TimoB

GENDER AND WOMEN IN ARCHAEOLOGY

s030

Alena Segobye

papers:
Author 1 Author 2 Title
Anozie Gender and Women in the Archaeology of South Eastern Nigeria.
Aziz Culture keepers, cultural brokers
Gilliam Reclaiming honour, resurrecting struggle: Black women, Patronage, and the Global Heritage of Afrophobia
Ibeanu Dietary behaviour amongst the present inhabitants of Okigwe, Southeastern Nigeria
Nzei Relations of production and Igbo-ukwu
Panaki Unearthing an age-long controversy: perspectives on the “ABA women riots” of 1929 in South – Eastern Nigeria.

Convened by Claire Smith and H. Martin Wobst

s081

The ‘doing’ of archaeology at any place in the world is a political act. This is recognised in the second statute of the World Archaeological Congress, which states that the Congress is based ‘on the explicit recognition of the historical and social role, and the political context, of archaeological enquiry, of archaeological organisations, and of archaeological interpretation’. The political nature of archaeological research influence field procedures and methods of analysis as well as the selection and presentation of results. Therefore, the session will consider the following issues:

• the manner in which sociopolitical biases bear upon archaeological research;
• the implications of archaeological research for non-specialist interest groups;
• the manner in which a critical awareness of present practices can lead to productive refinements and/or changes in those practices.

Often, archaeologists view their social impact only in terms of an indigenous ‘Other’, thus deflecting the discussion of politics from themselves and from their effect on their own system to minimizing or optimizing their effect on indigenous people. However, there are important links between these aspects of the politics of practice. Important questions concerning the sociopolitical nature of the relationships between archaeologists and Aboriginal people include issues of control over research methods, the dissemination of results and whether it is possible for researchers to adopt a neutral position. In some ways, the increase in direct indigenous critiques of archaeological practice have opened up the arena to a wider commentary. Increasingly, archaeology has to be seen to be of benefit to the wider community. Thus, this session will consider the social impact of archaeological practice on:

the indigenous peoples with whom archaeologists work;
the socio-political systems within which archaeologists operate and;
the wider community with which archaeologists interact.

In short, this session will study the politics of practice up, down and sideways …

papers:
Author 1 Author 2 Title
Anderson Warrior Reclaiming the past
Beck et al Aboriginal Ecoturism and Archaeology in Coastal NSW, Australia
Cowgill Agency theory and understanding change
de la Luz-Rodriguez Intellectuals, Archaeology and the construction of identity in a Colonial State: the case of Puerto Rico
Ditter et al Indigenous Heritage and Local Communities s081dtt1
Hunter Politics in Practice: recent developments in the relationship between indigenous Australians, archaeologists and the wider community
Kehoe Archaeology as social charter for the West
Marshall Dodd A Perspective on the Issues Faced by Indigenous Students of Archaeology
Mathis Archaeology and the media: Engaging the public
Nicholas Carlson The persistence of memory, the politics of desire: Archaeological and aboriginal Concerns in Canada
Smith Archaeological practice and the governance of indigenous identity
Smith Staniforth Community archaeology as collaboration and critique
Taylor Ward Archaeology and Indigenous Australia
West Indigenous involvement in the forestry industry in Tasmania: a change towards the recognition of Aborigional values and archaeological resources in forests
Wobst Archaeologists as implements

Subordinate Societies, Local Archaeologies

Dr Paul Lane and Dr Andrew Reid

One outcome of culture contact, particularly regarding complex societies, is the generation of subordinate societies: communities who have little or no formal power within the broader polity (but possibly a hidden or subaltern voice). Whilst subordinate societies are a global phenomenon, the developing world offers a considerable variety of potential case studies, as do contexts where indigenous peoples live within modern nation states in the West.

Clearly, from an archaeological perspective, a distinction can be made between archaeological attempts to investigate subordinate societies, and societies in the present day seeking to present their own constructions of the past (local or alternative archaeologies). In some cases both elements coincide. This Symposium aims to address both of these aspects. For the sake of convenience, however, papers in the first session will focus on the archaeological recognition of ‘subordinate’ societies, while those in the second session will examine issues relating to the local production of archaeological knowledge.

A notable example from southern Africa emerges from the Kalahari debate, which has revolved around the issue of whether San/Bushman/Basarwa populations investigated by anthropologists and ethnoarchaeologists in the 1960s-80s, were relatively pristine hunter gatherers (as many of these studies implied), or the product of centuries of encapsulation. While recent research has shown that some San/Bushman societies were definitely subordinate, and others retained their autonomy, little is yet know about the effect subordination had on material culture and behaviour. Is it really possible to distinguish the archaeological traces of a subordinated ‘Bushman’ society from one which was not? Following on from this is the issue of how contemporary, local/indigenous interpretations of the archaeological past can inform both (a) disciplinary concepts and understandings of the experience or context of encapsulation, and (b) offer an alternative, parallel perspective on the substantive details of the past.

Encapsulation is by no means the only mechanism of subordination, and various contributions to the Symposium will also examine alternative circumstances, while others critique the notion of subordination, or the value of distinguishing ‘indigenous archaeologies’ from ‘global, disciplinary archaeology’. Whatever the preferred perspective, in investigating subordinate societies four themes immediately present themselves for analysis, and all of the papers in this Symposium address one or other of these.

These themes are:

How can subordinate societies be distinguished from subordinating societies,
and how can archaeologists tell when subordination begins?
How can archaeologists assess the nature of subordination?
How can history be re-written from the perspective of the subaltern?
Should it be re-written in this way?, and what implications, if any, do such local archaeologies have for the broader, mainstream discipline?
Where is the locus of power within subaltern/subordinate communities and what role, if any, does material culture play in the negotiation of these power structues?

papers:
Author 1 Author 2 Title
Baglo Always the same Saami? Changing conceptions of the Saami other in archaeological discourse
Burstrom Cultural variability in the home ground: how archaeology can make the world a better place
Crossland The Archaeology of Absence: Reappearing Argentina’s Disappeared
Damm Another time another history?: or how to write the history of the Bugakhwe in Botswana
Lane Global Information, local knowledge and archaeological interpretation
Reid Subordination in Great Lakes Africa
Sadr Subordinate Hunters at the Edge of the Kalahari
Smith et al Appropriating places and subordinating people: rock shelters as points of power in forager-farmer interactions in the Northern Province, South Africa.
Smith encapsulation or Not? The Ju/’hoansi Example S047SMt1
Webb Philosophical Perspectives on Representation: Possibilitirs for Exploring Multiple Interpretations of the Past.