As an outcome of these developments, ways have been sought to bring descendant and stake- holder communities and archaeology closer together. Community archaeology as a concept crystallized from these projects undertaken during the 990s in several parts of the world.6
Many of these were presented and discussed in an issue of World Archaeology, dedicated ex- clusively to community archaeology and its establishment as a ‘set of practices within the wider discipline’ (Marshall 2002:2). The papers included in this issue feature archaeological field research against North American, Australian, Asian, African and Middle Eastern cultural set- tings and all focus on collaborative initiatives that spring from a conviction to bring archaeol- ogy closer to those people who actually live near to and/or relate in some way to the site that is being studied.
A general definition of community archaeology reads it as the collaboration between local populations and the archaeologist who investigates a part of that population’s history. Proposals for developing a methodology have been put forward by the Quseir project in Egypt (Moser 2002:229-242):
Communication and collaboration 2 Employment and training 3 Public presentation 4 Interviews and oral history 5 Educational resources
6 Photographic and video archive 7 Community-controlled merchandising
From these components it becomes clear that the flow of information coming out of the archaeological investigation toward the stakeholder community is a central element for a com- munity archaeology project.
6 The sub-field of US historical archaeology needs to be mentioned here as a field which has seen a significant number of projects in which contemporary communities fill an important role (Little 2002; Orser 996, 2004; Paynter 2000).
The prioritization for the local diffusion of archaeological information is closely linked to the fourth principle of the ‘Principles of Archaeological Ethics’, drafted some years ago by the SAA (Society of American Archaeology), and an echo of growing attention for the ethics of the archaeological discipline (see Meskell and Pels 2005; Scarre and Scarre 2006; Wylie 2002; Zimmerman et al. 2003) for recent discussions of ethics in archaeology):
SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics, Principle No. 4:
Public Education and Outreach: Archaeologists should reach out to, and participate in cooperative efforts with others interested in the archaeological record with the aim of improving the preserva- tion, protection, and interpretation of the record. In particular, archaeologists should undertake to: ) enlist public support for the stewardship of the archaeological record; 2) explain and pro- mote the use of archaeological methods and techniques in understanding human behaviour and culture; and 3) communicate archaeological interpretations of the past. Many publics exist for archaeology including students and teachers; Native Americans and other ethnic, religious, and cultural groups who find in the archaeological record important aspects of their cultural heritage; lawmakers and government officials; reporters, journalists, and others involved in the media; and the general public. Archaeologists who are unable to undertake public education and outreach directly should encourage and support the efforts of others in these activities.
More explicitly this principle is outlined through seven elements for archaeological projects involving Native American heritage: () Identify the community with which they will be in- volved; (2) Form partnership beyond archaeology; (3) Understand the legal boundaries in- volved in the process; (4) Communicate effectively; (5) Recognize the diverse decision-making structures; (6) Place the goals of the project ahead of personal and private goals; (7) Be aware of social and gender issues (Watkins et al. 2000).
The ethical principles established by the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) hold a telling difference from the SAA principles, since they go beyond the communicative emphasis underscored by the SAA, and acknowledge the existence of distinct epistemologies, entailing different methods to learning or recounting the past, and the obligation of archaeologists to incorporate them in their activities such as: to acknowledge and recognize indigenous method- ologies for interpreting, curating, managing, and protecting indigenous cultural heritage; and, to acknowledge that the indigenous heritage rightfully belongs to the indigenous descendants of that heritage. A major difference between the SAA Code of Ethics and that of the WAC is that it was drafted by indigenous people instead of archeologists (Zimmerman 997:5-52).7
Research that operates along those lines is more frequently referred to as ‘covenantal archaeol- ogy’ (Zimmerman 997:52-54).
7 World Archaeological Congress First Code of Ethics, established in 99, and published in World Archaeo- logical Bulletin 5:22-23.
As an example of a region where local community involvement is widely spread, Clarke observes for the Australian national context that ‘[…] community consultation has become a routine and accepted part of professional practice’ (Clarke 2002:25). This reflects the fact that the involvement of Aboriginal communities in developing archaeological activities has become common practice throughout the Australian continent (Brady et al. 2003; Dalley 2004; Field et al. 2000; Pardoe, 990, 99). But apart from an ethically sound practice, Aboriginal involve- ment in archaeological activities has expanded since the early 990s to co-determining research questions and the curating and management of artefact collections has seen a range of initia- tives. Moreover, critical analyses regarding the politically laden relationship between archae- ologist and material culture with respect to the political position of Aboriginals in Australia, is seeing more and more debate (Smith 999). For other world regions numerous case-studies have emerged, with noticeable regional emphases in Asia and North America. Remarkably, ex- amples from Latin American nations have remained relatively restricted until now. Many times, archaeological projects that can be identified as having an explicitly community-oriented focus, originated in regions or nations where stakeholders in the local past have come forward. Of this group, indigenous peoples as cultural descendants represent an important segment, but are certainly not the only one: in principle all contemporary inhabitants close to an archaeological site, qualify in this set of practices as a community that can interact with the archaeological investigation (Marshall 2002; Moser et al 2002).