POWER TO THE PEOPLE?DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE NETHERLANDS                             ...
 “The world does not speak. Only we do. The world can, once we have programmed ourselves with alanguage, cause us to hold ...
 COLOPHONAuthor:              H.G. Pape MAPrimary advisor:     prof. dr. J.C.A. KolenSecondary advisor:   prof. dr. J.G.A....
 GRATIAS VOBIS AGOAs is the case with every thesis or major article, I could not have written this one without the support...
 CONTENTSGratias vobis ago ..................................................................................................
     4.5.    Duality in Dutch archaeology: in situ versus ex situ preservation ................................. 68 5.  Co...
 PROLOGUEIn the 20th century, globalization, ongoing industrialization and exponential population growth amongothers force...
 Valletta Treaty) and particularly since 2007 (the coming into effect of the Archaeological HeritageManagement Act).At pre...
 All of this should encourage us, in my opinion, from keeping a lookout for new paradigms that ensurearchaeology in The Ne...
 CHALLENGE AND GOALI dare state that archaeology in The Netherlands remains largely the domain of an intellectual elite,ev...
 considerable debate in the Dutch archaeological sector.5 Do we even dare to take on the next level,should we wish to do s...
 THESIS STRUCTUREAll research is informed by its underlying methodology and the disposition of the scholar(s) carrying ito...
 THEORETICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORKArchaeology has many faces. For most people, it can be adequately summarized as “t...
 for those that can not do so or not as well. In a sense, that is a gift, which we should use to the fullest.I will not st...
 1. COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY: THEORYIn the abstract of her introductory article in World Archaeology 34 (2), Yvonne Marshall,...
 seldom, if ever, monocultural and are never of one mind. They are aggregations of people who havecome together for all ki...
 relations between them (New Archaeology/processual archaeology18), this can hamper thoroughunderstanding. Still, I believ...
 their perspective. Some may have a same amount of interest, but from completely differentviewpoints. This truly shows to ...
 compare the first approach to a vaccine and the second to a bandage: proactive instead of reactive,seizing chances instea...
 research about themselves has certainly caused a very practical and actual motivation for thedevelopment of community-bas...
 The authors start with explaining that there are two divisions in Australian archaeological research, onebased on motivat...
 The consultative approach seems to work well, but mainly for the ‘prehistorical archaeology’.Interestingly enough, also w...
 Greer, Harrison and McIntyre-Tamway also claim that archaeologists who study the historical periods inAustralia have also...
 the project level and telling for discussing community archaeology in general, as the authors state that“[…] it is no lon...
 The fact that heritage can be utilized in questions of identity is something that is very relevant in TheNetherlands as w...
 on private land but with federal funding.54 Essentially, this legislatively prescribed way of dealing witharchaeological ...
 Chirikure and Pwiti however show that the vaunted research setting comes with its own problems whencommunity archaeology ...
 2. COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY: PRACTICEAs has been mentioned in the previous pages, World Archaeology 34 (2) has its various a...
 tourists. Egypt’s history of appropriation has had far-reaching consequences for local communities,which “[…] have been s...
 excavations that started under Glazier and Peacock all those years ago, to which later on Moser et al.’sCAPQ was added, e...
               c.   Benefits employees in terms of future employment through the development of new skills;              d...
                       b.     Creation of a project logo and T-shirts in a collaborative effort to promote and establish a...
 Gemma Tully, who has worked on the CAPQ for several years, has pushed the methodology as devisedfor the CAPQ further in h...
 approach.69 What we should not overlook however, is the underlying notion Tully describes: we need aconsistent methodolog...
 claims, not as someone with a privileged, exclusive way of understanding the past […].” By reassuringthe community that s...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Power To The People   Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Stud...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Power To The People Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Studies H.G.Pape V1

730 views
598 views

Published on

Master thesis Heritage Studies, on the desirability and feasibility of community archaeology in The Netherlands.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
730
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Power To The People Desirability And Feasibility Of Community Archaeology In The Netherlands Master Thesis Heritage Studies H.G.Pape V1

  1. 1.  POWER TO THE PEOPLE?DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE NETHERLANDS H.G. PAPE MASTER THESIS HERITAGE STUDIES 
  2. 2.  “The world does not speak. Only we do. The world can, once we have programmed ourselves with alanguage, cause us to hold beliefs. But it cannot propose a language for us to speak. Only other humanbeings can do that.” - Richard Rorty“The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without thesympathy of the community.” - William James“History is a cyclic poem written by Time upon the memories of man.” - Percy Bysshe ShelleyCover illustration: Caspar J.C. Reuvens at the excavation of Arentsburg, 1827 (commons.wikimedia.org).  2
  3. 3.  COLOPHONAuthor: H.G. Pape MAPrimary advisor: prof. dr. J.C.A. KolenSecondary advisor: prof. dr. J.G.A. BazelmansDate: 13-08-2012Version: 1.0  3
  4. 4.  GRATIAS VOBIS AGOAs is the case with every thesis or major article, I could not have written this one without the supportof others. First among them is my primary advisor and mentor, Jan Kolen, who has motivated me allthe way to the conclusion and with whom I have had several enjoyable, ‘eureka’-style conversations.I am also grateful that Jos Bazelmans has been willing to be my secondary advisor. His views andexperience have inspired me from the first class he gave that I attended, as have his publications andwork for the State Service.Following suit are my colleagues Arjen Bosman, Joost de Jong, Sigrid van Roode, Jolanda Bos andBoudewijn Goudswaard. Partaking in Heritage Studies would not have been possible without their helpboth at the office and outside. Arjen especially I want to thank for his willingness to be interviewedand to share his decades of experience in academic, commercial and voluntary archaeology.In the same vein I want to thank the other four who were kind enough to invite me in and beinterviewed at length. Marcel van den Berg, Bram den Boer, Nathalie Vossen and Jan Kleinen: thankyou! Our talks have sharpened my mind and informed many an argument in this thesis.Martijn Duineveld and Sjoerd van der Linde deserve their place here as well, being the first to sharetheir experiences and visions of citizen participation in archaeology with me and starting me off on thisjourney proper. Martijn’s PhD thesis was also a prime inspiration for my own research.Many thanks as well to my college mate David Koren, who was instrumental in making Heritage Studiesboth educational and fun. I am sure his thesis will acquire a higher grade than mine, as befits a manwho is often too self-modest for his own good.Cheers to Neil Faulkner, who discussed with me our neo-liberal world and the need for democraticarchaeology. Your views have become an important part of this thesis, so thank you.This space is reserved for all those other people, animals, plants and inanimate objects who havehelped me, knowingly or otherwise.And, last but never least, my heart goes out to my partner and love of my life, Margriet Boonstra.Without her unwavering support, both stern and caring, I would not be where I am today. It has been atough two years, my love, but as Bob Dylan already sang: “the times, they are a-changin’.”  4
  5. 5.  CONTENTSGratias vobis ago ...................................................................................................... 4 Contents ................................................................................................................. 5  Prologue.................................................................................................................. 7  Challenge and goal .................................................................................................... 10 Thesis structure ....................................................................................................... 12 Theoretical and philosophical framework ....................................................................... 13 1.  Community archaeology: theory ............................................................................. 15  1.1.  What is a community? ..................................................................................... 15  1.2.  Community archaeology: motivations and origins .................................................... 18  1.3.  The Australian crucible ................................................................................... 20  1.4.  The premise and relevance of community archaeology ............................................. 23  1.5.  Research or management? ................................................................................ 25 2.  Community archaeology: practice ........................................................................... 28  2.1.  Excursion to Egypt: the Community Archaeology Project in Quseir ............................... 28  2.2.  The Levi Jordan Plantation Web Site Project in Brazoria, Texas (US) ............................. 34  2.3.  The pitfalls of community archaeology ................................................................. 38  2.4.  Community archaeology in the long run: SHARP and the Sedgeford Crisis ....................... 41  2.5.  Community archaeology defined? ....................................................................... 43 3.  Dutch archaeology: history ................................................................................... 44  3.1.  Beginnings at Arentsburg ................................................................................. 44  3.2.  Dawn of two traditions: Holwerda and Van Giffen ................................................... 47  3.3.  Tolling the bell: law and policy in the 19th century .................................................. 49  3.4.  The State Service: from rescue to preservation ...................................................... 52 4.  Dutch archaeology: present................................................................................... 59  4.1.  ‘Malta’: how everything changed........................................................................ 59  4.2.  Matters of money, policy and stakeholders ............................................................ 60  4.3.  Criticism, ‘quality’ and site valuation .................................................................. 62   4.4.  Duality in Dutch archaeology: management versus research ....................................... 64   5
