News

UPDATE: This post by Charlie Ewen has received a great deal of response, both here on the blog and in backchannels. Because the SHA Blog is a space for dialogue and discussion, we have modified this posting to include a dissenting opinion from Archaeologist Dan Sivilich, as well as a commentary by SHA President Paul Mullins summarizing and contextualizing the debate. There contributions can be found after the initial post. Please continue the discussion in the comments!

Is it Better?

Charlie Ewen
SHA President-Elect

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, nearly a million viewers tuned into National Geographic’s reality show, Diggers.  I figure in that half hour, more people were exposed to that archaeological message than everyone who has ever read everything that I have, or will, ever write.  Granted, I don’t crank out many bestsellers, but I have managed to publish enough not to perish.  The point I am making is that, even on a second tier cable network, you can reach a lot people.

As I have mentioned in previous blogs, there is a price to be paid when reaching out to the masses. Moving into the realm of the media, especially network or cable television comes with an entertainment price tag. Here, the real question is, how willing are archaeologists to work (read: compromise) with the entertainment industry?  Do we take the high road and lose relevance with most of the public or do we sell out and lose our professional souls?  Is there a middle ground?

Meeting with the Nat Geo

In a previous blog I discussed meeting with the National Geographic Channel to discuss how they could make their show more acceptable to archaeologists. The producers discussed the challenges National Geographic Society (NGS) faces in the highly competitive world of commercial television. They reminded the archaeologists present of the on-going role of NGS as an enabler of world-class research and a source of great story telling, highlighting the challenge NGS now faces in its effort at becoming more expansive in communication without losing sight of core mission and ethical principles that have always guided the Society. In this context, the producer outlined the Channel’s interest in seeking advice from the archaeological community about the ethical guidelines that any future programming could both operate within and promote, while advancing the goal of reaching broad audiences using contemporary television storytelling.

So, how do you make a show that is both popular AND ethical?

Archaeologists’ concerns

I think it appropriate here to make explicit our archaeological ethics.  The SHA has a codified seven ethical principals (a synopsis is presented below):

1. Adhere to professional standards of ethics and practices
2. Support the preservation of archaeological sites and collections
3. Disseminate research results in an accessible, honest and timely manner.
4. Collect data accurately and appropriately curated for future generations.
5. Respect the dignity and human rights of others.
6. Items from archaeological contexts shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods, and it is unethical to take actions for the purpose of establishing the commercial value of objects from archaeological sites or property that may lead to their destruction, dispersal, or exploitation.
7. Encourage education about archaeology, strive to engage citizens in the research process and publicly disseminate the major findings of their research.

Guided by these ethics, many suggestions were made to make the show more palatable to the archaeologists.  To me, the main points were that a concern be shown for location and context (principle 1 & 4), and that the artifacts not be monetarily valued or sold (principle 6).  It was suggested that the show’s hosts work with professional archaeologists, helping them out while abiding by their rules.

The compromise

The National Geographic Channel has actually re-imagined their show to address our main concerns.  They partnered with some ongoing digs and had their hosts, “KG and Ringy”, assist in the recovery of artifacts.  I have seen a couple of the new shows in the National Geographic series and they ARE better.  Yes, the boys are still over the top in their enthusiasm to find “nectar”.  But they are actually under the direction of qualified archaeologists who point them in the right direction.  And, yes, NGC did hire a staff archaeologist, Kate Culpepper, who follows after the boys and records what they found and, more importantly, where it was found (a process that led to the very recent discovery relating to the Hatfields and McCoys).  I also saw no mention that the artifacts were to be sold. (Actually, I was told that the Diggers had never sold any artifacts.  They simply had them appraised on camera because people always want to see what their finds are worth).  So, that addressed my major concerns: research design, context and no trafficking in artifacts.

That being said, there is plenty to quibble about.  The boys are still annoyingly silly.  You’d think if they’ve been doing this for as long as they claim they wouldn’t fall into a grande mal seizure every time they found a colonial-era button.  And, according to some of the archaeologists whose sites were used, the shows ARE somewhat scripted (not to the extent of their rival, Spike’s American Diggers – but that’s more pro wrestling than pro archaeology).  However, I am encouraged that the producers are making a good faith effort to improve the show.

I would also add that the shows are genuinely more entertaining.  The professional archaeologists seem to work well with metal detectors and the boys seemed to be even more enthused (if that is possible) about making contributions to our knowledge of the past.  There is an accompanying website for the show which I found to be informative and entertaining.  The bits about responsible metal detecting and doing archaeology are educational without being preachy.

But not everyone is as happy with the new shows.  I have heard from several archaeologists who are unhappy with the fact that the artifacts are still given a monetary value at the end of each show.  They also decry the absence of a visible archaeologist in the shows.  You actually have to visit the show’s website to see the extent to which National Geographic has tried to comply with archaeological ethics.  These are valid points.  Assigning a value to an artifact does increase it marketability.  However, virtually every reality show of this type (e.g. Pawn Stars, American Pickers, Storage Wars, etc.) ends with a valuation of the items collected.  What I do like about the valuation of the artifacts on Diggers is that it serves as a realistic counterpoint to the wildly inflated values assigned to artifacts by Ric Savage on American Diggers.  Getting $10 for a Civil War Minnie ball is a poor justification to invest in a $600 metal detector.  And to be clear, these artifacts are NOT being sold.  And the archaeologists HAVE been peripheral characters on the show (though not on the actual projects).  Still, it is the perception that needs to be dealt with here.

