimental methodologies; the
influence of neuro-theology; ritual and music.
Archaeology, Development and Quality Assurance: An
International Perspective
Arlene
Fleming (Cultural Resources and Development Specialist)
Charles Niquette
(Cultural Resource Analytics Inc.)
Margaret Gowen
(Margaret Gowen Limited)
Steven Brandt
(University of Florida, Department of Anthropology)
Ian Campbell
(Cultural and Environmental Safeguards Specialist)
Abstract
Public and private infrastructure development is a
multi-trillion dollar global industry. The acceleration in pace, volume and
scale of construction projects requires increased attention and timely action
by archaeologists; it presents both opportunities and challenges. Individuals,
organizations and institutions involved in archaeology stand to benefit
significantly from becoming an integral part of the modern construct for
socio-economic development and environmental management. At the same time, it
is essential to ensure that the practice of archaeology meets professional
standards throughout the world.
The infrastructure development process increasingly requires
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) during project preparation, as mandated
by national laws and the policies of numerous public and private financial
institutions. EIA seeks to avoid or mitigate environmental damage, and it
recognizes cultural heritage, including archaeology, as a required component of
a holistic analysis, together with biophysical and social features. The
evolving planning tool, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), also includes
cultural heritage as a component. Thus, development planning and projects can
provide the impetus and the financing to expand the archaeological record
through survey, documentation, excavation, analysis, curation, exhibition and publication.
However, in many countries, archaeologists and cultural heritage experts have
not been active participants in development nor in EIA, due in part to a
knowledge and communication gap between cultural and environmental authorities.
Timely and effective action by archaeologists requires that they maintain an
awareness of potential and current development projects.
Assuring that archaeological work undertaken within the
development context meets professional standards involves relevant training for
archaeologists. It also requires a basic understanding of archaeological
standards and practice on the part of those responsible for EIA and other
phases of the development process. The role of commercial sector archaeology in
development has stimulated debate with academic archaeologists over procedures
and standards. Issues include: the disposition of the archaeological record
compiled during EIA and project implementation; the contribution of commercial
archaeology to the knowledge base and to the profession; and the need for
integrated and collaborative professional activity – among
archaeologists, as well as with other disciplines. Quality assurance in
archaeology has numerous facets, including ethical standards, technical skills,
analytical and presentation standards, publication requirements, public
outreach, and the need for continuing education. In current practice, quality
assurance, in all its forms, appears to vary from being voluntary, partially
voluntary, to being prescribed by the state.
This theme will illustrate, examine and discuss strategies and
methods for integrating archaeology into the development process with an
emphasis on quality assurance. The theme will be developed in a variety of
formats, including panel discussions, workshops and case studies (both oral and
poster). Presentations are invited on a variety of topics relating to the
theme, including: archaeology in the development process; State-sponsored
activities in research, heritage management, legislation, education and training,
fieldwork, data and materials management, analysis and dissemination; education
in universities and institutes; museum collection, curation, conservation and
study; field school research; and commercial sector archaeology.
Critical Technologies: the Making of the Modern World
Alice Gorman (Flinders University
of South Australia)
Beth O'Leary
(New Mexico State University)
Wayne Cocroft (English
Heritage)
Abstract
Everyday life in modern industrial nations has been shaped by
technologies that have radically altered the nature of travel (cars, trains,
aeroplanes, submarines, spacecraft), communication (telephones, television,
telegraphs, radio, computers and satellites), and warfare (rockets, missiles,
aeroplanes, nuclear weapons), among others. These technologies have recreated
human geographies through their capacity to transcend distance and time, allowing
the traffic of information and material culture across vast spaces, sometimes
almost instantaneously. They are the foundation of the globalising world, and
yet the material culture of globalisation is rarely examined critically from an
archaeological perspective. Given WAC's aim to redress global inequities, it is
timely to focus an archaeological gaze on the technologies that support the gap
between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' of the 21st century. Sessions are invited
to examine the sites, places and artefacts created by critical technologies,
including but not limited to such topics as:
0. The
Cold War and nuclear confrontation
0. Telecommunications
0. Aerospace
0. Outer
space
0. Robotics
0. Technological
landscapes
0. Heritage
management and conservation challenges
0. Defence
and warfare
0. Indigenous
engagement with critical technologies
0. Theoretical
issues in contemporary archaeology
0. Capitalism
and critical technologies
0. The
archaeology of the future
Critical technologies are not confined to the 20th century and
after; we also encourage papers and session proposals that investigate
17th-19th century antecedents of modern technologies, and their impacts.
Cultural And Intellectual Property Issues in Archaeological
Heritage: Identifying the Issues, Developing Modes of Resolution
George
Nicholas (Simon Fraser University)
Sven Ouzman
(University of Pretoria, Department of Anthropology & Archaeology)
Susan Forbes
(Te Papa Tongarewa)
Eric Kansa (University of
California, Berkeley)
Abstract
In recent decades, questions about who ÒownsÓ or has the right
to benefit from Òthe pastÓ have emerged as highly contentious issues in
archaeology and cultural heritage domains, charged with political, economic,
and ethical implications for diverse stakeholders. Scholars, practitioners,
Indigenous groups, and policymakers worldwide increasingly face these issues in
situations ranging from potential applications of ancient genetic material, to
restrictions on researchersÕ access to data, to the widespread use of ancient
images in marketing, and, of course, to reburial and repatriation of cultural
patrimony. Concerns about ownership of, control over, and/or access to both
objects and information continue to increase. In addition, digital information
has great potential for endless replication, reuse and Òremixing,Ó but the
legal, social, and ethical dimensions of remixing cultural heritage are poorly
understood. These issues cut across both disciplinary and geographic
boundaries, and they affect individual researchers, local communities, federal
agencies, universities, museums and international organizations, as well as
developers, tourism firms, media producers, and the public at large.
Our objective for this theme is to generate sessions that will:
a) document the diversity of problems, principles, interpretations, and actions
arising in response to cultural and intellectual property issues in cultural
heritage; b) analyze and offer insights into the many implications of these
situations; c) generate more robust theoretical understandings of the issues;
and d) identify best practices for ensuring fair access and equitable
resolution. We thus seek submissions on all aspects of cultural and
intellectual property issues, especially in terms of case studies and applied
situations.
