Journal of Social Archaeology

ARTICLE

Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 6(1): 100118 DOI: 10.1177/1469605306060569

Communicating archaeology
Words to the wise
JOE E. WATKINS
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, USA
ABSTRACT
As archaeologists, we are often called upon to discuss our work with
various groups that share our interest in human culture and human
adaptation, to communicate with those whose heritage we study, or to
explain our findings to other stakeholders in the archaeological
enterprise. As communicators, however, we are less adept at accurately portraying our thoughts to those groups. All too frequently we
enter into opportunities to communicate with groups and then bore
them with jargon, try to dazzle them with technological brilliance, or
lose their attention all together. And, even when we do not confuse
them with acronyms, we take it for granted that the words we choose
are understood in our intended manner. The following article begins
with a few examples of misunderstandings involved in communicating archaeology and then goes beyond these topics to the core of the
Western scientific process of naming and categorizing, to the politics
of our profession and to the implications of our archaeology on
contemporary populations.
KEY WORDS
archaeology communication indigenous perspectives New World
origins

100

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

INTRODUCTION
Imagine walking into a classroom, sitting down with paper and pencil, and
waiting for the professor to begin. After a few hesitant noises, the professor
speaks, but in a language mostly incomprehensible to you. You understand
the words and get the gist of the lecture, but somehow the real meaning of
the lecture does not come through. You speak to the professor after the
lecture and are immediately struck by the difference between the professor
as a lecturer and the professor as a person. When asked why the lecture
was unintelligible, the professor merely states: It was intended to be understood only by those who already understand what I am saying. If I have to
explain it, you do not need to know it.
Of course, such an event is not likely to occur or at least we are not
likely to admit to doing such a thing. But when we fail to communicate our
ideas in clear, commonly understood language, we run the risk of negatively
impacting the public, sometimes even beyond our own comprehension. A
real-life example might prove my point. I was at a workshop where an
archaeologist was giving a brief culture history of the Four Corners region
of the Southwestern United States, where the Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and
New Mexico borders meet. When she started discussing the time of great
cultural movement in the area at about AD 1150, she spoke of it as the
time when people abandoned Chaco Canyon. I raised my hand and
objected to the choice of the word abandoned and she said she understood
my objection. I offered an alternative phrasing, perhaps we should talk
about the time when people no longer occupied the area on a more fulltime basis, to which she objected to the idea of full-time, arguing that
there was no evidence that Chaco Canyon was ever occupied year-round.
The rest of the people in the room, including the archaeologists, did not act
concerned about our mutual objection, and so we both dropped the
discussion and moved on to another topic.
Does it matter that her use of the term abandoned did not meet with
mine, or that we both offered other phrasings that should have clarified the
matter, but did not? Yes, it does, and I want to work with this point to
emphasize the importance of the words we choose, the ways we use them,
and the ways that other people might misconstrue their use.

WORD USE
The discussion that follows is vital in our ability to understand the ways we
as archaeologists fail to communicate to all the publics that we should be
drawing in to our field of study those who find archaeology fascinating,

101

102

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

those who find it insulting, those who find it to be nothing more than a waste
of time and money, and those who have no opinion of archaeology at all.
It is important that we move beyond the elementary idea that merely
talking with or telling the public is enough; it is important that we move on
to actually communicating with them.
Are we as archaeologists inept at communicating, or are there other,
more subtle issues at work that act to lessen our abilities to say what we
mean? In looking at the ways we communicate with non-anthropologists,
perhaps we should take some lessons from theories that relate to intercultural communications.
Edward T. Hall (1976) differentiated between low- and high-context
communication as a means of explaining cultural differences in the ways
things are presented and accepted by human populations. While these are
arguably generalizations, high-context communication occurs when most
of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the
person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the
message (Hall, 1976: 79). Low-context communication, on the other hand,
occurs when the mass of information is vested in the explicit code (Hall,
1976: 70). High-context and low-context communication is used in all
cultures, but one form tends to predominate, with high-context messages
and indirect communication used by members of collectivist cultures while
low-context messages and direct communication preferred by members of
individualistic cultures (Gudykunst, 2005: 8).
As noted above, high-context communication tends to be less explicit,
less direct and more implied, and it is generally up to the listener to filter
the valuable information from the conversation. People rely less on the
literal meaning of the words. Indirect communication also ensures that
there is less likelihood of conflict. People in low-context communications,
on the other hand, tend to be explicit, fact-filled and often repetitive, with
more direct communication and higher likelihood of conflict. According to
Stella Ting-Toomey (2005: 216), Native Americans . . . who identify
strongly with their traditional ethnic values, would tend to be group
oriented (and therefore more comfortable with high-context, indirect
communication styles), while European Americans who identify strongly
with European values and norms (albeit on an unconscious level) would
tend to be oriented toward individualism (and the resultant low-context,
direct communication styles). Culture Matters (Storti and BennholdSamaan, 1997), an extensive cross-cultural workbook for Peace Corps
volunteers, offers important insights concerning indirect/high-context and
direct/low-context styles of communication, and should be consulted by
archaeologists wishing to improve their communication skills.
The Toolkit for Cross-Cultural Collaboration (Elliot et al., 1999) was
developed as a result of a study of collaboration styles of AfricanAmerican, Asian-American, Native American, Hispanic-American and