Conclusion

Our job is to explain to the general public (because we can’t do it alone) why our ethical positions are important.  Archaeology is more than just finding stuff.  It’s determining the story the stuff has to tell.  The daring search for treasure is a compelling hook we can use to engage the public, but it is just the beginning of our work.  Now I think archaeology is entertaining all by itself, but even I must admit that some days it is like watching paint dry.   Obsessing with a tape measure and a Munsell book may be good archaeology, but it is poor television.  So, do we put up with a bit of slapstick before the real archaeologists deliver the educational punchline at the end of each show?  Or do we write off a large chunk of the population as beneath our intellectual reach?   It depends upon whom you want to reach.

Nobody learns if they aren’t listening, but how low must we go to reach the average television viewer? Was the History Channel’s Digging for the Truth breaking new ground or making it up? Even the archaeologically thoughtful Time Team out of Great Britain makes American archaeologists cringe when their stalwart crew arrives at an archaeologist’s site to solve all their vexing problems in three days’ time.  The American version has had trouble securing an audience – even on Public Television!

Surely there is some middle ground that gets our point across without boring the public to tears?  We will see if Diggers can strike that balance.  It has become apparent that these ‘reality’ shows are not going away.  They are cheap to make and audiences like them.   And whereas almost a million viewers watched the last episode of Diggers, more than a million watched the last episode of Spike’s travesty, American Diggers. Boom baby, indeed!

A Response

Dan Sivilich
President
Battlefield Restoration and Archaeological Volunteer Organization

I read the SHA blog about the NatGeo TV “Diggers” show and I could not disagree more with the idea that the show has improved.  I was one of the 14 people that were invited to National Geographic TV for our input on how to clean up the show. It was carefully orchestrated by a professional moderator. I tried to bring up my concerns about the cast but, my questions were directed away.  Yes, they did hire an archaeologist, who is never seen or mentioned on the show. She works in the background. The viewing audience has no clue about serious archaeology. They simply get the message: dig holes and remove objects. The show still puts a monetary value on the objects. So what has been improved?

“Diggers” recently did a show in NJ at a Revolutionary War historic site and dug musket balls.  There was no mention of archaeology, mapping, artifact context, spatial relationships or a site report.  I must have missed seeing a GIS map of the site? I found out that the archaeologist mapped the finds using a handheld GPS. The area where artifacts were found appeared to be primarily wooded. In 2006 I published a paper on how inaccurate handheld GPS units are under the best conditions. Here are a few of the repercussions of their NJ show:

1. The NJ State Park Police had to be put on alert at Monmouth and Princeton Battlefields, for the novices who got a shiny new detector and saw that digging musket balls is fun and OK to do.  Where to go – a battlefield!  In the past, there have been a number of uneducated first-timers at both parks that had to be educated by the Park Police of the potential consequences of metal detecting on a protected historic site.
2. Contrary to what we were led to believe by NatGeo, they valued Rev War musket balls at $10.  Now the hardcore looters will turn to Monmouth and Princeton.  A few years ago 3 were arrested on Christmas day thinking the Park was not patrolled on a holiday! They were wrong.
3. We who metal detect take great offense at what they are doing to our public image.  We have been working very hard to improve our public image and this show makes a mockery of it.
4. What would Sir Edmund Hillary say about the character of National Geographic?

We should not condone the actions of “Diggers” simply because a few people think it is entertaining. It is an embarrassment to anyone who seriously wields a metal detector: archaeologist or hobbyist alike. I have yet to find one person who uses a metal detector that actually likes the show or has a different opinion. I have spoken with several metal detector manufacturers and even they will not support this show in its current format.

Archaeology and the Media

Paul Mullins
SHA President

For many archaeologists, television portrayals of archaeology are inevitably shallow, focused on inconsequential details, or verging on unethical practice. From National Geographic’s “Diggers” to the press conference discussing the University of Leicester Archaeological Services’ excavation of Richard III, many of our colleagues have apprehensively monitored how the discipline is being represented, and many scholars are not especially pleased with archaeology’s popular cultural and mass media presence.

This week no archaeological story has received more press than the confirmation that a skeleton excavated in Leicester in September 2012 is almost certainly the mortal remains of Richard III, the last Plantangenet King of England. The presentation of that data on February 4^th and the revamped “Diggers” force us to think about how such scholarship shapes the public perception of archaeology and if the media presentations of archaeology risk becoming the tail that wags the dog. Can we capture the complicated methodological practice of archaeology in a television show? Can the complex details of nearly any archaeological study be distilled into a palatable, entertaining, and intellectually rigorous popular representation?

The Richard III project has been told in thoughtful detail by a University of Leicester page detailing the excavations, and in many ways it is unfair to use this particular project as an example of how archaeology is presented in the media. The Leicester project was faced with distinctive if not utterly unique challenges: since they potentially held the bones of a British monarch, there was exceptionally intense interest in the results of their analysis, and it had little to do with the analysis of the medieval friary where Richard apparently rested for half a millennium. The Leicester team in many ways controlled the public representation of their scholarship by holding a press conference, and while the astounding global press must be well-received in the halls of University of Leicester administration, good scholars presented the evidence in a preliminary form and did their best to manage the way their work is represented. Yet in the end much of the press will fixate on the bones of a monarch and likely miss the many thoughtful details the ULAS scholars have outlined.

Since SHA representatives met with the National Geographic Society in May to register our complaints over the research ethics of their metal detecting show “Diggers,” the show has revamped its presentation of the two avocational detectorists out digging historic artifacts. The most critical change perhaps was the addition of a staff archaeologist to monitor that all excavation was conducted with the parameters of ethical and legal practice, and she catalogs all the artifacts the two detectorists locate. The show continues to display the estimated value of artifacts at the end of each program, though they do not actually sell any artifacts. SHA President-Elect Charlie Ewen’s assessment of the show this season is that it has improved in many ways as archaeology, even if we may individually not find the show itself especially compelling.