  6. 6.   4.5.  Duality in Dutch archaeology: in situ versus ex situ preservation ................................. 68 5.  Community archaeology in The Netherlands .............................................................. 72  5.1.  To dig or not to dig: outreach and historical sensation .............................................. 72  5.2.  The pivotal role of excavation in community archaeology .......................................... 76  5.3.  Archaeological volunteers in The Netherlands ........................................................ 79  5.4.  On knowledge and power ................................................................................. 83  5.5.  Change from within: ‘Reverse Archaeology’ and beyond ............................................ 87  5.6.  What community? Academic colonialism and identity ............................................... 91  5.7.  Sign of the times: a note on citizen participation at state level ................................... 95  5.8.  Three modes of archaeology and community-based approaches: a model ....................... 97 Conclusions and roadmap ........................................................................................... 99  Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 99   Roadmap ............................................................................................................. 100 Epilogue ............................................................................................................... 101 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 102  Books and articles .................................................................................................. 102  Websites ............................................................................................................. 104   6
  7. 7.  PROLOGUEIn the 20th century, globalization, ongoing industrialization and exponential population growth amongothers forced mankind to think long and hard about the way our surroundings should be organized. Inthe more densely populated regions, of which The Netherlands are a prime example, living space hasalways been a scarce commodity. This inherently put pressure on the archaeological record beneathour feet; after all, the traces of ages past share with us that same living space, even though we mightnot always see them under normal circumstances.Those ‘normal circumstances’ cease to apply once the topsoil is cracked open, and the layers beneathare laid bare. And, in contemporary spatial development, there are quite a few reasons to do so:building foundations, (parking) cellars, elevator shafts and water-retaining basins are just a fewexamples of construction elements that need to be realized at least partly underground. In doing so,the present comes into direct conflict with the past. Because of this, documenting archaeologicalremains during spatial development has been a staple in many countries for many years: this so-calledcommercial ‘contract archaeology’ has grown to a full partner of ‘independent’ academicarchaeological research.Daily experience as a mediator between developers, government officials and archaeologists in TheNetherlands has taught me that commercial archaeology is not the sitting duck in a harsh world ofbuilders and developers that it is sometimes made out to be, even though it undoubtedly differs fromresearch archaeology on several aspects. The embedding of archaeological research in national andEuropean legislation goes to show how far we have come from merely salvaging the remains of ourancestors, before they disappear forever beneath a new suburb or industrial zone. Due to thatlegislative framework, emergency excavations should literally be a thing of the past, as archaeologicalresearch is carried out well in advance of spatial (re)constructions - where possible.This becomes all the more clear when reviewing the specific situation in The Netherlands, where theimplementation of the Valletta Treaty paved the way for an even further integration of archaeology inspatial development. The way in which we Dutch have opted to translate the Treaty into a workablesystem has led to a unique market environment, where professional quality control combines withgovernmental decision-making on the municipal level, in order to try and ensure ‘proper’ conduct inarchaeological research. The resulting subjects of discussion and debate range far and wide, as thiscommercial Dutch system has gradually evolved with ups and downs since 1992 (the signing of the  7
  8. 8.  Valletta Treaty) and particularly since 2007 (the coming into effect of the Archaeological HeritageManagement Act).At present, the Dutch archaeological system revolves around professionals for its validation, planningand execution. The general public is ever more aware of the existence of archaeological research, butnot all that often do the results of the archaeologists’ painstaking labour find their way to the averagelayperson in a clear, concise and inspirational manner. This is despite article 9 of the Valletta Treaty,which concerns promoting public awareness.1 Unfortunately, this rather essential part of the Treatywas not incorporated in Dutch legislation.While we as a professional group have made strides in raising awareness, about the role and value ofarchaeology in the spatial development of The Netherlands in the last few years, these efforts havemainly focused on governments and developers, as a legitimization of the legislation in effect,combined with a commercial vantage point - we are operating in a market environment after all. Inshort, we mainly raise awareness for those that demand and decide and for those that pay. This is anatural consequence of the system.Those underlying motives obviously apply differently or not at all where the public is concerned. But isthis even seen or felt as a shortcoming, especially where the archaeologists themselves are concerned?When prompting this issue on any congregation of archaeologists, some will deflect inquiry by sayingsomething along the lines of “But we already do enough for the public. Look at the books and foldersthat we make, or the public excavation days that we host.” Apparently, increasing public awareness isa station already passed. Or is it? Could it be that such responses flow more from the scientific mindsetthat every archaeologist is brought up with in college, which then conflicts with the reality of a not-so-academic heritage management system and an academic world on the sidelines? However, the recentdiscussions and symposium hosted by the Foundation for Archaeology and Public (SAP, StichtingArcheologie en Publiek) on the relevance of archaeology in Dutch society show that change is on thehorizon.                                                            1 Article 9 (European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), 1992) reads thus: Promotion of public awareness Each Party undertakes: 1. To conduct educational actions with a view to rousing and developing an awareness in public opinion of the value of the archaeological heritage for understanding the past and of the threats to this heritage; 2. To promote public access to important elements of its archaeological heritage, especially sites, and encourage the display to the public of suitable selections of archaeological objects.  8
  9. 9.  All of this should encourage us, in my opinion, from keeping a lookout for new paradigms that ensurearchaeology in The Netherlands remains innovative and fresh. Inspired by literature and my ownexperiences, I thus set out with the idea of researching what could be a new chapter in Dutch heritagemanagement and research: community archaeology. It was not before long that I discovered a wholenew world of archaeological theory and practice. Community archaeology might come across as sayingthe same thing twice: after all, is archaeology not implicitly a field of study meant to increase publicawareness of our past and drawing lessons out of it for our own present and future? Perhaps, yes, but itis something else entirely when the public becomes an active participant in the archaeological process.For that is what community archaeology is all about.The transition of a centrally regulated archaeological system into a decentralized successor with far-reaching implications for spatial planning (and vice versa) did not happen overnight.2 Truer still, thetransition has not reached a culmination and indeed might never do so. After all, any system – whetherman-made or natural - is inherently unstable, as it moves from one temporary equilibrium to another inresponse to the shifting needs of day and age. The recent evaluation of our archaeological legislation isproof of that.3 In light of this I feel that the needs of The Netherlands in this second decade of the 21stcentury are shifting towards a new level of integration of archaeology in society. In this thesis I haveaimed to find out if community archaeology has the potential to answer those needs.                                                            2 Goudswaard 2006, 303 Zijlstra 2012; Keers/Van der Reijden/Van Rossum 2011  9
  10. 10.  CHALLENGE AND GOALI dare state that archaeology in The Netherlands remains largely the domain of an intellectual elite,even though ‘Malta’ might have had different aspirations for contract archaeology and the (r)evolutionof our heritage management system, which has brought several more stakeholders into the process: thelocal authorities that are required to set research demands and make decisions, the spatial developers(both private and governmental) that are legally bound to fulfil an archaeological duty and pay for anynecessary research, and the community that is supposed to be informed about the richness of the soilarchive for the sake of public education and building towards our collective memory.At this point I want to stress the fact that I do not consider the professional archaeologists in TheNetherlands as the (sole) culprits of the system’s current form and function: later on in this thesis itwill become clear that one is dealing with all shades of grey here, in a historically dynamic setting withmultiple parties and interests. While I do maintain a critical posture towards archaeologists as a groupand stakeholder in archaeology – of which I as an archaeologist myself am part of - this is not somepolemic against the status quo. Rather, I want to evaluate our role especially in the Dutch heritagemanagement system, to bring us to equal footing in the discussion. For this, self-reflection is required,as is a disposition of vulnerability.In recent debates about the Dutch situation, community archaeology is being drawn into the discussionwith more regularity, for instance when talking about sustainability in archaeological 4entrepreneurship. But what is community archaeology exactly, and should we even want to implementit in The Netherlands? Is it just some fancy term, to be used by shrewd consultants and marketers tosell more archaeological services and products, or can it be a new paradigm for conserving,interpreting and using our shared heritage? Only after answering those questions can I continue to thecore challenge and goal of this thesis: is community archaeology both desirable and feasible in TheNetherlands, especially as an evolution of the heritage management system we have now, or would itcause such friction with established traditions and the integration of archaeology in spatialdevelopment that those seeds will fall into barren soil?Community archaeology is all about participation of the community in every step of the spatial-archaeological process. This is something beyond the public or outreach archaeology we conduct witheasy-to-read books, exhibitions and the like. It is even beyond current undertakings in The Netherlandsto further ‘commodify’ or ‘communify’ heritage management, which have already sparked                                                            4 Ref: prof. dr. J.C.A. Kolen during the ADC symposium on cultural entrepreneurs in the heritage sector, d.d. 25-08-2011, Leiden.  10