This theme is being organized as one facet of the Intellectual
Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project (www.sfu.ca/IPinCulturalHeritage)
Developing International Geoarchaeology
Helen
Lewis (University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Melissa
Goodman-Elgar (Washington State University)
Stefania Merlo
(University of Botswana)
Abstract
Developing International Geoarchaeology is the title of two very
successful recent international conferences bringing together geoarchaeologists
from around the world. The goal of DIG is to bring together a wide variety of
international researchers, practitioners and students in what is a diverse and
interdisciplinary field in order to facilitate discussion, stimulate research,
and promote international scholarship in geoarchaeology.
This proposal is to expand the DIG remit and audience, by
running a series of sessions and poster sessions focused on developing
geoarchaeological approaches internationally, as a theme at the World Archaeological
Congress, aimed at the world archaeological audience. The intent is to present
work interesting to an international and interdisciplinary audience, to elicit
discussion of geoarchaeological approaches, and to make new connections between
archaeologists from different parts of the world. The theme will also be
associated with an international archaeological soil micromorphology workshop,
to be run independently at UCD in the 2-3 days prior to WAC.
Most sessions will include both oral and poster presentations.
We aim to allow as many presentations as possible, but may have to limit the
number of oral presentations if there is significant demand.
Emerging Global Archaeologies
In association with
ICOMOS Scientific Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM)
Douglas Comer (Cultural Site
Research and Management, Inc.)
Brian Egloff (University
of Canberra, Cultural Heritage Studies)
Abstract
Technologies provide rapidly expanding access to information,
perspectives, and place. They have rendered archaeology a fundamentally global
discipline in which arguments for narratives, understandings (especially in the
sense of Geisteswissenschaften), and explanations can compete with and enrich
one another. Four issues stand out here:
0. Ethical Standards for
Global Archaeologies: Emerging from colonialism, archaeologists now celebrate the
existence of archaeologies, or multiple accounts of the past based upon
material evidence. We are also on record as favouring repatriation for museum
quality artefacts and sacred material. Still, material of greater historical,
scientific, and ideological value than that which inheres in most museum
objects is frequently obliterated by development, and even by archaeological
excavation. This destruction is incompletely mitigated by recordation and
reports. Is excavation for any reason other than salvage ethically defensible?
Should excavation be conducted only by those demonstrating the most persuasive
affiliation with a site, and, if so, should they be held to different standards
if access to technologies and training is limited? How should archaeologists
integrate and transparently document capacity building and interaction with
indigenous communities into research?
0. Standardization: Does
the absence of rigorously applied global professional standards deny
archaeologists effective participation in planning developments in ways that
minimize destruction of cultural resources? Why have the standards and policies
held by global development organizations (e.g., the World Bank) usually not
resulted in this? Should global standards be developed by professional organizations
such as WAC or ICAHM? If so, how should they be enforced? Training in
archaeology is dominated by a few countries. Should this training be
standardized to empower nascent indigenous scholarly perspectives?
0. Global
Interpretations: It seems logical that greater access to
archaeologically-derived data by more people via the Internet should produce
more interesting and useful interpretations. Global theoretical schemes,
however, have been criticized as inextricably bound to notions of progress used
to legitimate colonial and neo- colonial positions. What are the potentials and
pitfalls here? Are there examples of global interpretations that have provided
important historical or scientific insights? Do global interpretations of the
past inevitably overwhelm local interpretations that are integral to the
ideologies that sustain indigenous cultures?
0. Landscape
Preservation: Development and attendant homogenization of cultures threatens to
eliminate traditional ways of life. Deforestation, construction of impermeable
surfaces, and the use of fossil fuels destroys environments on local and global
scales. A shift in emphasis from the site to the landscape would make
archaeology more relevant to landscape preservation, but how can this be done?
The role of archaeology in the development process is variable. Can this be
standardized, or can we provide best practices? Further, certain technologies,
including aerial and satellite remote sensing and the use of GIS, are
especially useful to landscape research. Objections have been raised by some,
however, that these technologies can be misused by looters; inherently violate
state sovereignty; and pose threats to the security of institutions and
individuals. What is the promise of these technologies, and how can the concerns
that have been raised be addressed?
Engaged and Useful Archaeologies
David
Gadsby (University of Maryland, Center for Heritage Resource Studies)
Sarah Colley (University of Sydney,
Department of Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry)
Barbara Little
(University of Maryland, Department of Anthropology)
Paul Shackel
(University of Maryland, Department of Anthropology)
Laurajane Smith
(University of York, Department of Archaeology)
Abstract
Archaeologists struggle to make their work relevant to a variety
of communities and disciplines. Issues to which archaeologists apply their work
range from ecological conservation and sustainability, to land claim issues, to
economic development through tourism, to promoting heritage and identity, to
building communities, to battling racism.
We propose this theme in the belief that archaeologists not only
have a great deal to learn from human beings through time and across the
planet, but also that we have a great deal of useful information to impart to
non-archaeologists. Thus we welcome the inclusion of other ways of knowing
about the past, especially ancient wisdom traditions. Our problems today
include poverty, starvation, lack of clean water, racism, misogyny and abuse of
women, changing definitions of family, war, invasions, slavery, religious
conflicts, migrations, and the impact of humans on the earth. Of what use is
archaeology in addressing such issues?
Engaged and useful archaeologies attempt to address and inform
these problems by reshaping the structure of our communication with communities
of Indigenous people, descendant communities, and researchers from other
disciplines. They also have the potential to recast the roles and
responsibilities of archaeologists to the communities in and with which they
work. They recognize the voices of Indigenous groups, descendant communities,
and other constituencies, ensuring that they possess power within the whole
course of the archaeological process. They also provide relevant, useful, and
timely information which can serve a tool for solving social and scientific
problems.
Such archaeologies become an effective foil for intellectual
colonialism. In doing so, they cast researchers as facilitators who have
something to offer in exchange for the archaeological information that they
collect and helps to balance the complex power relationships between
researchers and communities. Ultimately, archaeology becomes a tool for civic
engagement, activism, and social justice as well as a powerful source of
information about the history of the human race and the world it inhabits.
We invite proposals that elucidate archaeological approaches to
engagement with communities of all kinds as well as sessions that explore:
0. ecological
lessons in sustainability;
0. health,
disease and the aftermath of epidemics;
0. community
healing and community building;
0. religious
conflicts and cooperation;
0. multicultural
and multiethnic accommodation, particularly with respect to migrations;
0. enslavement
and the struggle for freedom;
0. heritage
as a tool of peace;
0. making
money from archaeology - ethical, professional & theoretical implications;
0. does
archaeology always need to be 'useful' and why?;
0. who
benefits from archaeology and why?
Sessions within this theme explore these various problems in
engaged practice and show how archaeologists are implementing new programs that
serve and empower communities through heritage.