Dan Sivilich is among the SHA members who remains disappointed with “Diggers’” representation of historical archaeology in general and avocational metal detecting in particular. In his blog posting here, Sivilich (who attended the National Geographic meeting in May as an SHA representative) concedes that the show may have employed an archaeologist to supervise the two detectorists, but she has almost no screen presence and the show does not make any significant effort to represent archaeological research methods or insights. He remains firmly opposed to any valuations of artifacts at all, a move that he argues encourages looting. While the show may technically be in keeping with SHA Ethics that do not accept the commercial exploitation of artifacts, his argument is that simply conceding exchange value risks encouraging people to simply see artifacts as commodities.

But perhaps his most strongly held sentiments revolve around how the show represents metal detectorists. The stars of the show–“King George” Wyant and Tim “The Ringmaster” Saylor—are, in Charlie Ewen’s charitable words, “annoyingly silly.” Dan is less charitable, fueled certainly by his own long-term work with a vast range of avocational metal detectorists who have partnered with archaeologists. For some of our members metal detecting has long been caricatured in popular media and by professional archaeologists, and detectorists want to stress their professional practices in keeping with archaeological research ethics. But these two guys prone to bizarre phrases of excitement risk undoing much of the professionalism honed by avocational detectorists.

Regardless of how we each feel individually about “Diggers,” it presents some ethical complications as we present complicated science and interpretive narratives in the inevitably reductionist sound-bite medium of the media. This was what chagrined many observers of the Richard III media coverage, with Mary Beard complaining in The Times Literary Supplement that “What put me off was a nexus of things to do with funding, university PR, the priority of the media over peer review, and hype … plus the sense that–intriguing as this was, a nice face to face moment with a dead king–there wasn’t all that much history there, in the sense that I understand it.”

Beard wondered over “the question of whether media interest starts to set research agendas. This runs through many areas, but especially archaeology. … I’m quite prepared to believe that this skeleton is Richard III (he’s where we would have expected him after all) — but he is part of a climate which pushes people to celebrity history and archaeology, and may even detract from more important work that doesn’t have that glitz.” Indeed, we may find that much of what archaeology does simply is not readily adaptable to mass media discourse. Yet in a moment that archaeology is under fire we may feel compelled to use the media to keep us on the radar of the state and our University administrators, even if we are apprehensive of how our work will be represented in the hands of journalists without any significant archaeological background. Is any press—even if it is simplistic or stereotypical–good press?

I am disinclined to simply walk away from the media and popular culture because it is not really an option: what we do is simply too visible and holds significant interest to quite a few people. But we need to be firm and fair partners when we choose to work with the media, and we need to register our complaints when we think our work is not being represented fairly. So let us know what you think of “Diggers,” Richard III, and your own experiences with the popular representation of archaeological research, and lets work toward asking what works well and how more of us can borrow from those success stories.

What are your thoughts? Please continue the discussion and debate in the comments below!

In 2012 the SHA has been active on a number of fronts, and this month I want to examine two of those that I think are exceptionally important to the SHA in the coming years: one revolves around the diversity of the discipline in general and SHA in particular, and the other is the representation of archaeology in popular media.  Both are sufficiently complicated to deserve a posting of their own, so this week I take on the former and I will discuss the latter in my next post.

The Questions in “Diversity”

This year I have reported several times on the SHA’s effort to make diversity an increasingly articulate part of the SHA mission and our collective scholarly practice (compare columns on Global Historical Archaeology, Historical Archaeology in Central Europe, and Diversity and Anti-Racism in SHA).  There are a cluster of practical questions raised by “diversity”:

• – What does it even mean to be “diverse”?  Many of us have become somewhat wary of the term “diversity,” so this demands some concrete definition;
• – Why might we or any other discipline or professional society desire diversity?;
• – What access barriers face various archaeologists and SHA members across lines of difference?;
• – What are the international implications of diversity when we step outside the familiar lines of difference in America?

Many of these questions are to some extent rhetorical in the sense that they have no satisfying answer with utter resolution, but the honest, reflective, and ongoing discussion of all of them is critical.  The most recent discussion on these issues came in a Gender and Minority Affairs Committee Panel at the 2013 conference in a session that included Carol McDavid (Community Archaeology Research Institute) and Maria Franklin (Texas) as Chairs, with panelists Whitney Battle-Baptiste (UMass), Chris Fennell (Illinois), Lewis Jones (Indiana), and Michael Nassaney (Western Michigan).  They were joined by Richard Benjamin (International Slavery Museum, Liverpool) and Bob Paynter (UMass).  Some of the issues are familiar to long-term members, but Board of Directors’ goal is to produce increasing clarity and concrete action.  These thoughts are simply my own as an audience member in the session and a Board Member who is committed to an inclusive SHA.

Welcoming Diversity in SHA

The GMAC session revolved around, to paraphrase GMAC Liaison Carol McDavid, making SHA a welcoming environment to a variety of voices.  This is perhaps a more difficult thing to measure than mere demography of the membership, because it fundamentally defines diversity as a shared social and emotional sentiment.  Nevertheless, it is an absolutely worthy goal that consciously embraces curiosity about and acceptance of people unlike ourselves across time, space, and every conceivable line of difference.

A “welcoming” professional home ensures that colleagues with distinctive experiences and scholarly voices can have significant impact beyond little circles of specialists.  We should not underestimate the influence of even a single thoughtful voice, and SHA should be absolutely certain that such a voice feels welcome and supported and can secure a firm and fair foothold in our midst even if we disagree with their scholarly conclusions.  I very strongly believe that since the moment a group of 112 people gathered in Dallas in 1967, the SHA has been fundamentally committed to casting itself as a democratic, international scholarly organization, and we have long taken pride in archaeology’s capacity to “give voice” to historical agents who have been overlooked by other scholars.  I do not believe that this means SHA is not a “welcoming” professional environment, but some of our members are reluctant to become part of some scholarly discourses or SHA governance, so we need to systematically ask how we can create comfortable places and roles for all our members.  Many of the measures to fashion such an environment are apparently modest mechanisms that we can do now, and I have three general thoughts that came out of the GMAC session and broader discussions in Leicester and over the previous year.