  11. 11.  considerable debate in the Dutch archaeological sector.5 Do we even dare to take on the next level,should we wish to do so? Can we see the benefits or do we fear losing voice in the halls of power asexperts? This mix of eagerness and apprehension informs the title of my thesis: ‘Power to the people?’The question mark already indicates that community archaeology is not a clear-cut term with clear-cutimplications; it instead begs for further analysis. I do not claim to have presented the reader with allthe answers when done reading this thesis, but I do hope to have contributed to inspiring your thinkingabout archaeology in today’s society.                                                            5 ‘Reverse Archaeology’ is a prime example, see paragraph 5.5.  11
  12. 12.  THESIS STRUCTUREAll research is informed by its underlying methodology and the disposition of the scholar(s) carrying itout. Every artefact, institution or concept can be viewed from multiple angles and levels, thus reachingdifferent conclusions and recommendations depending on the scholar and his/her outlook, as well asthe era in which he/she lived. The theoretical-philosophical framework and personal background forthis thesis is described in the next pages. In it I will shed some light on my personal view ofarchaeology and the paths of theory I have found myself travelling upon.In the first and second chapter, I will endeavour to understand for myself and explain to the reader thecore of this thesis: what is community archaeology? This entails analyzing several disparate views andopinions on the subject, along with giving a score of examples from different countries around theworld. While some may not be suited for analogy with the Dutch situation, they will all definitelyilluminate the requisite mindset towards (archaeological) heritage and associated policy needed tomake community archaeology feasible.To come to meaningful statements on the feasibility and desirability of community archaeology in TheNetherlands, I will then review the Dutch archaeological practice and the associated heritagemanagement system. In the third chapter I therefore aim to give an overview of the history ofarchaeological research and management in The Netherlands, and use the fourth chapter to explainmore thoroughly how the current system came to be and how it functions. In both chapters I willreflect on this history and that practice to pinpoint if, and, if so, where community archaeology wouldfit into the Dutch situation.The fifth and final chapter will be the synthesis and transcendence of the previous chapters, in which Icombine the results of my analyses with other thoughts and insights I gained during my research. Howand where could community-based approaches be implemented in Dutch archaeology? What do we haveto gain from it and who can be seen as its beneficiaries? I will also try to grasp the undercurrents ofknowledge and power to put archaeology in The Netherlands in context, as well as make an outing intothe concept of ‘historical sensation’ and different engagement levels people can have witharchaeology.The thesis will then conclude with the answers to the main questions: is community archaeology inThe Netherlands feasible and desirable? Some ruminations on intended follow-up research willconstitute my closing remarks.  12
  13. 13.  THEORETICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORKArchaeology has many faces. For most people, it can be adequately summarized as “the scientific studyof material remains (as fossil relics, artefacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities.”6 Andin essence that is indeed what archaeology, or perhaps more specific, archaeological research, hasentailed since the first systematic and documented excavations. After all, the Greek term ἀρχαιολογία(archaiologia) roughly translates to ‘ancient study’, thus being a scientific endeavour. This does notmean however that archaeology is solely a (natural) science, as its various approaches also bear thehallmark of a humanity: methods in archaeology are not only empirical in nature, but also analytical,critical and speculative. In the United States it is considered intimately tied to or even a branch ofanthropology, other than the separate discipline that it often constitutes in the European halls oflearning. It is therefore not so strange that, as an academic field of study, archaeology can be found indifferent faculties varying from university to university.In my experience as an archaeologist and consultant, the approaches of the humanity part are oftoverlooked by us archaeologists, as we tend to forget that reconstructing the lives and world of thepast inherently means combining facts (i.e. derived from empirical study) with interpretations (i.e.derived from critical analysis and conjectured speculation). In other words: archaeology is part‘educated guess’, based on the talents, knowledge, experience and personal disposition of individualpeople practicing it. I personally do not think that facts tell a tale of their own (truth-as-discovered),nor do artefacts: meaning is attributed to them by us humans. In other words, I believe we constructour own realities and truths (truth-as-created), which can shift in time and content between people orcommunities. It also means that those different perspectives can clash or combine, but that none ofthem may be called false: there are no wrong opinions. This is basically what in philosophy is known asconstructivism, or, to be more exact, pragmatism. This constructivist/pragmatist outlook of mine canbe seen in practitioners of community archaeology as well, of which Neil Faulkner and Carol McDavidare prime examples.7 Martijn Duineveld, while not an archaeologist himself, has shared his perspectiveon archaeology in a decidedly constructivist fashion as well. His dissertation has inspired me from thebeginning.8This is also precisely why I value the role of the archaeologist as storyteller so much: we are trained togive meaning to traces from the past in a certain way, so as to evoke that past from tangible remains                                                            6 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, definition of archaeology.7 McDavid 2002; Faulkner 2000; 20098 Duineveld 2006  13
  14. 14.  for those that can not do so or not as well. In a sense, that is a gift, which we should use to the fullest.I will not state that every archaeologist should go out into the mall and tell tall tales from yore, assome archaeologists are obviously much more suited to enthuse other people or relate to a certaintarget audience than others, but I do strongly advocate much more openness and outreach. I believe itis this disposition that made me wonder about community archaeology in the first place: a drive tokeep archaeology in The Netherlands from distancing itself from modern society.I believe that archaeology has social relevance by default, and I dislike the social validation we ascontract archaeologists seem to practice ever more often with all the new stakeholders in ‘our’process: trying to convince those that pay for and decide about commercial archaeological research ofarchaeology’s relevance in general, in my opinion, is a step back.9 While even research archaeology atuniversities has not escaped the change to the archaeological process – the legislation and qualitycontrol that govern contract archaeology apply to non-commercial work done on Dutch soil as well -the amount of social validation seems to be lower there, perhaps because universities seem to havedistanced themselves from commercial archaeology. I feel this to be a balance shift to the other end,which I do not find desirable either. In the four years of experience as a consultant in commercialarchaeology, I have witnessed and participated in a lot of different projects all across The Netherlandsand thus claim some authority in that field. However, I honestly have little recent experience witharchaeology departments of universities, and my opinions on research archaeology are for the betterpart informed by literature and experiences from people in my network.Beside my experience in the field of Dutch archaeological heritage management, I feel that myeducation grants me a different outlook on the situation in The Netherlands: I have been primarilytrained as a classical-Mediterranean archaeologist at Groningen University, with a specialization inRoman Italy - a nation where archaeology is practiced quite differently. At Groningen University Ideveloped an outlook on archaeology that can be called cognitive-processual in general, and whichsometimes dips into Critical Theory (corresponding with the way I adhere to the concept of truth-as-created).10 It might have something to do with the way my class looked at things: more critical of ourown beliefs, methods and practices and with a generally open mind – with a touch of idealism. Duringthe research for this thesis, I have been able to (re)develop my theoretical-philosophical thoughts onarchaeology and have come to the conclusion that community archaeology fully matches with my ownideas. So, while I will be critical towards the concept as any scholar worth his salt should, the readerwould be right in concluding that I have written this thesis from a positive view of communityarchaeology and a drive to bring at least some of its underlying ideas to Dutch archaeology.                                                            9 Social validation is a form of compliance, in which somebody implicitly or explicitly tries to prove his/her worth, or that ofhis/her undertakings, to others (as discussed by R. Cialdini, Arizona State University).10 Renfrew/Bahn 2000, 486-493  14
  15. 15.  1. COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY: THEORYIn the abstract of her introductory article in World Archaeology 34 (2), Yvonne Marshall, senior lecturerand head of education for archaeology at the University of Southampton, provides a solid generalcharacterization of community archaeology: it is understood as a distinctive set of practices within thewider discipline, with its most distinguishing characteristic being “[…] the relinquishing of at leastpartial control of a project to the local community.”11 One could characterize it as a new paradigm inarchaeology. In a journal edition entirely devoted to community archaeology, Marshall’s opening wordsmight provide the best point for newcomers to start exploring what I have come to experience – andvalue – as a bedazzling multifaceted subfield of research and management within archaeology. WorldArchaeology 34 (2), that particular compilation of articles with examples and methods from around theworld, has been a major inspiration for my research and, despite its publication date almost ten yearsago, remains an invaluable treatise on the subject matter for many scholars that deal with communityarchaeology.It is therefore that I have chosen to start my research with combining insights from all relevant articlesin World Archaeology 34 (2) – which turned out to be nearly every one, saying a lot about the quality ofthis journal edition – to analyze the concept of community archaeology. I will also include insights fromlater years, as World Archaeology 34 (2) is of course not the only repository of discussions oncommunity archaeology. Some articles have followed up on the case studies in said journal, whileothers show the maturation of the community-based approaches: while World Archaeology 34 (2) is ingeneral quite positive about community archaeology, given its year of publishing and it being acompilation of choice case studies by staunch proponents of community-based approaches, there arealso downsides and pitfalls to it that did not really lead to discussion until in later years. In this chapterI will refrain from making too detailed a link with the Dutch situation, as that will be done in Chapter5. However, I will make some remarks during the analysis, in order to pinpoint lines of argument thatcan be unravelled and applied at the conclusion of this thesis.1.1. WHAT IS A COMMUNITY?Before we start off with the analysis of community archaeology proper, I need to address that firstword: community. It is essential to have some insight in what a community can be, for there is nosingle inclusive definition for it (this also applies to community archaeology itself). “Communities are                                                            11 Marshall 2002, 211  15