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

Anglo-American communities. The study noted that great differences separated each minority community from the Anglo-American communities,
with the differences created by variations in expectations, styles, assumptions, values, body language, and privilege.
The study found recognizable consequences caused by the gaps in
collaboration and communication styles, among them the underutilization
of health services and the failure of many minority children to complete
their education. Since most people do not understand the exact nature of
the differences in communication styles and values, persons from minority
communities often perceive that they are treated disrespectfully by behaviors that, to the Anglo-American community, are common and normal. As
a result, minorities often withdraw from participation in services designed
on an Anglo-American model.
How can such differences in styles of communication affect archaeology? If minorities withdraw from participation in services designed on an
Anglo-American model, as Elliot et al. (1999) noted, it should not be as
much of a surprise that Native American and Anglo-American groups have
such differing views of the consultation process. Anglo-American individuals, familiar with working within low-context communication styles
with explicit, direct communication, are hard pressed to understand the
high-context, indirect communication styles of the Native American participants. Anglo-Americans generally want immediate answers, while Native
Americans more often will take their time to find solutions; AngloAmericans generally desire specific responses while Native Americans
more often use indirect responses to state a position. These culturally influenced communication styles, if not taken into consideration, are likely to
prevent meaningful discussion and mutually beneficial solutions from being
reached (Watkins and Ferguson, 2005).
None of us is taught these ideas or concepts in graduate school, or even
in our struggles to become good instructors and academicians. We archaeologists learn to communicate in a manner similar to that in which we are
instructed and are forced to read the low-context, direct, repetitive, overcited and explicit style found in most academic classrooms, professional
presentations and tenure-earning publications.
In writing about the Society for American Archaeologys Workshop on
Ethics in Reno, Nevada, in 1993, Alison Wylie (2005: 524) recalls an
incident that, for her, highlighted the event and demonstrates the importance of maintaining an awareness of different communication styles:
Mid-way through the first session of the workshop, Leigh Jenkins
(Kuwanwisiwma), then the Director of the Hopi Nation Cultural
Preservation Office, identified a number of ways in which the issue of
resource protection, as we had conceived it, is framed in terms that are
fundamentally at odds with tribal values . . . Jenkins drew no particular
lesson from this account; he left it to the assembled archaeologists to think

103

104

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

through its implications for the issues they had been discussing . . . His story
about repatriation was a pivotal intervention, changing the tone and
certainly the direction of what had begun as a quite diffuse discussion.

What might have happened had the discussion been carried out in an
entirely low-context communication style is anybodys guess. Perhaps the
same point of focus on stewardship and its implications for the issues under
discussion would have emerged, or perhaps the meeting would have wound
around issues of definition and circumscription rather than issues of ethics.
But, by being open to communication in its various forms, the workshop
produced a document that now resides at the very heart of archaeologys
relationships with its various publics.