Feeling and Being Diverse in SHA

First, I fundamentally agree that in North American historical archaeology in particular the absence of people of color inevitably risks compromising our scholarship.  Many of us self-consciously sound the mantra that the meeting seems aesthetically homogenous, which is an inelegant way of saying we are overwhelmingly White and do not appear to reflect society.  I am not in disagreement with this observation as much as I hope we can push it to some substantive action.  I do not personally think that any scholarly discipline actually “reflects” society in an especially substantive way:  that is, scholars gravitate toward the academy, academic production, and particular disciplines because we have specific sorts of creativity, experiences, and personalities.  Nevertheless, even within that aesthetic of homogeneity there are a breadth of class, ethnic, international, or queered voices who come to SHA through a rich range of paths, and a vast range of us partner with community constituencies.  During the GMAC session Tim Scarlett suggested that it may well be that one thing we need to do is more assertively tell our unacknowledged stories of difference to encourage others that their voices matter in scholarship and SHA governance: that is, being an SHA member is a mechanical act of paying dues, but feeling that we are each an important part of the SHA discussion may be different for our colleagues who feel most marginalized because of race, class, sexuality, age, disabilities, or myriad other factors.

International Diversity

Second, a question sounded in Leicester was what constitutes diversity as we move beyond the confines of North America?  As we grow and become a truly international, wired organization connected across increasingly complicated lines of space and difference, SHA needs to assertively work to advocate for all our members and the diverse worlds in which we all live.  Our international membership provides a rich way to confront Americans’ distinctive experiences of lines of difference, so I hope we will cast diversity in the most complex social, historical, and international terms that are compelling to all our members and make all of us feel welcome in SHA.  We are an international organization in a transnational moment in which many of us are increasingly threatened by the decline of jobs in the private sector, agencies, and the academy alike, and for many of us SHA provides a refuge and a voice for our collective scholarship.  We must always assertively and self-critically assess shifting lines of difference, so I do not believe what we call diversity will ever settle into a few neat categories.

Diversity as Good Scholarship

Third, like all scholars, we will continue to have standards of scholarly rigor we are all held to regardless of our demography or identity.  Some of our work will always be somewhat particularistic and descriptive, and not every project or research context needs to be focused on inequality or public engagement: lots of us need to do the fine-grained artifact and documentary research that makes historical archaeology so compelling in the first place.  Respect for scholarly rigor and difference alike breeds civility and personal humility that encourages talent and makes for good scholarship: multiple and often-dissentious voices constantly destabilize normative methods and narratives, while homogeneity simply reproduces itself and is at best boring scholarship and at worst socially reactionary.  It is absolutely true that we are all part of employment and educational contexts that have a variety of structural inequalities that risk yielding social and intellectual homogeneity.  We should be prepared to acknowledge when some standards hinder our colleagues, and in SHA I think this means always pressing to be transparent, respectful, encouraging, and clear about the scholarship, service, and communication done in our collective name.  We remain committed to diversity simply because a welcoming and creative intellectual environment produces the best scholarship.

Diversity as an SHA Value

Will SHA resolve all those questions I posed at the outset of this blog?  Of course we cannot resolve structural inequalities that took a half-millennium to develop and now have a rich range of international faces.  SHA is one professional organization, and while we advocate for a rich range of scholars and our members touch the lives of countless people beyond our membership, our mission remains focused on encouraging the scholarly study of the last half-millennium.  Nevertheless, in recent years the Board of Directors has undergone diversity training, a Gender and Minority Affairs Travel Scholarship has been created, and we have begun to examine the concrete ways we can invest the organization from top to bottom with an embrace of difference.  Now we need every SHA Committee to ask itself what its stake is in this discussion on diversity: If these moves are going to create genuine change in SHA, then diversity needs to be on the agenda for all committees and not simply the GMAC.

At the 1968 SHA meeting in Williamsburg, Kathleen Gilmore, Dessamae Lorrain, and Judy Jelks were among a very small number of women at the conference, which apparently included no people of color at all.  Today our membership is nearly evenly split between men and women and our Presidents have included 12 women, including 11 of the last 24 Presidents.  We continue to work to ensure that we are the best possible advocates for all our members because we carry an important role, and we should never underestimate the many lives each of us profoundly touch, sometimes without even knowing it.  While we will not resolve the inequalities that hinder access to the academy or scholarship, we can place these issues in discussion, embrace them as our core values, and persistently press to be a good example of inclusion, respect, and acceptance.  I truly believe SHA members have always been committed to a truly democratic scholarship, and I think in many ways we are simply continuing to articulate the values of many scholars before us.  It is important to keep articulating those values and doing all we can to move this discussion to the heart of SHA’s culture.

Under the collaborative umbrella of the Archaeology Education Clearinghouse (AEC), representatives from the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA), Society for American Archaeology (SAA), and Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), came together at the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) conference to share archaeology education resources with social studies educators from around the nation. NCSS is a national organization for all sorts of educators concerned with social studies, including classroom teachers, administrators, college and university educators, and those who specialize in curriculum and policy.

Over the course of two November days in Seattle, over 300 people stopped by the AEC vendor booth. Over half of the folks who stopped by the AEC booth engaged in conversations with Meredith Langlitz, Christy Pritchard, or Mary Petrich-Guy. These archaeologists spoke with educators, shared information, and, demonstrated the engaging utility of archaeology as a tool for meeting curriculum requirements. In addition to the vendor booth, Pritchard, assisted by Langlitz, led a session for 35 classroom teachers, “Archaeology and Social Studies: Making the past come alive in your classroom!”