  16. 16.  seldom, if ever, monocultural and are never of one mind. They are aggregations of people who havecome together for all kinds of planned and contingent reasons. There are therefore many ways in whichthe community relevant to a particular archaeological project may emerge. None is unproblematic andin many cases the interest community changes over the course of a project.”12 As African scholarsShadreck Chirikure and Gilbert Pwiti put it so eloquently: “Layers of complexity are entangled in thedefinition of ‘community’.”13Marshall notes that two general types of community tend to emerge when archaeologists start withidentifying the site(s) they want to study. The first type consists of “[…] people who live locally, eitheron or close to a site. Such communities are defined in the present and are largely about people’srelationships to their place of residence.”14 This is perhaps the most ‘natural’ form of community, as itconforms to most peoples’ notion of the concept: it is geographically-bound on the contemporaryspatial level, concerning people living in or near a locality in the here and now. This conformity issometimes referred to as the ‘residential bias’15. The Community Archaeology Project Quseir, whichwill feature prominently in both my theoretical and practical analysis of community, is a primeexample of a study concerning such a residential community. The second type of community then “[…]consists of descendants and includes those who can or choose to trace descent from the people whoonce lived at or near the site. These communities are defined by their relationships to the past and toother people.”16 Descendant communities are thus not exclusively geographically-bound (they can be,but it is not a defining trait) and exist on a more higher spatial level: they can consist of people thatlive around the world, but still retain a connection to the site under research. The Levi JordanPlantation Web Site Project in Brazoria, Texas (US) is a good example of a descendant community, andwill be discussed in more detail later on.Marshall rightly observes that resident and descendant communities are not mutually exclusive. Often,as with some of the case studies mentioned by Greer, Harrison and McIntyre-Tamway in WorldArchaeology 34 (2), there is a combination of residents on/near-site and descendants that trace backtheir roots to it.17 Even on this simplified level of two practical community definitions, it is clear thatthere are no clearly delineated borders separating them. In archaeological theory, which has broughtforth a distinct and still influential paradigm of modelling the ancient world in systems and the                                                            12 Ibid., 21513 Chirikure/Pwiti 2008, 46814 Marshall 2002, 21615 Chirikure/Pwiti 2008, 46816 Marshall 2002, 21617 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002  16
  17. 17.  relations between them (New Archaeology/processual archaeology18), this can hamper thoroughunderstanding. Still, I believe that acknowledging such complexity is half the battle already.While exploring that conceptual complexity, Chirikure and Pwiti at first discuss a definition ofcommunity derived from the works of Kwame Anthony Appiah19 and Nuala Johnson20: “[…] a body ofpeople inhabiting the same locality.”21 That term, locality, implies a ‘residential bias’ that Chirikureand Pwiti attribute to the common concept of community (Marshall’s residential community): in manyspatial sciences, a locality is defined as a settlement or agglomeration of buildings and other spaces.This automatically links a community with the site as a point in contemporary space. Of course, it isthe coupling with habitation that fully realizes the residential bias in the given definition. Chirikureand Pwiti continue their analysis by stating that a community can be insular (bound by commonancestry, heritage and culture, as described by Etienne Wenger in his ‘communities of practice’22) orcosmopolitan (as discussed by Appiah). They also state that communities operate on different scales(local, regional, national, global).All of the above relate to what Chirikure and Pwiti call ‘communities of place’. In juxtaposition withthese, the two scholars put forward the ideas of Johnson, Wenger and McGimsey (the first to coin thephrase ‘public archaeology’, back in 1972)23 of ‘communities of interest’. According to them, thesestakeholders “[…] transcend communities of place and geographical boundaries. They are strategically-based, very powerful, heterogeneous and ever-changing. Stakeholders such as professionals,landowners, politicians, tourists, descendant communities, and others with an interest in the pasttypically coexist with communities of place, and they are often multiple and contradictory.”24Note that Marshall’s descendant communities are subsumed within Chrikure and Pwiti’s communities ofinterest, and are thus seen as distinct from their communities of place. While I am of the opinion thatthose communities of place irrefutably have interest in the given site or locality as well, I dounderstand that these two scholars wish to separate the residential from the non-residentialcommunities. What I most appreciate is that they show the concept of community goes well beyondthose that inhabit or have inhabited a point in space and time: there are many people and institutionswith an interest in any given site or locality (including ourselves as archaeologists). Both the level ofinterest, connection and power can vary enormously between (parts of) these communities, as does                                                            18 Renfrew/Bahn 2000, 465-47219 Appiah 200620 Johnson 200021 Chirikure/Pwiti 2008, 46822 Wenger 199823 McGimsey 197224 Chirikure/Pwiti 2008, 468  17
  18. 18.  their perspective. Some may have a same amount of interest, but from completely differentviewpoints. This truly shows to me that we have to be extremely careful and open-minded whendiscussing the ‘community’ part of community archaeology, so we do not lock ourselves in too narrowconfines prematurely. Marshall worded it thus: “It is important that we do not foreclose on some of thepotential of community archaeology by being quick to presume who will or will not be part of thecommunity of interest.”25A final notion about the concept of community I want to address stems from the work done by NeilFaulkner in the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (more on this at the end ofthis chapter). After the staged ‘coup’ in his project team, Faulkner comes to an in my opinion essentialconclusion: those working on a community-based archaeological project become a community as well.26It reminds me of Aphorism 146 by Friedrich Nietzsche: “And when you gaze long into an abyss, theabyss also gazes into you.”27 For indeed, when we as archaeologists (and as scientists/scholars ingeneral) study something, that very thing is not only changed by the observation – much like observingan electron in the famous double-slit experiment makes it act like a particle instead of a wave – but italso changes something in us. In the case of community archaeology, the project team itself becomes anew hybrid community that is intertwined with all other communities tied to the site or locality. Webecome actually part of our own research, as we attribute meaning to artefacts and traces of the past,and even more so when we delve into the vagaries of contemporary human communities and theirinterest in archaeology.1.2. COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY: MOTIVATIONS AND ORIGINSIn the conclusion of her introductory article, Marshall comes to a meaningful conclusion about themotivations for carrying out community-based approaches in archaeology: “Community archaeologyrepresents an opportunity. We need it, not because it is politically correct, but because it enriches ourdiscipline. Community archaeology encourages us to ask questions of the past we would not otherwiseconsider, to see archaeological remains in new light and to think in new ways about how the pastinforms the present.”28This tells me that community archaeology is for a good part motivated by seeing and acting uponopportunities, rather than solely by reacting to and solving problems. Seen this way, one could                                                            25 Marshall 2002, 21726 Faulkner 2009, 6427 Nietzsche 188628 Marshall 2002, 218  18
  19. 19.  compare the first approach to a vaccine and the second to a bandage: proactive instead of reactive,seizing chances instead of mitigating or managing risks. While I do believe that a degree of politicalcorrectness with regard to ethical and socio-political concerns plays a formative part in the inceptionof any kind of community archaeology, I wholeheartedly agree with Marshall’s statement. Indeed,through my analysis I have become convinced that community archaeology excels in providing multipleand different perspectives on the past. These perspectives are in part informed by and in partinforming the present, thus creating a methodological approach that ties past and present together.Community archaeology pretends to be grounded in society and science alike, validating the continuedexistence and relevance of our discipline in a continuously changing and expanding world. While Isurmise that this felt need for validation is in part the result of a sense of false modesty or even aminor inferiority complex on the part of archaeologists – which should not only be contributed to theirown attitude but also to the current form and direction society is taking as a whole – I feel there isnothing wrong in underscoring the import and value of our discipline by remaining innovative andsocially relevant.Although the prospect of transforming our discipline for the better is of course worthy of pursuit, it isalways strife that spurs on innovation best. Reactively responding to problematic issues in research andmanagement has been key to the development of community-based approaches to archaeology inseveral countries, which share a socio-political background: they are colonial settler societies. While adetailed analysis of the concept of colonization stretches beyond the scope of this thesis, it is anessential part of the history of community archaeology and its origins. To put it succinct: the origins ofcommunity archaeology as a subfield of research with its own practical set of methods can be primarilyfound in present-day New World countries with a colonial past: countries with an indigenouspopulation, that have been settled and colonized at some point in time by European people. Theconsequences of these culture clashes have left indelible marks upon the present state of thosecountries in socio-political terms, but also in the way they handle and approach their heritage.Australia and New Zealand have a prominent position in that respect, as Marshall remarks upon thesurprisingly high amount of abstracts and proposals from that part of the world following on the call forpapers for Volume 34 (2) of World Archaeology. Marshall states that in these countries “[…] peoplemore readily identify themselves as practitioners of community archaeology and there is considerableagreement as to what community archaeology consists of.”29 But, as becomes clear further down theissue, this proliferation is not all that surprising when one takes into account the colonial past of bothcountries: the Aboriginals of Australia and Maori of New Zealand have both endured decennia of studyby what could be called the settler population, and their changing attitude towards archaeological                                                            29 Ibid., 212  19