Exploring WACÕs Approach(es) to Ethics
In association
with The WAC Committee on Ethics
Julie
Hollowell (University of British Columbia, Department of Anthropology)
Alexander Herrera (Universidad de los
Andes, Departamento de Antropologia)
Abstract
This theme, organized by the co-chairs of the WAC Committee on Ethics,
seeks to elicit possibilities, guidance, and feedback from those attending WAC6
on how to approach ethical issues that come to the organizationÕs attention.
WAC is increasingly asked to provide expert guidance on a wide range of ethical
dilemmas that arise in local and global archaeological interactions. WAC needs
a framework based on its own core values—one that incorporates
intercultural dialogue, social justice, and accountability to people and to the
past—to inform the process of responding to particular situations.
With this in mind, the WAC Committee on Ethics has begun
exploring various frameworks and guidelines for ethical decision-making that
highlight approaches archaeologists and others might use to think through what
are often complex issues in ways that would ensure better informed and more
equitable decision-making and research relationships. We invite people from
diverse parts of the world to share ethical contradictions and quandaries they
face in relation to archaeology or heritage practice. We are especially
interested in learning from situations where equitable and thoughtful
resolutions have occurred and in gathering positive and negative examples of
how ethical dilemmas have been (or should have been) handled in practice, and
in some cases resolved. We hope to hear from people in diverse parts of the
world so as to better understand how WACÕs values articulate with a range of
social and political contexts and constraints.
We welcome contributions to this theme in diverse and interactive
formats. These could be in the form of:
0. sessions
whose participants describe and analyze approaches to ethical issues in
particular locations and situations with the aim of locating good practices;
0. forums
where ethical case studies are discussed and analyzed;
0. roundtable
discussions on different philosophical frameworks that might guide ethical
action by WAC;
0. other
formats and topics.
Getting the Message Across - Communicating Archaeology
Marcia de Almeida (Sociedade de
Arqueologia Brasileira)
Anne Pyburn
(Indiana University)
Abstract
Archaeology links the past with the present, but it also links
people with common heritage across borders, and colonized peoples around the
world. Archaeology links the academy to the public and the economy to the
polity. Furthermore, archaeology links science to humanism at the most
fundamental level.
All of these links are avenues of communication and all of them
offer opportunities for archaeologists and heritage workers to learn from the
past, to teach about diversity, to work for social justice, to create economic
opportunity, to encourage preservation, and to be politically active. The key
issue is always "the message": how do practicing professionals learn
what aspects of their research and practice provide important and useful
information on one hand, or fuel for defamation and dangerous stereotypes on
the other? How can they get access to the information they need to make informed
decisions about ethical engagement?
The topic of this theme is "getting the message
across" in reference to all of these types of messages. Communication
requires an exchange of ideas and cannot rest on the dissemination of academic
wisdom: successful teaching is the most engaged of all work. Teaching is not
something that one person or one group does to, or for, another group; it must
be conducted on a collaborative basis. Teaching is a form of communication; it
is a dialogical process. Above all, teaching is something that people must do
together.
Sessions in this theme will discuss the messages of mass media,
the classroom, community based research, and public displays and events. The
idea of messages and the communication of ideas cuts across many of the other
themes of this Congress, and we hope this theme will provide an integrative
forum for the many voices and perspectives of archaeology.
Heritage Tourism Agendas
Gerard Corsane (University of
Newcastle upon Tyne, School of Arts and Cultures)
Lyn Leader-Elliott
(Flinders University of South Australia)
Kelly Dixon
(The University of Montana, Department of Anthropology)
Cornelius Holtorf
(University of Lund, Institutionen fšr arkeologi och antikens historia)
Abstract
This theme will examine ways in which the principles of
culturally sustainable tourism can intersect with those of heritage management
and interpretation.
Heritage is assumed to include intangible as well as tangible
values. We encourage contributors to take a broad view of cultural heritage and
to consider it in relation to the natural environments in which it has evolved.
Cultural landscapes, sense of place and spirit of place will be discussed, as
well as specific sites, collections, cultural practice and performance.
A strong body of international charters and guidelines now sets frameworks
for ethical cultural and heritage tourism, such as those for sustainable
tourism, cultural tourism, Indigenous tourism and ecotourism. There are also
guidelines for cultural and natural heritage identification, management,
presentation and interpretation. We seek critical reflection on these
guidelines, and examples of ways in which they are being applied in different
communities and different cultural contexts. In addition, the entertaining
ÔcapacitiesÕ of archaeology have provided heritage management with experience
and expertise spanning both tourism and research. At the same time,
archaeologists and others have been investigating the history of entertainment,
emphasising the social importance of leisure pursuits over time, as well as the
politics and ethics of entertainment in the past and in the present to
underscore the ways in which entertainment has often been exclusive and
enjoyable to some people at the expense of others.
Democratising decision making in heritage tourism projects is a
major issue in many countries, especially where there are power imbalances
between the tourism industry and host communities. We seek examples of projects
in which processes are being negotiated and developed to achieve results that
benefit communities as well as commercial stakeholders. We also seek projects
that encourage interdisciplinary examinations of the worldwide fusion of
entertainment and archaeology and that explore the antiquity of the concept of
cultural tourism within a global context.
This theme will cover issues of:
0. Ownership,
authenticity, and collaborative partnerships
0. The
need to match audiences (markets) with heritage tourism product and processes
0. Archaeology,
ethical and engaging interpretation, visitor experiences
0. Ownership
and democratisation of the processes of heritage tourism product development,
marketing and distribution.
0. International
principles and protocols, charters and declarations: intentions and
achievements
0. Sustainable
tourism – integrating cultural and social factors
0. Archaeology,
Entertainment, and Heritage Tourism
0. Identifying,
presenting and interpreting sense of place/spirit of place to tourists/visitors
Indigenous Archaeologies: New Challenges
Sally Brockwell (Australian National
University, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of
Pacific and Asian Studies)
Anna KŠllŽn
(Stockholm University)
Susan O'Connor (Australian National
University, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of
Pacific and Asian Studies)
Rasmi
Shoocongdej (Silpakorn University)
Dawn Casey (Western
Australian Museum)
Abstract
Indigenous Archaeology has become a signature of WAC. Through
the active promotion of indigenous issues in archaeology, WAC has contributed
greatly to the vital discussion of the social values and contemporary
consequences of archaeological practice. This theme seeks to build on this
tradition of articulating critique against socially irresponsible archaeology
and heritage management, and to focus on the numerous issues that are relevant
for Indigenous archaeology in 2008.