The range of archaeology lesson plans available through AEC impressed conference attendees. Many Washington teachers were familiar with the state organizations listed on a state resource flyer, such as the Burke Museum, but were unacquainted with the abundance of teaching resources accessible through the AEC. Even educators weighed down by the barrage of promotional materials enthusiastically picked up the “ultralight” AEC flyer to take home and access the web of archaeology teaching materials.

Educators can then use the materials from the SHA, SAA, and AIA in classrooms and interpretive settings to meet national and state curriculum standards. In its fifth year, the AEC provides a point of access to all three organizations’ K-12 education materials ranging in focus from what is archaeology, prehistoric, historic, and classical archaeology, to careers in archaeology. A range of lesson plans compiled by the three organizations cover the ten themes of social studies in national curriculum:

1. Culture
2. Time, continuity, and change
3. People, places, and environments
4. Individual development and identity
5. Individuals, groups, and institutions
6. Power, authority, and governance
7. Production, distribution, and consumption
8. Science, technology, and society
9. Global Connections
10. Civic ideals and practices

Though the utility of archaeology as a social studies teaching tool may be clear to archaeologists, and some teachers are big fans, many conference attendees asked questions like, “I teach U.S. History, how does that relate to archaeology?” Luckily, representatives from each society were able to connect with teachers across the broad spectrum of social studies topics and had example lesson plans on hand. To reinforce the idea that social studies teachers already use archaeological information in the classroom, AEC representatives passed out “I Teach Archaeology” stickers. Designed for conference nametags, these handy visuals are also potential conversation-starters beyond the vendor’s booth.

Overall, the attendance of the AEC at the NCSS conference was a success. Archaeologists engaged in hundreds of conversations with educators and armed them with great a great point of contact to access hundreds of educational resources. It was a pleasure to connect with so many fabulous educators. Next year’s NCSS conference is in St. Louis and attendance is expected to be even greater!

References

National Council for Social Studies
2012     National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: Chapter 2 – The Themes of Social Studies. National Council for Social Studies, Silver Spring, MD. <http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/strands> Accessed 10 December.

Every SHA annual conference has programming of interest to and specifically geared towards students. Leicester will be no different. Here are some of the coming conference offerings students might want to highlight.

Globalisation, Immigration, Transformation: the 2013 Plenary Session
(Wednesday January 9^th 6-8pm)

Students arriving in Leicester for the opening day of the conference will find the Plenary Session a place where SHA membership comes together across research interests and affiliations. The session panel will focus on case studies and moderators will facilitate a broad exploration of the conference themes.

Navigating the Field: Education and Employment in a Changing Job Market
(Thursday January 10^th 8:30-10:30)

Cosponsored by the APTC Student Subcommittee and ACUA, this session is Part I of II and will focus specifically on student concerns. Panelists from both underwater and terrestrial backgrounds will address what is arguably the most pressing issue on many students’ minds—jobs.  Whether you seek a job in the United States, Europe or elsewhere, panelists will offer their perspective on how education matches up with the changing job market.

Past Presidents’ Student Reception
(Thursday, January 10^th, 4:30pm- 6:00pm)

Students are invited to join SHA past presidents for an informal reception. This is a great opportunity to connect with leaders in the organization. A free drink and snacks will be provided.

Equity (Issues) for All, Historical Archaeology as a Profession in the 21st Century
(Friday January 11^th 9-12:30)

Part II of these sessions on professional issues, this symposium will address concerns of gumptious academic and cultural resource management archaeologists. Senior managers and tenured professors from across the US and UK comprise the panel.  This will be an opportunity to engage upper management and tenured faculty in discussions of how to address current equity issues in the workplace, the barriers they faced rising in the ranks, and how they got to where they are today.

SHA Business Meeting
(Friday January 11th 5-6pm)

The SHA Business Meeting will be open to all members, students included. The organization welcomes and encourages student participation.

Academic and Professional Training Committee (APTC) Student Subcommittee (SSC) Meeting
(Saturday January 12^th 12:30-1:30)

The Academic and Professional Training Committee’s Student Subcommittee is run by and focused on SHA student members. As a formal platform for the interests and voices of students, it is a great way for them to contribute, develop professional skills and increase visibility. The SSC provides opportunities for students to participate in the organization at a variety of commitment levels.  Committee members organize sessions, are student liaisons to other committees, and contribute to the blog and newsletter. During the meeting, students will learn about ongoing  activities and have the chance to get involved.  Students participating in the SSC drive activities for the upcoming year and develop new projects. (Please note the midday time slot.)

Rap Session for Student Members
(Saturday January 12 1:30-5pm)

Sponsored by the Student Subcommittee, the informal format of the RAP session will allow students to hang out and discuss issues of import to them. Panelists are archaeologists at all stages in their career, both underwater and terrestrial. The popularity of this session grows each year and will be a great way to sum up any conference experience.

If you are a student attending the annual meeting in Leicester, please email the SSC chair, Jenna Coplin. If you cannot attend the committee meeting, but are interested in learning more about the SSC or keeping up with SSC goings-on throughout the year, email Jenna to be added to the student list serv. Also, be sure to follow the hashtag #SSC on Twitter throughout the conference (along with the #SHA2013 tag!) for student-specific tweets and messages!

In addition to these sessions, check out Emma Dwyer’s blog post about trips and tours of Leicester offered through the SHA.

With just over two weeks to go, the team in Leicester is busy putting the finishing touches to the conference (with perhaps a short break to consume Christmas pudding, and sit down for the Downton Abbey Christmas Special).

You can find all the information you need to complete last-minute travel and accommodation arrangements on the conference website, where Local Arrangements Chair Ruth Young has compiled a list of easy trips you can make from Leicester, if you fancy a day out.