  20. 20.  research about themselves has certainly caused a very practical and actual motivation for thedevelopment of community-based approaches.30From reading Clayton Fredericksen’s contribution to World Archaeology 34 (2), this changing attitudeof indigenous inhabitants can be understood as the “[…] decolonization of archaeology andempowerment of indigenous peoples over their cultural heritage.”31 An essential notion herein is thatthe way archaeological research is carried out can have profound implications for society as a whole,especially when there are multiple perspectives on the past by multiple communities between whichexists an imbalance in power. A case in point is the way archaeology has become ‘contested ground’ inAustralia, where the deep past of Aboriginality remains the prime focus and the recent historicalAboriginal past is obscured to a large extent: it is either marginalized or serves as backdrop to thestories of European colonization. This not only results in veiling the adjustments that Aboriginal societyhave been forced to undertake during that settler period and its aftermath, but is also severs in someway the cultural continuity between pre- and post-colonial Aboriginality.The way their past is constructed for them by others obviously has ramifications for the position andtreatment of contemporary Aboriginals in wider Australian society. As Fredericksen states: “[…] theconduct of research in the Australian past has a political currency that belies any claims to impartialityor objectivity.”32 This statement not only clearly shows the socio-political dimension of archaeologicalresearch in particular, but also tells us something deeper about the nature of science: it is not withdetachment that a scholar or scientist observes the machinations within society, but research issubject to and affects that society in ways that can be difficult to foresee and deal with from a purelyscientific stand-off point of view. In other words, science – and by extension archaeology – does notmerely have a social component: it is a social component.1.3. THE AUSTRALIAN CRUCIBLEI want to further highlight the Australian situation, both because it is exemplary for why a community-based archaeological approach emerges in a colonial setting, but also because it has some interestingimplications for such an approach in The Netherlands. In their article within the pages of WorldArchaeology 34 (2), Australian archaeologist Shelly Greer and her compatriots describe the reasonsbehind the rise of community archaeology in their country.                                                            30 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002; Fredericksen 200231 Fredericksen 2002, 28932 Ibid.  20
  21. 21.  The authors start with explaining that there are two divisions in Australian archaeological research, onebased on motivation and one on chronology. The motivational division concerns the fact that researchis carried out either on universities by students and researchers, or in the context of Cultural HeritageManagement (CHM) by agencies with a strategic approach to heritage. Where the first is a matter offundamental research, the second revolves around assessing the environmental impact of developmentproposals and meeting legislative responsibilities with regards to heritage management.33 Thechronological division then distinguishes between a ‘prehistorical archaeology’ studying the Aboriginalpast and a ‘historical archaeology’ concerning itself with the time of colonization onwards. Thisapparent dichotomy is characteristic for many colonial settler societies. As corroborated by the quote Igave from Fredericksen, the uneasiness between the indigenous population and the Euro-Australianarchaeologists who study them has haunted Australian archaeology since the 1970’s. With changingrights in the following decades, indigenous communities also clamoured for more control and ownershipof their cultural heritage. The above led to a consultative approach in Australian archaeology –particularly where focusing on the deep Aboriginal past – which is characterized by seeking consentfrom the community in question to actually be studied. Most government administrations in Australiarequire documentation of actual consultation and either written or verbal consent from the indigenouscommunity before an excavation permit is given to researchers.34Not considering the peculiarities of pre- and post-contact archaeology in Australia just yet, theconsultative approach has alleviated many issues and has brought researchers and indigenouscommunities closer together. However, it is not a ‘true’ community archaeology, even though manyprojects in this vein claim to be so, as “[...] it has not motivated archaeologists to undertakecollaborative community projects that engage or interest a wider segment of the community.”35 Theapparent ease with which scholars use the term community archaeology – in The Netherlands as well –while they actually refer to public or ‘outreach’ archaeology with a consultative nature, indicates tome that we have to prevent community archaeology from becoming a hollow catchphrase. As Greer,Harrison and McIntyre-Tamway state, the consultative approach has its obvious merits but “[...] itdiffers from the community-based approach, with the central and dominating principle thatcommunity-based research is interactive rather than reactive. A prerequisite of the interactiveapproach is the definition of elements of contemporary community identity that underpin thedevelopment of research interests and which inform issues of methodology and practice.”36                                                            33 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002, 265-26634 Ibid., 26635 Ibid., 266-26736 Ibid., 268  21
  22. 22.  The consultative approach seems to work well, but mainly for the ‘prehistorical archaeology’.Interestingly enough, also with regards to the Dutch situation, Greer and her co-authors state that inAustralian ‘historical archaeology’ the community has been far more inclined to accept the role ofexperts (professional archaeologists) in making meaningful statements about the recent past. The roleof the public is then limited to working as volunteers and (limited) commenting on researchproposals.37 This strikes me as somewhat odd, as that would imply less incentive to provide views ofthe past by non-archaeologists in a timeframe that surely has more living stories that can be found in‘prehistorical archaeology’. After all, in the few instances where the community at large did get deeplyinvolved with the archaeological research, there was “[…] a tendency to focus on recent, rememberedhistory. Rather than the archaeology of the deep Palaeolithic past, the significance of the intimate,shared colonial history of Australia and its late Holocene antecedents has been the focus of these casestudies.”38At first one would think this might have something to do with the weight that is attributed toAboriginal prehistory as an almost ‘exotic’ timeframe (with remarkable aspects like the Dreamtime),but upon further reading in a discussion paper on social significance of Australian heritage, publishedby the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), this turns out to be a matter of conjoiningcircumstances in time: the under-recording of Aboriginal post-contact heritage is mainly to beattributed to the employment of prehistorians (i.e. archaeologists researching prehistory) in thedominating form of heritage management from the 1970’s onwards (Environmental Impact Assessment),which also ‘rubbed off’ during their consultation with Aboriginals and Euro-Australian people. Thatway, both the experts and the community at large remained unwittingly focused on the deep past ofAustralia. Also, the NPWS was at the time so locked in providing services to developers and consultants,as well as inventorying sites recorded by other consultants, that their employees did not have room foroccupying themselves with ‘historical archaeology’ as well, even though historians, culturalcommentators and the Aboriginals themselves had turned their attention to post-contact heritage.39With that background in mind, aforementioned course of actions and events led to a perhapsforeseeable situation where the significance of studying older periods in Australia took prevalenceabove that of younger periods, and as much in academic circles as amongst the public. While furtheranalysis of this falls outside the scope of this thesis, this unintentional bias also exists in TheNetherlands.                                                            37 Ibid., 28238 Ibid.39 Byrne/Brayshaw/Ireland 2001, 17-18  22
  23. 23.  Greer, Harrison and McIntyre-Tamway also claim that archaeologists who study the historical periods inAustralia have also generally been less concerned to take on the classic role of expert, “[...] as theethical concerns associated with studying ‘someone else’s history’ are generally thought to beabsent.”40 In other words, as they conclude at the end, those ethical concerns are “[…] perhapsdiscounted because most archaeologists are themselves from the culture that is being investigated.”41While the implicit notion that Australians see themselves as forming a single society is in a sensecommendable, it obscures – at least in archaeological research – the fact that there are still differentcommunities involved here, with different backgrounds and a sometimes painful past together: theyhave just become so intertwined with each other that it is hard to tell them apart, for themselves aswell as for others. One could perhaps state that compartmentalizing contemporary Australian societyinto Aboriginal and Euro-Australian sections is a step back, in that it denounces in some way the idea ofAustralia being a single nation with a unified identity, but I am of the opinion that this is necessary toprevent the unintentional veiling of post-contact Aboriginal interests and values.Seeing as how The Netherlands are no post-colonial society in the sense of having indigenouscommunities like Aboriginals or Maori within its national borders (the position of former Dutch colonieslike Suriname and Indonesia is of course intriguing in this light, something I will touch upon later), onewould perhaps say that those ethical concerns voiced in Australia are certainly absent here. Again, inChapter 5 I will argue that this is not true, and that there are actually metaphorical colonialconnotations within not only the borders of The Netherlands proper, but within the borders of everycountry where archaeological research is carried out.1.4. THE PREMISE AND RELEVANCE OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGYProfessor Stephanie Moser, colleague of Marshall at the University of Southampton, heads the majoropening article of World Archaeology 34 (2). She and her co-authors state, like Greer and her co-authors do, that community archaeology goes far beyond simple consultation with local communities,“[…] incorporating a range of strategies designed to facilitate the involvement of local people in theinvestigation and interpretation of the past.”42Moser et al.’s article focuses on the Community Archaeology Project at Quesir, Egypt (CAPQ,henceforth). Without delving into the particulars just yet, the premise of the CAPQ is both intriguing on                                                            40 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002, 26741 Ibid., 28242 Moser et al. 2002, 220  23