WORD CHOICE
Let us now return to the word abandoned in the earlier example. Merriam
Webster defines the verb abandon as: to give up with the intent of never
again claiming a right or interest in, such as to abandon property (Mish,
2003: 2). Archaeologists have understood the archaeological data to show
that there was a great movement of people out of the Chaco Canyon region
of northwestern New Mexico at about AD 1150 in response to climatic
stresses that made it most likely impossible to maintain the way of life that
had previously existed (cf. Lipe, 2004; Sebastian, 2004; Vivian, 2004). In the
western sense of the word abandoned, it is likely that the people who lived
in the region gave up trying to make a year-around living in the area and
moved to outlying areas where it was easier to survive, but the implications
of the word are staggering.
Archaeologists have used the word indiscriminately, Gwinn Vivian
offered. This event [a major drought that began around 1130 and lasted for
50 years] proved too taxing for the Chacoan farmers and triggered the
abandonment of Chaco Canyon by the late twelfth century (2004: 13). As
noted by Rosemary Sucec, cultural resource specialist in the ethnography
program for the Colorado Plateau and Rocky Mountain parks in the
Denver Support Office of the National Park Service, the concept of
abandonment inadvertently negates the significance that places like Mesa
Verde and Chaco Canyon hold in the memories and traditions of contemporary Indian communities (1997: 54). If you ask the Hopi (Kuwanwisiwma, 2004), Navajo (Begay, 2004), or Pueblo (Swentzell, 2004) people for
their opinion, Chaco Canyon was never abandoned, nor did the ancestral
Pueblo people simply disappear. The people may have moved away from
the habitation structures that made up the social environment of Chaco
Canyon at some time in the past, but the tribal groups would never say that

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

the people moved with the intent of never again having a right or interest
in those places. As Hopi Leigh Kuwanwisiwma notes: For the many
descendants of the Hopi clans that once lived in and around Yupkyvi
[Chaco Canyon], it will forever be their mother village (2004: 47).
Fortunately, archaeologists have also moved away from simple explanations implied in the term abandoned (compare Cordell, 1980: 150 and
Cordell, 1997: 36597), instead talking about local and regional movements
of people into and out of the Chaco area (cf. Ellick, 2001; Lipe, 2004; Mills,
2004; Yoffee, 2001).

Why does such a word choice matter?

Descendant communities and indigenous populations argue that words
bring with them an implied judgment already made. Perhaps a good
example is the difference in perceptions one gets between the words crazy
(mad, or insane) and eccentric (deviating from an established or usual
pattern or style). Crazy carries with it a connotation of malevolent social
aberration, whereas eccentric implies a more innocent social aberration.
By making particular word choices, we as researchers can color anyones
perception of reality. If Chaco Canyon was abandoned by the ancestral
Pueblo people, then the National Park Service, the State of New Mexico,
or Science with a capital S can make decisions to do whatever they want
with Chaco Canyon without having to take anyone elses opinions into
account. And the descendant communities the Hopi, the Zuni, and more
recently the Navajo do not intend to allow the National Park Service, the
State of New Mexico, or any other political entity to proceed unfettered.
Chaco Canyon abandoned? A similar word, one not so often used any
longer, is discovered, as in Columbus discovered the New World. Fortunately, David Hurst Thomas (2000: 4) discussion about how the power to
name reflected an underlying power to control the land, its indigenous
people, and its history, has helped put the use of that loaded term to rest.

WORD IMPLICATIONS
The problem of word choice does not only haunt archaeologists in the
American Southwest, but we also must deal with the implications of words.
In November 2002, Marvin Cohodas of the University of British Columbia
organized a conference entitled Toward a More Ethical Mayan Archeology (Cohodas, 2002). This conference was oriented toward the social
impacts of archaeology on local populations rather than as a conference on
Mayan or Mesoamerican archaeology. As such, the conference brought
together indigenous people and professional archaeologists who voiced