Pre-registration for the conference has now closed, but you can still register on the day, by coming along to the Percy Gee building at the University of Leicester campus, where all delegates should also collect their conference packs and name badges.

If you do have any questions or problems, please send us an email at sha2013leicester@gmail.com

The Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA), with the assistance of Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC (CHP), is leading the charge for legislation to protect the Titanic wreck to become law, and we hope it will be passed during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress.

In March 2012, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) known as S.2279, the “R.M.S. Titanic Maritime Memorial Preservation Act of 2012” (the Act). The Act is intended amend a 1986 law to provide additional protection for the Titanic and its wreck site, and the Act’s passage will help minimize harm from activities directed at the wreck (such as salvage, research, and tours). Right now, both natural causes and human activities are damaging the Titanic site. Little can be done to prevent the natural aging and corrosion of the wreck site, but the Act can help prevent further physical deterioration caused by tour groups and underwater vehicles. The Act aims to protect the site’s archeological integrity and to ensure that it is treated as a maritime memorial for the 1,500 people who perished when it sank. So far, the Act has been well received by the Senate.

On March 29, 2012, the Act was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and on July 31, 2012, the Committee ordered the Act to be favorably reported without amendment. This means that, with virtually no debate over the merits of the bill, the Committee approved of the Act as it was written and suggested that it move forward to become an approved law. On behalf of SHA, CHP has been actively meeting with Senate staffers on Capitol Hill to promote the purpose of the Act, with the goal of getting it passed with unanimous consent during Congress’s quickly approaching lame duck session. To assist with this goal, CHP has drafted summaries of the legislation to provide to staffers to educate them about the purpose and nuances of the Act. CHP has also been coordinating with other interested groups to garner support for the Act in the House of Representatives. If all goes well, S.2279 will provide protection for the R.M.S. Titanic and its wreck site for many years to come.

Every historical archaeologist has at some point defined the discipline to the visitors at an archaeological site, a roomful of students, or a colleague or community member.  Most of us have a pretty clear notion of what distinguishes historical archaeology, and while it may diverge from what our teachers once told us, the conventional definitions in reference sources, or even the SHA’s own definition, we do seem to return to some consistent elements:  for instance, material things always seem to lie at the heart of what we do; most of us see ourselves as multidisciplinary scholars; we value rigor and replicability (even if we entertain sophisticated theory or are sometimes wary of being labeled a “science”); and we focus on peoples living in the last half-millennium or thereabouts.

Nevertheless, it is still completely reasonable that we have some distinctive visions of precisely what constitutes historical archaeology (or should define it) (compare the historical archaeology course syllabi definitions at the SHA Syllabi Clearinghouse).  The discussion over what defines historical archaeology has roots reaching over more than a half-century, and the dynamism of the discussion over our field is a good indication of historical archaeology’s dynamism and growth.  As the field now stretches its chronological boundaries into the contemporary world, encompasses an increasingly broad range of intellectual traditions, and pushes its geographic horizons to every reach of the planet, that discussion may be as lively as it was in the 1960s.  The SHA does not need to impose a definition of the discipline onto everybody digging something we might call historical archaeology, and in fact the discussion of the rich range of historical archaeologies is more important than forging a universal definition of the discipline that encompasses every time and place.  Instead, we need to continue to promote a rich discussion that reaches across global divisions, lines of historical difference and contemporary inequality, and moments in time.

The differences in conventional definitions of historical archaeology are perhaps most apparent outside the confines of North America.  As we prepare for our annual conference in Leicester in January, 2013 and then Quebec a year later, it is increasingly evident that what North Americans call historical archaeology goes by a variety of labels in Europe, Africa, South America, or the Pacific World: post-medieval, modern, and contemporary archaeologies all describe some scholarship akin to American historical archaeology.  Historical archaeology emerged at roughly the same moments in North America, the UK (with the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology’s formation in 1966), and Australia (the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology was founded in 1970).  All of these scholarly traditions push the conventional North American framing of historical archaeology in productive and exciting ways.

The most influential definitions of North American historical archaeology tend to revolve around the cultural transformations associated with Anglo and European colonization.  However, that definition looks out at the globe from the New World and has often somewhat ironically not examined the very European and African societies sending peoples to the New World.  For our European colleagues doing archaeologies of the last 500 years, the transformation into a post-medieval world reaches well into the medieval period and reveals dramatic variation from the Iberian Peninsula into central and northern Europe.  Pictures of Africa and Asia likewise have a historical depth that is not easily accommodated to a narrowly defined focus on European colonization alone.

Many historical archaeologists have focused on the ways in which emergent capitalism and colonization transformed the planet and provide an intellectual framework for historical archaeology.  Yet that sprawling profit economy was never utterly homogenous and integrated despite its global scale.  Capitalist penetration into New World colonies, Africa, and the breadth of Europe itself was inevitably variable across time and space, and archaeologists have particularly rich data to dissect the contextually distinctive spread of capitalism and local experiences of capitalist transformations.

The rapid growth of contemporary archaeology encompasses a breadth of research subjects that likewise stretches our conventional notion of historical archaeology.  William Rathje’s garbology studies laid much of the foundation for archaeologies of the recent past and contemporary world, and Americans have conducted a variety of modern material culture studies since the 1970’s taking aim on everything from electric cars to pathways of migration to wartime detention centers.  Archaeologies of the present-day world have been exceptionally active in the UK and Europe, where contemporary archaeologists have conducted creative, thoughtful, and challenging research on everything from wartime landscapes and prison camps (in Finnish, but video images) to Cold War materiality to punk graffiti.  For many of us this scholarship is intimately linked to historical archaeologies that have focused on more distant pasts and should have a clear role in a global historical archaeology that reaches firmly into the present.