  24. 24.  the project level and telling for discussing community archaeology in general, as the authors state that“[…] it is no longer acceptable for archaeologists to reap the benefits of another society’s heritagewithout that society being involved and able to benefit equally from the endeavour.”43 Moser et al.’sarticle is titled ‘Transforming archaeology through practice’, and that hits the proverbial nail right onthe head: community archaeology is, as Yvonne Marshall puts it at the end of her introductory article,“[…] a specific approach to all aspects of archaeological practice and, as such, looks to transform thenature of our discipline in fundamental ways.”44While community-based approaches have been mainly developed for pragmatic reasons, its embeddingin the fundamental aspects of research are made apparent in the article by Anne Clark, who tells apersonal tale of the approach she used in her solo study on Groote Eylandt (Australia). She shows that“[…] consultation and the negotiation of research access are only the first stages. The premise behind acommunity approach is that research is a negotiated process and that the boundaries and componentsof a project are open to reassessment and re-negotiation by any of the parties involved.”45Conversely, we have to consider the role of research in society at a whole, and remember that thisintegration does not diminish either. As Tully states, community archaeology is “[…] based on thepremise that better archaeology can be achieved when more diverse voices are involved in theinterpretation of the past. This does not mean compromising the scientific nature of archaeology, butrather simply realizing how research integrates with society.”46 When viewed on this higher level,community archaeology has a distinct goal I believe. Giving a voice to those that did not have onepreviously can be seen as an objective in itself, but there is a underlying notion: that of creatingand/or (re)discovering the (past) identity of the community involved. Greer, Harrison and McIntyre-Tamway summarize that community-based research “[...] is aimed at empowering communities bycontributing to the construction of local identity.”47 They conclude at the end of their article that “[…]communities value archaeological resources for more than just their technical (historical,archaeological or scientific) significance. Communities attribute a broad range of values to thematerial traces of the past, these values being drawn from a range of sources. The past is political, andtraces of the past are often used as lodestones for group memory and identity.”48                                                            43 Ibid., 22144 Marshall 2002, 21545 Clarke 2002, 25146 Tully 2007, 15847 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002, 26848 Ibid., 282  24
  25. 25.  The fact that heritage can be utilized in questions of identity is something that is very relevant in TheNetherlands as well, and I am of the strong opinion that a community-based approach in the Dutchsituation will (need to) be inextricably linked to matters of identity if it is to be successful andrelevant. Again, I champion the idea that community archaeology can be relevant for almost anycommunity imaginable, when realizing that archaeological discoveries undoubtedly have social andpolitical connotations and applications. As Tully remarks, community archaeology is “[…] also relevantto the general process of social cohesion, for example where the inhabitants of modern towns andvillages can be brought together through a sense of ownership of their local heritage. Thus, therealization is dawning that community archaeology is relevant not only to indigenous, postcolonial andminority groups but to all forms of community, including those in the first world and throughout theglobe.”491.5. RESEARCH OR MANAGEMENT?While Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand yielded a score of proposals highlighting their owntradition of community-based research, none of the articles in Volume 34 (2) of World Archaeologywere placed within a North American tradition of community archaeology. This is not to say that thistype of archaeology is not practiced there; on the contrary, the two incorporated articles from thatregion concern research in Arctic Canada50 and Texas51, and Marshall points out the long history andactual pioneering of community archaeology approaches in North America as a whole. However, shealso states that all this has not resulted in community archaeology becoming a distinct tradition inNorth America.52The above could very well be contributed to the fact that community archaeology there is oftenlocated within Cultural Resource Management (CRM), where ‘salvage’, ‘rescue’ or ‘contract’archaeology plays an important part in the approach to remains from the past. As is the case inAustralia, where as we have learned previously it is called Cultural Heritage Management (CHM),community archaeology is therefore not so much a research subfield as much as it is another way todeal with archaeological remains in a legislative framework for assessing the environmental impact ofdevelopment proposals.53 In the United States, CRM arose from environmental assessment andmitigation requirements where it concerned federal construction projects; projects on federal land, or                                                            49 Tully 2007, 15850 Friesen 200251 McDavid 200252 Marshall 2002, 21253 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002, 266  25
  26. 26.  on private land but with federal funding.54 Essentially, this legislatively prescribed way of dealing witharchaeological remains in spatial planning is a direct progenitor to the current Dutch archaeologicalmanagement system.Europe yielded not one article for inclusion in the final version of World Archaeology 34 (2). Marshallmentions Britain, wherein “[…] like North America, community archaeology is commonly located withinheritage management and outside the remit of serious academic research.”55 In other words; it is notthat community archaeology is not practiced in North America and Europe, but rather it is mostlysubsumed within distinct heritage management systems and therefore seemingly taken out of therealm of academic research, which leads to greatly lessened visibility of community archaeology inpeer-reviewed publications. There are exceptions however, such as Neil Faulkner’s SHARP (more onthis later).All this is a logical consequence of the division that exists between academic archaeology (research)and archaeological/heritage management in those countries that bolster CRM/CHM-style systems. It isperhaps self-evident that a community-based approach in a purely academic research setting would bequite different from such an approach in a setting of archaeological/heritage management. It becameclear from reviewing many case studies that community archaeology can be extremely time consuming,as Marshall also pointed out. Projects like this tend to need a serious warming-up time, in which thecommunity becomes involved and communication lines are established. They also stretch over severalcampaign seasons, in which fieldwork is carried out. In between those campaigns, aspects likedetermination of finds and interpretation are worked on. All this consumes time. A lot of it. It is not acoincidence that the CAPQ has run for more then ten years.Every community archaeology project in World Archaeology 34 (2) is positioned in a research setting,as is every other project I have read about so far. This cannot mean that community-based approachesare not carried out in a management setting, but that they are probably indeed – like Marshall alreadyspeculated in 2002 – subsumed within those systems and thus (almost) not visible in peer-reviewedpublications. I am convinced that my recent introduction to the subject is also at least partly cause forthis discrepancy. Still, even now it is obvious that there is an overrepresentation of the community-based approach in academic publications (regardless of whether community archaeology is consideredto have real academic merit, journals like World Archaeology and Public Archaeology are peer-reviewed collections of academic articles).                                                            54 Renfrew/Bahn 2000, 54755 Marshall 2002, 213-214  26
  27. 27.  Chirikure and Pwiti however show that the vaunted research setting comes with its own problems whencommunity archaeology is concerned: “[…] community archaeology requires a huge investment ofresources that are not always available to researchers who are under pressure to publish and produceacademic publications rather than items for popular consumption.”56 In South Africa, they remark,peer-reviewed publications benefit from subsidies, which obviously adds to the compulsion to publishat regular intervals. While there is something to say for such incentives, the downside might be formedby publications lacking quality and an established connection with society. It would thus be a fallacy toentertain the notion that (time) pressure only concerns those in development-driven contractarchaeology and heritage management, which Chirikure and Pwiti note might actually be the only placefor community archaeology in cases such as South Africa.Neil Faulkner, whose work will feature more prominently when discussing his own communityarchaeology project in Norfolk (UK) later on, elaborates on what he sees as the key difference in amatter of emphasis between management – or rescue, as is the better term perhaps for the practicalside of management – and research: the former is positivist-empiricist, the latter is dialectical. Withthis he means that rescue archaeology “[…] accumulates vast masses of data without knowing why(except that now is our only chance). Positivism is the theoretical, or, more correctly, ideologicaljustification for this: the idea that what is recovered in rescue are ‘the facts’ makes the process morecredible and endows its practitioners with a ‘professional’ status.”57 The apparent strive in the UK tostandardize research archaeology in line with rescue archaeology58, which Faulkner has fiercelyopposed for over a decade by advocating his ‘archaeology from below’, could actually indeed curtailthe freedom that is enjoyed – as Chirikure and demonstrated in the case of subsidized publications inSouth Africa – in research archaeology: imposing ‘quality standards’ and the like from commercial toresearch archaeology could stifle the creativity and adaptability (research) archaeology needs toinnovate and evolve, so as to keep pace with our changing world and retain its unique relevance.As has been said and will be expanded upon later, the division between research and management ispresent in The Netherlands as well. However, the line between the two here is blurred to a certainextent by the particulars of our archaeological management system, creating a duality of sorts andeven leading to a third ‘mode’ of society-applied archaeology. This further complicates the matter, butI also feel it presents distinct opportunities for the feasibility and desirability of community-basedapproaches in Dutch heritage management and research archaeology.                                                            56 Chirikure/Pwiti 2008, 47657 Faulkner 2000, 2858 Ibid., 24-25  27