Indigenous archaeology, with its strong emphasis on the social
dimensions of archaeology, has been fundamental in establishing dialogue about
ethics and global perspectives on heritage management. However, it has arguably
also been involved in creating stable discursive categories of good
(indigenous) and bad (nationalist/imperialist) archaeologies, which has lead to
an appropriation of the term ÔIndigenousÕ as an etiquette that should guarantee
an ethical and essentially ÔgoodÕ archaeological practice. Recent discussions
about repatriation, the ownership of heritage, and cultural and natural
resource management, bring these categories of allegedly good and bad
archaeologies out for scrutiny, indicating the benefits of going beyond these
stable valorized categories in the discussions of Indigenous archaeologies.
This theme welcomes proposals for sessions and papers addressing
issues that are in all possible ways related to Indigenous archaeology, and in
particular, those that offer critical reflection on recent directions in
research and heritage management. The aim is to generate involved, passionate
and controversial discussions that stimulate new creative thinking in global
and local archaeologies.
Intimate Encounters, Postcolonial Engagements: Archaeologies
of Empire and Sexuality
Barbara
Voss (Stanford University, Department of Anthropology)
Eleanor Casella(University of
Manchester, School of Arts, Histories, and Cultures)
Abstract
The goal of this project is to stimulate research and discussion
on issues of sexuality in the archaeology of colonialism. Archaeology has
tended to minimize sexuality in its studies of colonization and of colonial,
colonized, and post-colonial societies, although our colleagues in other
disciplines have long understood that sexual politics and sexual encounters
were central to projects of empire and in local responses to those projects.
Participants are invited to (re)examine and (re)imagine archaeological research
in ways that confront sexual silences in the archaeology of the colonial past
and present. What can archaeologys methodological emphases on place, material
culture, and representation bring to studies of sexuality and colonialism? How
do theories of materiality, landscape, and representation contribute new
perspectives to queer theory and postcolonial theory?
Issues in Historical Archaeology
James
Delle (Kutztown University)
Charles Orser
(New York State Museum)
Tadhg O'Keeffe
(University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Pedro Funari
(Campinas University, Brazil)
Abstract
After decades of relative neglect, the archaeological study of
the past five centuries is firmly established as one of the most vibrant and
challenging pursuits in World Archaeology. No branch of the discipline has a
richer data-base than Historical Archaeology, and no branch is, we suggest, so
overly political or engages so overtly with the world of politics. WAC6 in
Dublin offers us a perfect opportunity, in an appropriately resonant location,
to review its progress and to debate its core concerns and methods.
We invite colleagues to organise and contribute to a series of
sessions which explore those issues which most Historical Archaeologists regard
as central to the field. Among these are colonialism and postcolonialism;
capitalism (and Jamesonesque Ôlate capitalismÕ); modernity and postmodernity;
local and global scales of enquiry, globalisation, class and inequality, time
and temporality, intertextuality, and historical materialism.
Land and Archaeology
Alejandro Haber (Universidad Nacional
de Catamarca, School of Archaeology)
Martin Wobst
(University of Massachusetts, Department of Anthropology)
Abstract
Archaeology is heavily dependent on land-related concepts. Almost
every archaeological argument and publication implies relationships to land,
and makes assumptions and applies concepts about land. Without those usually
implicit and often hidden assumptions one could not talk about archaeological
sites, archaeological surveys, or archaeological landscapes, nor settlement
patterns, or archaeological cultures. Relationships to land are more or less
overtly implied in many archaeological theories and theoretical models, and
archaeology is practiced on land, surveying, excavating, measuring and removing
data on land. Relationships to land are conceptualized very differently by
colonizers and colonized, before and after colonization, by urban and rural
people, by lords and peasants, and by the same people in different phases of
their history. Many of these relationships differ significantly from those
implied by archaeological theories and practices. To some peoples land is a
powerful and loving being, with important implications for their relationships
to that land. Land is often a very central issue in Indigenous and other
peoplesÕ theorizing, in contrast to the concept of territory. Often, land
claims are the foremost aims in Indigenous and/or peasantsÕ social and
political movements. Particular territories are usually very important in
Indigenous and/or local collective identities.
This symposium will help expose and critically scrutinize the
different discourses on the relationships to land in archaeology, the diversity
and richness of relationships to land, and the ways in which archaeology has
reinforced or disempowered particular kinds of relationships to land and
discourses about land. Under this theme, participants are encouraged to create
symposia, strategy sessions toward future interactions, round tables, work-shops,
counter-posed position papers, or critical analyses of recent practice. Initial
planning anticipates the following topics:
0. Cultural
concepts about land and their material markers.
0. Land
ownership: history of the concept, and its range of variation in pre-colonial,
colonial, and post-colonial contexts.
0. Archaeological
theory and method on Land and their effect on the land of descendant
populations.
0. Archaeological
practices on land.
0. Archaeological
metaphors about land.
0. Past
land uses as resources for the present.
0. Archaeology
as the hand-maiden of settler societies.
0. Decolonizing
the landscape. Archaeological research to fight colonization, internal
colonization, and re-colonization in the age of post-colonial theory?
0. Why
has landscape become the buzz-word of this decade?
0. Toward
variation, change and diversity in land studies.
0. The
archaeology of low intensity uses of the land.
Living in Island Worlds
Paul Rainbird (University of Wales,
Deptment of Archaeology & Anthropology)
Bernard Knapp (University
of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology)
Ian Lilley(University of Queensland,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Unit)
Aidan O'Sullivan
(University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Abstract
Islands have long been fascinating places for poets, artists and
writers, providing usefully blank sheets to imagine utopian societies or to
re-imagine existing nations – as in colonial encounters between empires
and discovered islands. Islands are also of interest to scientists who explore
the distinctive qualities of island fauna and flora. It is unsurprising then
that island archaeology has rapidly emerged as an exciting and innovative
sub-discipline in archaeology. With a long history of providing evidence of
Darwinian evolution and biogeographical models it is not surprising that an
emerging scientific archaeology was attracted to island studies. But islands
have also been the subject of anthropological fascination dating from the late
nineteenth century and early twentieth century expeditions to the Torres Strait
and Trobriands amongst other locations. Anthropological and other social
methods have also then attracted archaeologists to islands. Island
archaeologies explore such issues as the perceptions and uses of islands,
landscapes and surrounding waters; the role of islands as bounded places in the
construction of distinctive social identities and the connections that people
have established within - and between - islands and outside worlds. Until
recently, islands were seen as usefully isolated ÔlaboratoriesÕ for the study
of social change across time, but more recent studies emphasise the connections
that islanders make with outside worlds, giving rise to an interest in
ÔislandscapesÕ. There are several geographical areas of island interest in
archaeology, with the Pacific and Mediterranean perhaps being best known in
past research and publications on archaeological approaches to islands. The
Caribbean, north Atlantic Islands (including Britain and Ireland), the islands
of South East Asia, the Indian Ocean and those of the Americas, particularly
the west and northwest coast of North America, as well as many other islands
outside these regions, are also witnessing thriving research at the moment.