105

106

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

their opinions on some of the philosophical aspects of archaeology as it is

practiced in Mesoamerica. Conference attendees examined the use of terms
such as the Mayan collapse and the psychological and political implications such terminology has on local indigenous groups. Presentations by
Mayan individuals (cf. Castaeda, 2002; Cocom, 2002; Cojt Cuxil, 2002;
Cojt Ren, 2002; Lopez, 2002) drew attention to various aspects of the political relationships between archaeology and Mayan groups, and offered individual Mayan perspectives on the ways that archaeology could be more
beneficial to local indigenous groups.
But it is not only words that can have negative connotations to indigenous populations. Consider the implications of broad theories. When we
consider the early peopling of the New World, there often develops a
problem of communication between archaeologists and American Indians.
Archaeologists talk about the movement of people from the Old World
into North and South America at about 15 or 20,000 years ago (Fagan, 2000,
2004; Fladmark, 1979; Stanford and Bradley, 2002), while American Indian
people talk about always being here. Which group is correct? For that
matter, are the two statements mutually exclusive?
In a class at the Institute for American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, I became
involved in a discussion with a student about the time that American Indians
discovered America (senso Thomas above). She spoke how scientists tell
us that weve only been here 15,000 years. Her anger was palpable.
Rather than merely reciting the scientific evidence on the migration
theories currently in vogue, I explored a different avenue. I asked the
student to explain the differences between scientific theory and scientific
fact and the ways each was developed and described. We discussed the
scientific method and the construction of a null hypothesis and alternate
hypotheses, and how one went about testing and reformulating hypotheses
based on information and data obtained in the research. I asked her and
the class to suggest hypotheses alternative to the theory of migration for
the occupation of North America, and then we listed the types and locations
of data we would need to find to test, refute, or support the various hypotheses. Did I convince the students that the scientific theory about migration
was the truth? Of course not, but the class came to understand the process
through which the various migration theories were developed as well as the
shortcomings within each one of them. Even though I might not have
convinced any of the students of the strength of the migration hypotheses,
I did use the opportunity to discuss how the scientific hypothesis (as well
as their hypotheses) could be tested.
I have always argued that, in truth of fact, the first immigrants that made
their way into North America were not Native Americans, but rather
Native-Beringians or Native-Siberians, etc. But the first generation born
here carried in their bones, their organs and their culture the trace minerals
ingested by their mothers microscopic particles of the landscape that tied

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

them to the area as sure as culture tied them to their kin. They were the
parents of todays American Indians in a real sense, regardless of the scientific possibilities of multiple migrations or competing originating localities.
In point of fact,American Indians did not exist until they were born here.
That is, since they did not exist anywhere else before they came into being
in America, theyve always been here. Does it matter to anyone other than
archaeologists or American Indians? It is important for American Indians
to feel they are in the country of their ancestors and their ancestors ancestors and that America will always be their homeland. Vine Deloria Jr.,
however, draws attention to the question of the scientific theory of migration and its political implications: By making us immigrants to North
America, they [scientists] are able to deny the fact that we were the full,
complete, and total owners of this continent. They are able to see us simply
as earlier interlopers and therefore throw back at us the accusation that we
had simply found North America a little earlier than they had (Deloria,
1995: 84, emphasis in original).
But maybe a recent theory on the peopling of North and South America
will go much further than merely talking about American Indians as finding
North America a little earlier. Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley (2000,
2002) argue that the continents first inhabitants may have crossed the
Atlantic slightly more than 18,000 years ago from the Iberian Peninsula
the area that encompasses Spain, Portugal and southwestern France.
According to Stanford and Bradley, Solutrean populations are believed to
have originally settled along the eastern seaboard and then, over the next
six millennia, their hunting and gathering culture may have spread as far as
the American deserts and Canadian tundra, and perhaps into South
America (but see Strauss, 2000 for a rebuttal). In a book for young readers
entitled Who Came First? New Clues to Prehistoric Americans, author
Patricia Lauber (2003: 58) writes: Many scientists are doubtful that people
could have crossed the Atlantic. Even if they followed the edge of the ice,
there was no place to put ashore. Dr Stanford agrees but says it is important to explore the possibility that Europeans were among the first Americans.

More possibilities explored

In September 2004, a news article written by Paul Rincon of the BBC News
Online science staff (Rincon, 2004) proclaimed Tribe Challenges American
Origins. The article cites Dr Sylvia Gonzalez as saying there is very strong
evidence that the first migration came from Australia via Japan and Polynesia and down the Pacific coast of America. Gonzalezs work, with
skeletal material from a population of long-headed individuals called the
Pericues (thought to have become extinct between 200 and 300 years ago),
leads her to believe that the Pericues might have been related to modern