  28. 28.  2. COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY: PRACTICEAs has been mentioned in the previous pages, World Archaeology 34 (2) has its various authors describeand discuss the theory behind community archaeology in different parts of the world, and tying it toseveral case studies that have all been carried out by the authors themselves. I will now discuss twocase studies (in Egypt and Texas) in more detail. These two projects have added much to mytheoretical understanding of community-based approaches in archaeology, and they are specificallygeared towards developing (general) methodologies. Where relevant, I have also added insights fromother case studies and follow-up articles from recent years.2.1. EXCURSION TO EGYPT: THE COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT IN QUSEIRThat colonial settler societies are not the only ones ‘demanding’ community-based approaches toarchaeology can be clearly seen in Egypt. While one could say that the land and resources of Egypthave been used by several other cultures in its millennia-long history, it is not a colonial settlersociety: the Egyptians are not and never were an indigenous minority population like the Aboriginalsand Maori, sharing a country with a dominant settler society. The country is post-colonial though: itwas ruled from overseas as a British protectorate in the early 20th century (and without official rule bythe same power in the late 19th century), lasting in that state until the declaration of independence in1922. Full independence however did not come until the revolution of 1952. Ironically, the fact that ithas only recently become independent and only then fell outside the daily purview of Western powershas set the country on a different trail when compared to other post-colonial societies like Australiaand New Zealand, and has caused the balance between ‘expert’ and ‘local’ knowledge to be addressedmuch later on. There is also the lack of communication between Western and Egyptian archaeologicalcommunities, which hampers mutual feedback.59What Egypt certainly is, however, is a country with a history and archaeology that has garnered world-wide attention from the very first moment that European collectors started to bring home its artefacts:for more then two centuries, Egypt’s heritage has been collected and studied by people andinstitutions from abroad, and both artefacts and architectural elements have found their way to allcorners of the earth. Many a museum in Europe is known for its Egyptian collection, such as theNational Museum in The Netherlands. While Egypt has used its heritage on a national level to attractand maintain tourism, this heritage industry has mainly catered to multinationals, archaeologists and                                                            59 Tully 2009, 69  28
  29. 29.  tourists. Egypt’s history of appropriation has had far-reaching consequences for local communities,which “[…] have been systematically excluded both from the process of discovering their past and inthe construction of knowledge concerning their heritage.”60 Indeed, the grand majority ofarchaeological research up until now has been conducted by scholars from abroad, with localcommunities mostly being used as labour.Egypt is at the forefront of countries trying to get some of their displaced heritage repatriated, likeGreece tries to do with the infamous matter of the Elgin Marbles, which reside in the British Museum inLondon. In Egypt it was the controversial Egyptologist Zahi Hawass, who was for a short period theMinister of State for Antiquities Affairs until the resignation of president Hosni Mubarak in 2011, thathas spearheaded an ongoing endeavour to have some of Egypt’s most prized artefacts returned. Amongthese was the Rosetta Stone, famed for its part in the deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphs. While themultilayered perspectives on the Rosetta Stone issue fall outside the scope of this thesis, it isinteresting to note how Hawass has pursued his point in international media. “If the British want to beremembered, if they want to restore their reputation, they should volunteer to return the RosettaStone because it is the icon of our Egyptian identity,” Hawass stated.61 While one could put questionmarks behind Hawass’ overall integrity, motivations and behaviour, the link between the RosettaStone, Egyptian identity and British colonial rule is surely there.With this background in mind, we turn back to community archaeology, specifically in Egypt. As relatedearlier, Moser et al. wrote the opening article for World Archaeology 34 (2), in which the authorsdescribe their approach to community archaeology in the Community Archaeology Project Quseir(CAPQ), carried out in the Egyptian city of Quseir. The ancient harbour of Quseir al-Quadim (‘OldQuseir’) lies here, known in Roman and Ptolemaic times as Myos Hormos. This site is of national andeven international importance, given its place in the maritime trade network of the later RomanEmpire and subsequent periods.62 The aim of the CAPQ is “[…] to involve the local community in allaspects of the archaeological enterprise, culminating in the creation of a heritage centre that presentsthe findings from the excavations to the people of Quseir and tourists visiting the area.”63 Moser et al.give two reasons why the local community of Quseir should be involved in the archaeological researchof their city, beside the general notion of finally being included in archaeological scholarshipconcerning their own history: the formation of a sense of community heritage and the foreseeableimpact on the future economic status of the city. Seeking to reconstruct itself as the historical centreof the Red Sea, Quseir has carved a niche for itself between maritime and heritage tourism. The                                                            60 Greer/Harrison/McIntyre-Tamway 2002, 22161 Edwardes/Milner 200362 Tully 2009, 6663 Moser et al. 2002, 221  29
  30. 30.  excavations that started under Glazier and Peacock all those years ago, to which later on Moser et al.’sCAPQ was added, engendered curiosity among the inhabitants of Quseir from the start; they were notaware that such a complex history lay beneath their feet, and it changed their perception of their cityfrom the get-go. This has caused interest by the local community in the local heritage and support forthe CAPQ to be maintained for more then ten years.64Through the CAPQ, Moser et al. have suggested seven components to form the basis of a methodologyfor community archaeology, though they stated beforehand that they are not intended to be a ‘recipe’.These seven components are: 1) communication and collaboration; 2) employment and training; 3)public presentation; 4) interviews and oral history; 5) educational resources; 6) a photographic andvideo archive and 7) community controlled merchandising.65 The later articles by Gemma Tully (2007,2009) would suggest that the opinion about these steps being a recipe of some sorts has changed in thefollowing years, which is probably the result of the realization that they could be employed moregenerally than anticipated. After all, in 2002 the CAPQ methodology was still very much ‘underconstruction’, and a detailed comparison with other projects would not be made until 2007 by Tully.Below, I will give Tully’s detailed breakdown of the seven components, to show how much thought hasgone into this particular methodology:66 1. Communication and collaboration between the archaeological team and local community representatives at all stages of research a. Continuous two-way flow of dialogue to facilitate full collaboration on interpretation and presentation; b. Partnerships with local organizations (councils and heritage organizations) to integrate results into local plans for the future management and presentation of the archaeological resource; c. Work updates and strategy documents. Regular reports for local organizations and other community groups informing them of developments, providing structure and an ‘official’ context for the project; d. Openness. Keeping no secrets, making sure everyone is informed on all aspects of the project – i.e. ‘open communication’; e. Authority and ownership. Putting local people in the role of facilitator, allowing for an active role in terms of presentation and display; f. Social interaction. Developing friendships to show long-term interest as opposed to pure ‘business’; g. Acknowledging difficulties. Realizing that problems and disputes are inevitable, making them easier to deal with when they occur. 2. Employment and training of local people in all areas of the project a. Helps to maintain the central role of the local community and develop their skills in the presentation of heritage; b. Provides a continuity of decision-making by maintaining the same team even when the project archaeologists are absent;                                                            64 Ibid.65 Moser et al. 2002, 22966 Tully 2007, 162-163  30
  31. 31.   c. Benefits employees in terms of future employment through the development of new skills; d. Employees can pass on ideas and knowledge to others; e. Full-time employment rather than part-time employment to maintain the momentum of the project; f. Training to pass on formal qualifications and informal skills. 3. Public presentation, a vital element in the passing on of information to the wider community a. Communicating the results of work undertaken to show its significance to the region; b. Finding appropriate forms and methods of presentation; c. Development of heritage facilities telling of the town’s recent history, not just focusing on the past; d. Front-end evaluation involving the community in the choice of themes and formats for presentation; e. Consideration of recent museological literature/approaches in working with different cultural groups; f. Preparing the site for public presentation; g. Exhibition strategies providing the community with regular reports and plans to encourage feedback and involvement; h. Construction of temporary exhibitions while the permanent space is being constructed to encourage feedback and provide information for local people; i. International connections exchanging knowledge and experience to benefit all parties. 4. Interview and oral history to see how the local people respond to the archaeology and how this links into traditional ideas of the past a. Providing more diverse cultural interpretations of the evidence and facilitating the construction of a total life history of the site; b. Discovery of the community aims for the project and the development of involvement; c. Interview questions. Investigation of significant, appropriate themes and interview techniques beforehand; d. Analysis to discover local thoughts on the project and their past while maintaining communication to ensure that the information is being used in the way that the community desires. 5. Educational resources to introduce younger people to the archaeological research results a. Organized system of site visits for school children to build upon knowledge of the local heritage; b. Children’s books to develop pride and imagination in terms of the past; c. Teaching materials for schools (e.g. illustrations, activities); d. Artefact database. The creation of a digital resource to allow wider community access to the archaeological discoveries and knowledge. 6. Photographic and video archive to create a record of the archaeological work and experiences of the project for the exhibition centre a. Photographic record. Documentation of collaboration with the local people to complement the scientific archaeological photographs; b. Video record to show the day-to-day activities of the excavation for display alongside video footage of community interviews. 7. Community controlled merchandising considering the tourist market and offering quality alternatives to the typical Pharaonic/other standard souvenirs on offer a. Local decision-making in design, production and sale of souvenirs with the possibility of enhancing the local economy and sustaining the heritage centre;  31