Emerging archaeological research in islands all around the world will therefore
be drawn together in this theme. Island worlds have been viewed variously as restrictive
or expansive, the sea as a barrier or bridge to communication, but is
there/should there be a difference between island archaeology and coastal
archaeology, or is there a need for a sub-discipline at all? In this Theme we
invite sessions that address such questions, we also wish to encourage themes
that are regional, but would also welcome proposals that offer a comparative
perspective to the issue of living in island worlds. We also recognise that
sessions and papers need not deal solely with the past, for example, what are
the threats and opportunities to small island nations in relation to heritage
management, and particularly concerns related to climate and other
environmental change. The term ÔIslandÕ has also become a potent metaphor which
equates to insularity, collective identities, isolation and microcosms and
sessions and papers exploring this in archaeology will also be welcome.
Maritime and Underwater Archaeology
Chris
Underwood (Instituto Nacional de Antropolog’a y Pensamiento
Latinoamericano)
Connie Kelleher (Department of
Environment, Heritage and Local Government)
Matthew Russell
(National Park Service, Submerged Resources Center)
Abstract
Given IrelandÕs geographic position off continental Europe and
its strong maritime traditions it is appropriate that WAC 6 includes a theme
that embraces all aspects related to the sea and inland waterways, and the technologies
that enabled humankind to migrate and settle around the world.
Maritime archaeology encompasses a diverse range of interests.
These include human habitation on now submerged coastal landscapes to the use
of the sea and inland waterways, with this often being the impetus that
encouraged the establishment and expansion of settlements. The development of
waterborne transport and their components also enabled the essential industries
of fishing, transport, and trade to thrive and, equally, this expansion in
waterborne power led, in many cases, to conflict and controversy for many
nations.
With growing international support for the spirit of the UNESCO
Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, it is also
important that the world's underwater and maritime archaeology community can
come together to discuss and exemplify, through a broad scope of papers, the
challenges that the discipline will face over the next decades.
The Theme will include a wide range of sessions including, projects
that fall within the terms, maritime, nautical, marine, coastal and underwater
archaeology and issues relating to methodology, legislation, resource
management and public archaeology.
Materializing Identities I: personhood, politics and the
presentation of identity
Joanna
BrŸck (University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Chris Fowler
(Newcastle University)
Abstract
This theme aims to address how people in different cultural
contexts employ the material world to construct, challenge and transform social
identities. The objects we use and the ways we use them define us and our place
in the world. In addition, the properties of material things are often drawn on
to describe features of people and communities in metaphorical terms. Material
culture is therefore integral to the construction of the self and the creation
of social relationships; as such, it facilitates both practical and social
engagement with the world around us. However, this process has significant
political ramifications. The apparent ÔpermanenceÕ of the material world means
that things are often strategically employed to define the ÔessenceÕ of
particular social groups. Identity is, however, also fluid, transient and
susceptible to contestation, so that the meanings ascribed to things may become
the focus of intense debate.
From bodily ornament and modification to the stories woven
around heirlooms, from religious architecture to the use of archaeological
icons such the Tara brooch to construct nationalist ideologies, there are
myriad ways in which the material world is employed to create identity. Indeed,
the various ways in which social and cultural identity are embedded in and
expressed through the material world have long been a focus of archaeological
inquiry. Since the culture-historical approaches of the early twentieth century
through to ongoing debates regarding rights over cultural property, research on
how people draw the material world into discourses on identity continues to be
one of the key contributions of our discipline to the humanities and social
sciences.
Sessions are invited to examine the relationship between
identities and material things - including bodies, landscapes, architecture,
objects and natural substances. Sessions may focus on the role of material
things in the production of, for example:
0. Sexed
and gendered identities
0. Age
groups and generational identities
0. Personal
identities
0. Kin
groups and family identities
0. Ethnic
and cultural identities
0. Political
groups and identities
0. Religious
and spiritual identities
0. Human
identities (vis ˆ vis non-human beings, objects, etc)
Contributions within this theme may examine how identities come
to be materialised through specific practices and events, and the role played
by material culture in the maintenance and transformation of identities over
time. Sessions may include studies covering any period of the past up to the
present day and any part of the world and should present these in a comparative
thematic context.
Materializing Identities II: materials, techniques, practice
Joanna
BrŸck (University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Chris Fowler
(Newcastle University)
Abstract
This theme aims to address how people in different cultural
contexts employ the material world to construct, challenge and transform social
identities. The objects we use and the ways we use them define us and our place
in the world. In addition, the properties of material things are often drawn on
to describe features of people and communities in metaphorical terms. Material
culture is therefore integral to the construction of the self and the creation
of social relationships; as such, it facilitates both practical and social
engagement with the world around us. However, this process has significant
political ramifications. The apparent ÔpermanenceÕ of the material world means
that things are often strategically employed to define the ÔessenceÕ of
particular social groups. Identity is, however, also fluid, transient and
susceptible to contestation, so that the meanings ascribed to things may become
the focus of intense debate.
From bodily ornament and modification to the stories woven
around heirlooms, from religious architecture to the use of archaeological
icons such the Tara brooch to construct nationalist ideologies, there are
myriad ways in which the material world is employed to create identity. Indeed,
the various ways in which social and cultural identity are embedded in and
expressed through the material world have long been a focus of archaeological
inquiry. Since the culture-historical approaches of the early twentieth century
through to ongoing debates regarding rights over cultural property, research on
how people draw the material world into discourses on identity continues to be
one of the key contributions of our discipline to the humanities and social
sciences.
Sessions are invited to examine the relationship between
identities and material things - including bodies, landscapes, architecture,
objects and natural substances. Sessions may focus on the role of material
things in the production of, for example:
0. Sexed
and gendered identities
0. Age
groups and generational identities
0. Personal
identities
0. Kin
groups and family identities
0. Ethnic
and cultural identities
0. Political
groups and identities
0. Religious
and spiritual identities
0. Human
identities (vis ˆ vis non-human beings, objects, etc)
Contributions within this theme may examine how identities come
to be materialised through specific practices and events, and the role played
by material culture in the maintenance and transformation of identities over
time. Sessions may include studies covering any period of the past up to the
present day and any part of the world and should present these in a comparative
thematic context.