The transformation to an increasingly global historical archaeology may be bearing the fruit envisioned by the very first historical archaeologists, whose January, 1966 gathering at Southern Methodist University was dubbed the “International Conference on Historic Archaeology” (my italics).  In 1968, SHA President Ed Jelks (1968:3) intoned that “Historical archaeology has much to gain in the long run from encouraging a spirit of concerted, interdisciplinary, international cooperation.”  Many of our colleagues in the nearly 50 years since the Texas conference have been committed to a historical archaeology that always thinks of global systemic relationships beyond our local sites, but we are especially fortunate to live in a moment in which there is a rich international scholarship of the last half millennium that is increasingly accessible thanks to digitization.

Indeed, that global historical archaeology may well be SHA’s next horizon for growth in terms of both the society’s literal membership numbers and the discipline’s more significant expansion as a scholarly voice throughout the world.  Historical and post-medieval archaeologists are researching nearly every corner of the world and bring rich scholarly traditions distinct from North American anthropology.  That global historical archaeology is profoundly shaped by the concrete connections made possible through online scholarship and communication across a wired planet, and it bears significant debts to the SHA’s own commitment to conduct international conferences.

The Society for Historical Archaeology is only one steward for this rich international scholarship, and that scholarship is inevitably richer for including a broad range of global archaeological methods, scholars, and approaches.  International historical archaeology provides increasingly rich possibilities for the scholarly growth of historical archaeology that is increasingly globalized, compelling, and intellectually rigorous.

Jelks, Edward B.

1968 President’s Page: Observations on the Scope of Historical Archaeology.  Historical Archaeology 2:1-3.

‘What are your hopes and fears for the future of archaeology?’

The Archaeologists Anonymous team are coming to the SHA conference and will be holding a panel session on the morning of Friday 11th January. In the run-up to the conference we’d like to invite all SHA delegates to send us your hopes and fears on a postcard and make the panel session a success!

How to get involved

The process is a simple one. You need to find a postcard, adapt its front cover somehow, and write your message (anonymously) on the back, and then post it to the address on the Arch Anon blog

Your postcard will join the other postcards we’ve received and will be prominently displayed on the blog – these postcards will form the basis for discussion points during the SHA panel. Your postcard could therefore lead vibrant debate regarding the future of archaeology during the 21st century at SHA: an important, international conference.

Why postcards?

We want to slow down the immediacy of digital communication and through regressive creativity provide an alternative to the fast-paced and hyper-identified world of Twitter, Facebook and email. We want to provide an opportunity for you to make something and use hand-writing rather than create through the technology of a laptop. Joining in will take a little time. You’ll need to find the ‘right’ postcard, think of your message and post it to us but we hope you’ll agree that the method is worth it. The postcards we’ve received are individual, striking and thought-provoking.

Postcards in archaeology

We also recognise the growing interest in postcards within the archaeological community. Sian Jones’ recent paper at CHAT in York considered the ways in which postcards from Whitworth Park in Manchester operated ‘as material objects’ whether ‘mass-produced, commoditized, personalised, exchanged and consumed’.

Why anonymity?

We are asking for contributors to send postcards anonymously as we want the message on the postcard to be more important than who is saying it. We are hoping that anonymity will allow the voices of undergraduates to be undifferentiated from the voices of professors. We are interested in all voices: whoever you are we would like you to send us your hopes and fears postcard.

The panel at SHA

The majority of places on the SHA panel will be filled on the day by members of the audience. It could be you! Joining the panel are Natasha Mehler (University of Vienna); Sara Perry (University of York); Sefryn Penrose (Atkins Heritage/University of Oxford); Sarah May (Independent); Emma Dwyer (University of Leicester); Katrina Foxton (University of York) and James Dixon (Archaeologists Anonymous).

The panel will draw on the postcards we’ve received to discuss the future direction of the discipline, the Arch Anon project, and the interconnections between anonymity and academia.

We are pleased that Katrina Foxton will be joining the SHA panel. Katrina’s recent work has focused on a specific collection of Victorian photographic postcards produced by Francis Frith (1822-1898), who took up the task of photographing every landscape and landmark in England during the 1860s. Looking at his work both in physical form and on the internet, Katrina’s work on postcards has considered how both the discursive aspects of the image content (including the achievement of a standardised way of obtaining that ‘perfect shot’, which is dependent on the material form and commercial success of the postcard) can lead to an understanding of postcard ‘culture’ and heritage today. Moreover, the prolific use of postcards in their hey-day has been likened to an early form of twitter (Staff 1979, Woody 1998, Procheska and Mendelson 2010).

Therefore, she is interested in the more recent mobilisation of these multi-dimensional photo-objects (Edwards and Harts 2004, Gillen and Hall 2011) within this particular archaeological debate, as it points to a further evolution in the postcard’s cultural life and its status as a epistolary medium.

We’re looking forward to hearing what Katrina has to say about Archaeologists Anonymous!

Can I bring a postcard along on the day?

We’d love you to be involved but we really want to have a stamp on the postcard so we can tell which countries the postcards have come from. And we really don’t want to know who’s made them. So please do post yours in time for SHA.

Any questions?  

Send us an email  – archaeologistsanonymous@gmail.com

See you in Leicester!

Hilary Orange, James Dixon, Stacey Hickling and Paul Graves-Brown (The Arch Anon team)

This year the Student Subcommittee of the Academic and Professional Training Committee (APTC) and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology (ACUA) Student Council are cosponsoring a forum dedicated to helping students navigate the current job market in archaeology. Thanks to the efforts of my co-organizer, Barry Bleichner, the forum will host six engaging panelists, and it will be held on Thursday, January 10, 2013. For location, time and a list of panelists, click here.