  32. 32.   b. Creation of a project logo and T-shirts in a collaborative effort to promote and establish an identity for the project.As can be gleaned from the breakdown, components 2 (employment/training) and 7 (communitycontrolled merchandising) are aimed specifically at enhancing the local economy and promoting (local)tourism. When first laying eyes on the methodology in Moser et al. 2002, I was specifically intrigued bycomponent 7. In my opinion, community controlled merchandising is something that works quitespecifically for Egypt, given the CAPQ’s aim to give local alternatives for ‘cliché’ national souvenirs likepharaoh statuettes. However, those clichés remain an integral and extensive part of Egypt’s uniqueheritage industry, and are as such somewhat difficult to analogue with other countries. However, thistype of commodification of the past is both temporally relevant and situationally applicable in othercountries as well, especially considering the ‘experience economy’ that has taken hold in the Westernworld.As for the CAPQ methodology in general, I am of the opinion that it presents a thought-out totalpackage. It is interesting to see in the breakdown some points which at first glance would perhapsqualify as ‘open doors’, such as social interaction, openness and acknowledging difficulties, but whichare in reality maybe the most essential binding aspects of such a project in the long run: they createand maintain social cohesion. At the end of this chapter I will give an example from Britain, whichmakes clear how important these binding aspects actually are and how inexorably a community-basedapproach can derail when they deteriorate or disappear altogether.To wrap up my analysis of the CAPQ methodology, I present below a word cloud: a visual made byfeeding the seven-component methodology of Moser et al. into the Wordle website67. This tool looks atthe frequency of a word in the source text and translates this into font size: the more often a wordappears, the more prominent it becomes in the word cloud. Apart from being fun, a word cloud servesas a strong visual reading of the source text, accentuating the most prevalent keywords. It is perhapsnot surprising that the words ‘community’, ‘local’, ‘archaeological’ and ‘project’ stand out as they do.Still, the visual impact of ‘local’ is significant. It highlights the geographically-bound nature of thecommunity around which the CAPQ revolves: this project is not about a more widespread group ofstakeholders, but focuses specifically on the residents of the city. Do also note the size of‘presentation’: by sharing and disclosing the results beyond the project’s limits, the CAPQ asserts itsrelevance outside Quseir as well.                                                            67 http://www.wordle.net/  32
  33. 33.  Gemma Tully, who has worked on the CAPQ for several years, has pushed the methodology as devisedfor the CAPQ further in her own follow-up research. I will paraphrase part of her publication in PublicArchaeology 6 (3), which in my opinion speaks volumes on the importance of a consistent methodologyfor community-based approaches: Tully argues that many of the methodological components promotedin the CAPQ already underlie much of the pre-existing community-based research – like that by CarolMcDavid done in Brazoria, Texas, which Tully has used along five other cases in comparison to theCAPQ in order to make more meaningful statements about a general methodology. However, theseunderlying components have not been clearly articulated in the associated publications. Bydemonstrating the fact that a shared methodology exists, Tully hoped to show that communityarchaeology has a sound methodological basis and should be more widely accepted as a research areawithin the discipline. While it is not necessarily the case that community archaeology needs to justifyits methodology in order to gain mainstream respect, according to Tully it nevertheless mustdemonstrate consistency. A community archaeology methodology is therefore necessary, as only whencommunity practice begins to work within the established scientific framework of archaeology andanthropology will it become recognized as valid and will it be respected academically. Only then cancommunity archaeology truly begin to benefit the cultures and knowledge systems it represents.68In other words, validation of community archaeology as a sub-discipline or paradigm of its own withinacademic archaeology has been quite an issue in years past. It is telling that as short a time span asfive years ago the community-based approach in fact had to struggle to be accepted generally, eventhough it was in essence recognized as a research topic in its own right when the British Academybestowed a grant on the CAPQ in the early days: it became the first community archaeology project toachieve such funded status, and with the express aim to develop a methodology for a community-based                                                            68 Tully 2007, 157  33
  34. 34.  approach.69 What we should not overlook however, is the underlying notion Tully describes: we need aconsistent methodology for the academic validation, but we need the academic validation to ensurethat the approach itself can do what it is supposed to do. This is not a matter of community-basedapproaches gaining recognition in a mere bid for acceptance in the halls of power, but to give them thebacking of academic creativity and a place in established systems to make sure community archaeologycan thrive as a subfield in the discipline in order to reach its intended goals. I could not agree morewith this observation.2.2. THE LEVI JORDAN PLANTATION WEB SITE PROJECT IN BRAZORIA, TEXAS (US)An altogether different and oft cited example of a community archaeology project is that carried outby the American anthropologist Carol McDavid, on an 18th-century sugar plantation in the United States.At the Levi Jordan plantation in the rural community of Brazoria, Texas, excavations have been carriedout since 1984 by Kenneth Brown from the university of Houston. It was not until a later stadium thatBrown asked McDavid to start a public interpretative project, which took on the form of a websitefeaturing both consultable data (archaeological, historical and anthropological) and online interactiveelements (discussion forum, feedback forms, questionnaire).70 Brown himself, students, plantationcommunity descendants (both African-American and European-American) and other communities allcontributed content to the site. This project differs from many others in that it does not concerncommunity collaboration in the excavation itself, but in the outreach of the results and the input forthe research. Thus it can still be called a community-based approach, as far as I am concerned.The Levi Jordan website is primarily meant to give the various communities linked to the plantation away to interact openly with its sometimes uncomfortable history. For this, McDavid first researched thefeasibility of locating public interpretations of the archaeology involved, to see which interests andconflicts had led to the socio-political landscape that is contemporary Brazoria. McDavid aimed thewebsite to be an ongoing conversation, instead of a presentation or educational tool. The website was“[…] designed with the specific intent of decentring the archaeologist as the expert about the multiplepasts of one community – archaeology was seen as one important voice, but one of many.”71MacDavid’s work and attitude has had several direct effects on the excavations by Brown and theBrazorian community itself. She states that her credibility in the community increased due to herpresenting herself as “[…] only one actor in a conversation which allowed place for alternative truth                                                            69 Ibid.; Tully 2009, 6970 Levi Jordan Project 2012; McDavid 2002, 30671 Ibid.  34
  35. 35.  claims, not as someone with a privileged, exclusive way of understanding the past […].” By reassuringthe community that she as an archaeologist looked upon their perspectives on the past as no less validthen hers, people began to trust her with ever more ego-documents and other useable material. Thisnot only improved the content on the website, but it also led Brown to incorporate these localunderstandings in his research questions, as well as his interpretations of the archaeological andhistorical data.72The most interesting part of McDavid’s article in World Archaeology 34 (2) to me, as can be deducedfrom my own theoretical framework in chapter one, is her description of the philosophical approach toher project: (American) pragmatism. Inspired by, among others, the philosopher Richard Rorty,pragmatism proposes the idea “ […] that all human interaction can be conceived of as historicallysituated, contingent, pluralistic conversation.”73 The way we deal and have dealt with each other ashuman beings is therefore shaped by a variety of factors, all of which can be connected and shared in ametaphorical conversation – such as the Levi Jordan website. Pragmatism has often be confused(sometimes on purpose) with relativism, but this has to be nuanced. “While pragmatists do not believethat one truth is as good as another, they do believe that humans can and will be able to discover, overtime, which truths are more meaningful and useful. […] It is a very optimistic approach, though not anihilistically relativistic one: pragmatists may have a profound belief in the capacities of humans todetermine their own fates - to figure it out - but they also demand that each human speak up, loudly,to express his or her own voice in social, cultural and political life.”74As stated in the previous chapter, I can quite relate to this pragmatic mode of thought, and I think thata lot of community archaeologists consciously or subconsciously can as well. The very aspect ofmultivocality, which, as we will see, plays an integral part not only in McDavid’s methodology but incommunity archaeology in general (e.g. Neil Faulkner’s thoughts on archaeology), hinges on theconcept of ‘truth-as-created’ instead of ‘truth-as-discovered’75: this is essentially constructivism (weassign meaning to the world) versus positivism and essentialism (the world already has meaning, whichwe have to discover and can verify), and pragmatism is a close ally of constructivism. I feel I have onlybegun exploring the philosophical depths that can be reached when disseminating communityarchaeology, and as it would be beyond the scope of this thesis to dive much further, I will leave it atthis point for now.                                                            72 Ibid.73 Ibid., 30574 Ibid.75 Ibid., 303  35

×