Memory, Archaeology, and Oral Traditions
Lynette Russell (Monash University)
Si‰n Jones (University of
Manchester, School of Arts, Histories, and Cultures)
Abstract
Memory has become a prolific area of enquiry in many
disciplines, including archaeology, to the extent that reviewers identify a
memory ÒboomÓ or ÒindustryÓ. Once the refuge of the individual, there is now
much talk of collective or social memory, which is thought to play a key role
in the production of historical consciousness and group identities. The
emphasis on active selection and construction of memory in the present has
particular appeal for those disillusioned with the idea of an objective,
distanced historical enquiry. Much research has focused on memoryÕs capacity to
destabilise the authority of grand narratives and disturb dominant ways of
understanding the past. In archaeology these developments have been prominent
in post- colonial contexts and indigenous archaeology. Yet there are also
parallel trends in Europe, where oral history and social memory are seen as a
means to access vernacular culture and subaltern understandings of the past.
This theme will explore the relationship between memory, oral
tradition and archaeology. It interrogates the concepts of memory and oral
history, and explores their relationship to written sources and grand
historical narratives. Sessions explore a range of issues:
0. How
should we conceive of oral tradition and social memory? And in recognizing
their significance, how do we avoid objectifying and romanticizing them?
0. Does
a dichotomy between oral history/social memory and history still prevail and if
so what are its effects on our understandings of the past? How do we deal with
the intersection of written history and oral memory?
0. To
what extent is social memory disparate, located and fragmented and how do
authoritative narratives emerge and persist? Can the study of memory and oral
traditions contribute to multivocality and how might it challenge hegemonic
colonial and indeed post-colonial discourses?
0. What
role do archaeological remains play in the production of oral history and
social memory? What of the other Òprops of memoryÓ – texts, images,
folktales, myths, and places?
0. How
are oral traditions and social memory involved in the production of a sense of
place? What are the processes involved in the materialization of memory?
0. To
what extent has a concern with oral tradition impacted on archaeological
enquiry and what role does memory play in the discipline and in the making of
disciplinary histories?
0. Finally,
what are the implications in terms of how we practice archaeology, represent
the past, and conserve and manage heritage places?
The scope of the theme is worldwide. We welcome contributions on
diverse topics, including:
0. indigenous
archaeology and oral tradition; ethno-archaeology and oral tradition;
0. missions
and mission stories; working class oral tradition and the social memory of
labour;
0. archaeology
of war sites and oral tradition;
0. the
role of oral tradition and memory in migrant and diaspora communities;
0. oral
tradition and memory within the discipline of archeology.
Migration and Movement
Luiz
Oosterbeek (Instituto Politecnico de Tomar)
Thomas Kador
(University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Tadhg O'Keeffe
(University College Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Susanne
Hakenbeck (University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research)
Abstract
Movement is central to human existence and is consequently very
much part of our everyday lives. Without movement our lives would be
unimaginable, in fact we would cease to exist. However, movement comes in
countless different scales both temporary and spatial; from the daily commute
to a long distance journey and from a solitary stroll to mass migrations. While
migration narratives have long been at the heart of explanations for social
change in many archaeological traditions around the globe and have often been
cause for heated debate, movement itself appears to have been received far less
explicit archaeological attention. This is despite the fact that clearly
migration cannot occur without significant amount of human movement.
The emergence of modern scientific analyses in archaeology has
added fresh dimensions to our understandings of the processes involved in past
peopleÕs movements, and have granted new possibility for investigating them.
The study of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes for example has helped the
production of extremely popular large scale migration narratives, especially as
these datasets directly relate to modern populations. Skeletal stable isotope
analysis on the other hand – in particular of strontium and lead –
has allowed a focus on the journeys undertaken by particular individuals during
their lifetime but have also been used to infer potential marriage and
migration patterns. Approaches such as these have thus provided new impetus for
re-examining the evidence for past movement and migration on all levels and
scales.
This theme will bring together sessions concentrating on the
various dimensions of movement from the small scale perspectives of individual
journeys to seasonal movement cycles and migrations with a broad geographical
focus. The sessions will also highlight the chronological depth of movement and
migration studies in modern archaeology and anthropology, considering
migrations of the earliest hominids across Africa and into Eurasia as well as
historical and contemporary perspectives of both small scale movements and
migrations. By uniting this myriad of topics and approaches under the one theme
we draw attention to the close relation between the various aspects and scales
of movement and migration which has to date not been fully explored
Moving Beyond the Meal: The Economics and Politics of
Communal Foraging
Jill Jensen (Bureau of Land
Management, Nevada, Elko Field Office)
William "Bill" Fawcett (Bureau
of Land Management, Nevada, Elko Field Office)
Alejandra
Korstanje (National University of Tucum‡n)
Abstract
Communal foraging spans the world and much of human history.
Although the immediate tangible outcome of communal foraging events may appear
to be subsistence oriented, participation carries significant social,
political, economic and personal costs and benefits. Communal foraging events
also play important roles in the formation, maintenance, and negotiation of
social and personal identities. Social rules for divisions of labor by sex,
gender, and age are challenged and redefined in the context of communal
foraging events. Such events are frequently targeted for
exploitation/appropriation by outside/aggressive parties.
This theme brings a global archaeological perspective to the
problems raised by communal foraging. The emphasis of the theme is on
communalism involving food, thus ÒforagingÓ is treated here rather broadly and
is meant to include practices by hunter-gatherer, horticulturalist,
agriculturalist, and industrialized societies. Our aim is to structure the
theme so that each session successively builds up a framework for understanding
the phenomena of communal foraging. Proposed sessions may include the
following: 1) Communalism, Group-Effort, and Familial Enterprises: The
implications of definitions and recognizing the difference in the
archaeological record, 2) Variations in Communal Foraging, 3) The Role of
Facilities and Technologies, 4) Motivations for and Consequences of
Participation, and 5) Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeological Inference.
Depending on the interests and abilities of the participants
sessions will include traditional presentations, posters, panel discussions,
group discussions based on electronic presentation of papers, or a hybrid of
these formats.