The global economic downturn has shifted government funding priorities away from cultural and historic resource preservation, and jobs have been lost. However, the enthusiasm and dedication of archaeologists across the world has allowed public programming and archaeology education initiatives to grow with exceptional speed and direction (see list of organizations at the bottom of this blog).

This image exhibits the passion and devotion of the professional archaeological community and their beloved volunteers who engendered over 280 archaeology themed events on National Archaeology Day 2012. Without the work of volunteers and interns, many of these events may have been understaffed or inadequately prepared for the hundreds of visitors who participated in the day of celebration and education. Many of the volunteers were students who are being trained as the next generation of archaeologists.

I conducted a small informal survey to gain a better understanding of student perspectives about the current job market. According to the results, the insecurities that archaeology students have about the pressure to find work in a depressed economy are abundant, but with a network of support, students will find jobs! Remember, the insights to follow serve only as an introduction; the forum in January will host several professionals who are prepared to tackle these topics in-depth.

“Volunteer, Volunteer, Volunteer!”
Fewer paid positions at archaeological venues has meant an increase in the skill requirements of new hires as well as an increase in the amount and type of work produced by volunteers and interns. The anxiety of making yourself the ideal candidate for a job can seem overwhelming, but it is important to stay calm and work on acquiring new, resume-bolstering skills.

I asked respondents of my survey, “Beyond acing exams and essays, what can students do to prepare themselves to be great candidates for jobs in archaeology?” The overwhelming answer from students and professionals, alike? VOLUNTEER. One participant responded with fervor, “Volunteer, volunteer, volunteer! Entry level jobs can be hard to come by for students looking to gain experience. Volunteering allows you to not only fill up your CV and gain skills, but also make professional connections that could help you land that job.”

Employers are looking for people who are able to engage the community and solve problems with creativity and innovation. Volunteering can help you practice your skills while showing potential employers what you have to offer.

As a graduate student at the University of South Florida’s Applied Anthropology program, Becky O’Sullivan began her career by volunteering with Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN). Soon, this volunteer position became a paid graduate assistantship. This experience gave O’Sullivan an opportunity to practice what might not have seemed natural to her, “Presenting at a professional conference can be nerve-wracking, I’m naturally adverse to getting up to talk in front of large groups, but the benefits of sharing your work with others and in turn learning from their work far outweigh those drawbacks. A good presentation can make you rethink even your most basic assumptions about what archaeology is and should be and make you a stronger researcher as a result!” This excerpt, written by Ms. O’Sullivan in January 2012, is taken from FPAN West Central Region’s blog. Ms. O’Sullivan is now the outreach coordinator for FPAN’s West Central Region office.

Flexibility can be useful when you are looking for a paid job, but whether you are in a small town or a big city, there is a cultural organization willing to train you as a volunteer. Start by donating two hours a week; this allows you to keep your “after-college bill-paying job” while you start to build professional connections in your field. Once your schedule opens up, you can invest more time in a project to which you already contribute.

Keep an Open Mind
In response to my questionnaire, one student reports about her experience using her degree outside of archaeology, “As far as alternate job routes go, I am looking at teaching positions from a wide range of disciplines. I find that my type of scholarship will probably fit in better in an American Studies department, so I am looking at jobs in American Studies, history, and American Indian studies departments along with anthropology.”

Try reexamining your own career goals and consider different ways to use your educational background in archaeology. This exercise invites you to think about ways to make archaeology skills useful to employers outside the discipline. See the list at the bottom of this blog for ideas about where to find jobs.

When you are working on your CV or preparing for an interview, mention your special skills. Sometimes your “hobbies” (theater, photography, painting, archery, singing, film-making, poetry, basketball, etc.) can be a great asset to employers. Many successful archaeologists and anthropologists use such hobbies to enhance their projects and outreach programs.

The following excerpt comes from a book edited by John H. Jameson Jr. and Sherene Baugher called Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups,“In the face of an increasing public interest and demand for information, archaeologists are collaborating with historians, educators, interpreters, museum curators, exhibit designers, landscape architects, and other cultural resource specialists to devise the best strategies for translating an explosion of archaeological information for the public.” This book (and many others) provides examples of how archaeologists collaborate with people from other disciplines or work within other disciplines to help protect and share the cultural resources of our nation.

Communicate, Stay Involved and Believe in Yourself
Consider how large your support network is when you are looking for work. University students have many resources, but as a professor once told me, “Your most valuable tool is the connections you make with the people around you.” When you graduate, many other students will be at your side, and it is invaluable to keep in touch with friends and colleagues who may one day be able to help you land a new job.

You can acquaint yourself with people who are working as professionals in archaeology by attending and presenting at conferences. I am amazed by the kindness of professors and other professionals who I have met at various conferences. Reaching out to the people I admire has given me the confidence to continue working towards my goal of being a paid employee in the field. Social-networking sites like LinkedIn, Academia.edu, or Facebook can be great tools for keeping up with people you have met.

I met Becky O’Sullivan and Rita Elliott as an intern working on my undergraduate honors thesis about archaeology education and outreach. Talking with them gave me the courage to present my ideas to a wider audience. Rita Elliott and her team from the Society for Georgia Archaeology created ArchaeoBUS, a mobile learning classroom, and they have since shared Georgia archaeology with people across the state.

If you would like to reach me directly, my e-mail is rozalyn.crews@ncf.edu.

Archaeology outreach programs:
Project Archaeology, Florida Public Archaeology Network, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Northwest Cultural Resources Institute, Hawai`i Junior Archaeology Outreach Program

Job opportunities:
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, your local Sate Historic Preservation Office (SHIPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THIPO), a local museum or visitor center, a local university lab or ethnography department, or a state archaeology or history society. Don’t forget to check USAJobs for archaeology jobs around the country.

Works Cited

• Jameson, John H. and Sherene Baugher (eds.)
  • 2007 Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers and Community Groups. Springer.