Our Changing Planet: Past Human Environments in Modern
Contexts
Purity
Kiura (National Museums of Kenya)
Matthew Davies (University
of Oxford, St Hugh's College)
Freda Nkirote
(National Museums of Kenya)
Abstract
This theme takes as a starting point a broad conception of
'human environments' as comprising physical (both 'natural' and 'built') and
cognitive (social/cultural) elements. It aims to explore how people in the past
engaged with and actively shaped these environments and, following this, how
the archaeological study of past human environments can contribute to our
understanding of modern land-use and environmental management. In particular,
it aims to address the potential role of archaeology to understanding
contemporary issues of environmental degradation, conflict over land and
resources, and effective land management schemes. It also aims to encourage the
discussion of key themes such as environmental 'conservation' and
'sustainability' and stimulate engagement with issues of climate change and
global warming. In addition, this theme aims to encourage dialogue with cognate
disciplines such as physical geography, historical geography, anthropology and
ethnohistory and to discuss concepts such as Ôhistorical ecologyÕ and
Ôlandscape historyÕ.
A range of both theoretical and research based papers are
encouraged. In particular, papers which focus on defining the role of
archaeology in understanding human-environment interactions and the theoretical
and practical integration of diverse data sources will be viewed favourably.
Papers which address issues of the moral and social responsibility of
archaeologists, for example in substantiating or refuting land-claims, or
assessing anthropogenic land-degradation, are also desired. In addition, we
encourage archaeological case-studies and original pieces of research that aim
to reconstruct past human-environment interactions and then relate these data
to modern environmental concerns.
This theme also recognises that, while disciplines such as
cultural ecology and evolutionary ecology often view human-environment
interactions in functionalist and adaptionist terms, there is a real need to
introduce a more humanistic perspective to such studies. Thus we encourage
papers that explore the nature of human-environment interactions and which
demonstrate the social/cultural processes whereby humans create their
environment by classifying, categorising, building, manipulating and ascribing
value to spaces and places. Both theoretical and practical papers which
consider issues such as past and present systems of land-tenure, land/heritage
ownership, range-management, and modern land conflicts are encouraged. In
addition, papers which include consideration of past ritual and ceremonial
landscapes and their impact on past and modern land-use practices/claims will
be seen favourably.
Peopling the Past, Individualizing the Present: Bioarchaeological
Contributions in a Global Context
Pamela Geller (University of
Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology)
Alan Morris
(University of Cape Town, Department of Human Biology)
Patrick Randolph-Quinney
(University of Dundee, Unit of Anatomy and Forensic Anthropology)
Abstract
The human skeleton is affected by the life experience of the
individual in terms of growth and development, nutrition, activity patterns,
disease history and health stress, offset against the effects of familial
inheritance and ancestry. From a bioarchaeological perspective each individual
is unique, but data for groups of individuals can provide a wealth of
information about whole populations in the past, as well as providing a
framework for the study of individuals and groups in the present.
Critical reflection reminds us that historically the study of
human remains has overtly or unconsciously evinced racist, ethnocentric, and
sexist ideas. Accordingly, more recent outcries from descendant communities and
sympathetic scholars have evoked important ideological and/or legal
shifts—WACÕs Vermillion Accord, the U.S.Õs NAGPRA, AustraliaÕs ATSIHPA,
and EnglandÕs Working Group on Human Remains being notable upshots. Analyses of
human remains, nonetheless, remain a controversial issue, perhaps because the
dialogue is often perceived as only being dichotomous and conflicting.
The study of human remains can open the door to important
aspects of individual and populational life history, which cannot be recovered
from other sources. But, how is the knowledge that bioarchaeologists produce
important beyond our academic environs? Does this information have direct
relevance or utility in the present day? In what way is the information
obtained from analyses of human remains of value not just to scientists but
descendant communities? Why do we do what we do and for whom? From this basis,
we challenge contributors to think reflexively about their bioarchaeological
work with regard to its sociopolitical relevance in the present.
Contributors may wrestle with these queries in several ways.
They can consider how their populational research concerned with growth and
development, nutrition, activity patterns, disease, and health impact medical
diagnosis or treatment of present day peoples. They may consider how studies of
past populations impinge on the identification of individuals in current
forensic or mass-disaster contexts. They may explore how knowledge is
communicated to the wider public. Or, participants may elaborate upon
collaborations between researchers and descendant communities. Seeing that
descendant communities should have a significant say in what happens to their
ancestorsÕ human remains, what changes have we seen in the past decade with
regard to repatriation and scientific research? When scientific research has
occurred with descendantsÕ input, what research questions do these communities
bring to the fore? And recognizing that descendant communities have diverse
histories and experiences that contour their perspectives and wishes how might
future collaborations proceed?
WAC6 provides an especially unique opportunity for scholars from
six continents to collaborate on issues of global significance. The ultimate
aim of the theme is to trigger debate on the study of human remains but also
unashamedly to show the value of thosestudies. So as to broaden debate about
and understanding of bioarchaeological studies, we encourage considerations
from regions—Africa, East Asia, Australasia—and groups historically
marginalized or under-represented in previous discussions. In doing so, we
anticipate effecting productive and congenial discussion about this highly
sensitive issue.
Provisional Independent Sessions
Rainforest as artefact
Huw
Barton (University of Leicester)
Victor Paz
(University of the Philippines)
Tim Denham (Monash
University)
Jean Kennedy
(Australian National University)
Robin Torrence (Australian
Museum)
Abstract
The purpose of this theme is to reset the agenda concerning
research on the long-term history of human-rainforest interactions, with a
primary focus on subsistence. The major outcome of this discussion will be to
(1) form a clearer picture of the current critical issues in understanding
human-rainforest interactions; (2) what it is we need to know in order to move
forward; and (3) what research strategies and methodologies are likely to
address the identified questions and to produce the most significant results in
the future.
For many years researchers have been trying to identify the
signature of human behaviour in tropical landscapes, untangle the interactions
between human versus natural process, and determine the antiquity of occupation
and various management and agricultural practices. In various contexts
archaeologists and anthropologists recognize a range of human initiatives and
responses to the problems of daily subsistence posed by tropical rainforest.
Finding solutions to these problems is proving both complex and demanding
because it requires the cross fertilization of ideas and methodology from a
wide range of disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, botany,
ethnobotany, palaeogeography, palaeoclimatology, and genetics. It is hoped that
by bringing together a wide range of scholars from across the globe, and from a
wide variety of disciplines, the sessions will lead to new collaborative
research projects and be a source for new ideas. Our approach is
multi-disciplinary an d we invite applications from all disciplines and
methodologies to encourage all of us to think Ôoutside the boxÕ and identify
new research directions. We invite new Session proposals within this Theme.
As part of this theme exploring the idea of ÔRainforest as ArtefactÕ
we hope to include a series of sessions on Ôaboriculture/agroforestryÕ, Ôplant
translocationÕ, and Ôshifting cultivationÕ, which may fission into additional
sessions depending on interest and numbers. This list is not exclusive and we
will explore new territory depending on interest. In these particular sessions
we would like to try a different approach to presentation where authors will be
encouraged to pre-circulate their written contributions (2- 5,000 words). The
format of oral presentations will be short 5-10 minute ÔpositionÕ papers,
summarizing the key issues. Authors will also be asked to discuss what they
perceive to be the major issues in their particular research areas, and address
what they feel is needed to solve some of their more pressing research
objectives. Following the presentations, the group will workshop the major
issues raised.
The aim will be to make concrete proposals regarding new
definitions and concepts and identify the types of research that need to be
undertaken to solve the questions raised in the papers.
Reflections on Archaeology and Politics
Talia
Shay (The University Center of Ariel)
Victor Gonz‡lez
Fern‡ndez (Researcher-Instituto Colombiano de Antropolog’a e
Historia)
Abstract
The days of neutral, value-free science have long gone. However,
when various stakeholders claim to have different mappings of the past, few of
them tend to go beyond their own limitations of creed, ethnicity, race, etc.,
and state their positions clearly and unequivocally.
The purpose of this theme is fourfold:
0. Firstly,
to address cases around the world where a biased attitude to the past is
clearly evident, including, but not limited to, the Middle East and South
America;
0. Secondly,
to investigate the context of this biased attitude to the past, and its
consequences (which have been particularly far-reaching in areas like South
America), with a special focus on cases where this has resulted in a tangible
influence on people's identity, for example, in Israel and in the territory of
the Palestinian Authority;
0. Thirdly,
we would like to encourage a dialogue on the development of a new code of
ethics in these areas that relates specifically to the investigation of the
relationship between people and their past;
0. Finally,
to offer a synthesis based on the cross-cultural comparison of the above
issues, across the different parts of the world addressed in the themeÕs
sessions.
0.
Since
the purpose of this theme is to provide knowledge about differences and
similarities in the relationship between archaeology / anthropology and the
arena of local, regional and national politics, we would particularly encourage
sessions on the following topics:
0. How
archaeological knowledge in the Middle East, South America, and other areas is
used or abused for political purposes
0. The
contextual background of biased attitudes to the past in different parts of the
world
0. Whether
archaeologists prevent the results of scientific work from being used against
particular groups or factions in these areas
0. How
these biased attitudes to the past influence people's identity
0. The
indigenous perspectives on archaeological inference in different areas
0. Whether
reciprocal relations (and the emergence of new code of ethics) are evident
between archaeologists / anthropologists and indigenous communities in
particular areas.
The Impact of Innovation
Nicki Whitehouse (The Queen's
University, Belfast, Institute of Archaeology and Palaeoecology)
Nick Porch (Australian National
University, Department of Archaeology and Natural History)
Mat Prebble (Australian National
University, Department of Archaeology and Natural History)
Mim Bower
(University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research)
Abstract
Innovation: change that creates a new dimension in the
human experience; the successful exploitation of new ideas
Many perceive the period from the latter end of the 19th century
to the present day as the time of the most substantial change and human
innovation. But innovation is not new within the human landscape. New ideas and
their successful exploitation have driven change and built the framework of the
whole of the human past.
Innovation can be positive: movement into new
physical/geographical landscapes can bring contacts with new experiences and
peoples, which shape the development of new paradigms, mental and cultural
landscapes. New technologies can allow the development of complex societies,
specialisation and the development of new human networks through trade and
communications. The utilization of new biota and the refinement of animal and
plant species can allow the development of new subsistence strategies, which
can improve the carrying capacity of the landscape resulting in population
expansion. However, innovation can be negative: it can lead to degradation and
extirpation of biota and the ecosphere, the collapse of cultural frameworks
resulting in the loss of the shared human past, the spread of disease, war and
conflict and the associated deterioration of human and animal health.
All innovation, whether positive or negative, has an impact. It
has consequences in the natural environment, climate, biodiversity, water,
soil, vegetation and the maintenance of ecosystem function. Fundamental
re-organisation of ecosystem process (extinction, extirpation and human
moderated introductions, whether intentional or unintentional) may occur as a
result of human innovation. But innovation also has an impact on human society
and the cultural landscape. Innovation can be the product of a paradigm shift,
or result in a paradigm shift. It can also bring with it a re-writing of the
human ritual and mental landscape.
Cultural, ecological and biotic responses to innovation and the
successful implementation of new ideas and technologies yield distinctive
archaeological, ecological, bio-archaeological, and genetic signatures that can
be traced through landscapes and time.
This theme explores the extent to which it is possible to
identify periods of stasis or innovation in the archaeological record. What was
the impact of innovation, not only on the natural environment, but also on the
human cultural, mental and ritual landscape, and how can we understand the rate
of change? To what extent can we shed light on the processes of innovation and
the results and consequences of these substantial changes?
Wetland Archaeology Across the World
Aidan O'Sullivan (University College
Dublin, UCD School of Archaeology)
Robert Van de Noort(University of
Exeter, School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources)
Abstract
Wetland archaeology has provided some of the most exciting
discoveries in world archaeology; from bog bodies, boats, trackways, votive
deposits to the waterlogged wetland settlements and landscapes of northern and
central Europe, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific Northwest. Sharing a
fascination with watery and wild places of rivers, lakes, bogs and coastal
wetlands, those archaeologists who practice in this field also use common
methods and techniques in the investigation of these archaeologically-rich
landscapes. In recent years, wetland archaeologists have also recognised the
need to adopt emerging and changing interpretative approaches to the
empirically-rich archaeological data they recover from wetland and waterlogged
sites. Most importantly, there is a need to place wetland archaeology across
the world, its data and practices, within contemporary debates in theoretical
archaeology.
This Wetland Archaeology Across the World theme seeks to bring
together world archaeologists, anthropologists, geographers and
palaeoecologists who are interested in past and present wetlands and their
communities. Topics to be discussed could include landscape archaeological
approaches to wetlands environments; the past perception and understanding of
wetlands as more than sources of economic benefit, but as storehouses of
traditional knowledge, values and meanings; social identity and the ways that
wetlands dwelling and using communities might have built distinctive social
worlds through their active daily and embodied engagements with dynamic and
ever changing wetland environments; the unique temporal rhythms of past lives
and places that can be revealed and interrogated using wetland archaeological
evidence and the role(s) of wetland archaeologists – or archaeologists
who investigate wetlands – in contemporary political, environmental,
ideological and social discourses and conflicts.