107

108

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

Aboriginal Australians, based on their similar skull shapes. According to the

article, she hopes to strengthen the theory of a link with Aboriginal
Australians by doing a DNA analysis using the bones of the Pericue skeletons. In this manner, the article suggests, Gonzalez hopes to argue that the
Siberian forebears of modern day Native Americans did not get here first
after all, and that [Native Americans] cannot claim to have been the first
people in North America. The reporter also stated: If proved correct, the
findings might have implications for US legislation that covers the return
of Native American remains and artefacts to present-day tribes.
Who were the first First Americans? One option is that a European
Solutrean pre-Clovis group occupied the southeastern portion of North
America, evolved into Clovis people and spread across the North and
South American continents before being absorbed or destroyed by waves
of immigrant populations from the Asian continent (Stanford and Bradley,
2002). A second option is that Australians were the first inhabitants of the
New World, eventually being replaced or absorbed by the invading
Mongoloid horde (Rincon, 2004). A third option is that the first Americans
were people of African ancestry, as suggested by the discovery of the Brazilian skull nicknamed Luzia purported to be more than 10,000 years old
(Neves and Pucciarelli, 1991). Finally, there is the standard theory of the
Beringian land bridge and the ice-free corridor (Fagan, 2004; Haynes, 1969).
Many of these options are presented in Lepper and Bonnichsens recent
compilation New Perspectives on the First Americans (2004). Each of these
options concerning the peopling of the New World has political implications reminiscent of the nineteenth century argument over who the
Moundbuilders really were.
The Moundbuilders were a hypothetical, superior, non-Indian race,
perhaps related to the prehistoric Mexicans, Danes, or Hindus, thought to
be responsible for constructing the numerous earthen mounds in the
eastern USA, stumbled across by early scientists and explorers (see Willey
and Sabloff, 1993 for a more in-depth discussion). Since contemporary local
Indians were seen as incapable of constructing the mounds, scientists of the
nineteenth century hypothesized that the Moundbuilders had built the
mounds before either withdrawing from eastern North America or being
killed off by the Indians. Ultimately, however, the scientists decided that
contemporary Indians were the descendants of those responsible for
constructing the mounds.
Archaeologists Bruce Trigger (1980: 665), Don Fowler (1987: 230) and
Randall McGuire (1992: 820) are among the many that have discussed how
the Moundbuilder controversy served the USA as a means of justifying the
extermination or removal of American Indians, not only from the frontier
but also from the history of the country. It is surprising that contemporary
archaeologists fail to see the parallels between the Moundbuilder
controversy and todays issues.

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

Perhaps one of the most important misunderstandings that arises when

archaeologists looking at the earliest inhabitants of North America use
misleading labels to describe the populations from which these early immigrants might have come is the manner in which the general public interprets those labels. In Stanfords statement that it is possible that Europeans
were among the first Americans, the use of contemporary political definitions carries a weighty implication. If the first people in North America
were Europeans, it is not too large a jump in logic for American politicians
to say: If Europeans were here before anyone else, then American Indian
claims to the land are negated or at least called into question. If American
Indians didnt really have a valid claim to the land, then we dont have to
honor any of the treaties we made with the Indians. No treaties, no sovereignty, no problem. Alienation of Indian land through the Jerome
Commission (188993) and the Dawes Commission (18931907) failed. The
Wheeler-Howard Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 failed. Governmental
policies of assimilation and termination failed. Will archaeologists succeed?
Hodder (1982), Meskell (2001), Trigger (2003) and others (Conkey and
Gero, 1997; Conkey and Specter, 1984; Gero and Conkey, 1991) have
written extensively about archaeology and identity politics. Other authors,
such as Arnold (1990) and Fowler (1987), have written about the constraints
that social theory can put on archaeology. But the plethora of options
concerning the peopling of the New World carry with them the possibility
of archaeology and misidentity politics or an integration of a new state
of archaeology through some sort of an Orwellian legerdemain: Newspeak,
doublethink, the mutability of the past (Orwell, 1949: 27).
One such view, as espoused by right-wing columnist Lowell Ponte in
Politically Incorrect Genocide, Part One (Ponte, 1999a), places a very
political perspective on the peopling of the New World:
In other words, long before Christopher Columbus and other dead white evil
European male (DWEEM in PC-speak) conquistadors arrived to slaughter
noble Native American Indians, the noble Native American Indians carried
out a genocide that exterminated the true First Americans, who happened to
have black skin and African racial origins.
What a different, braver New World ours might have been. Columbus
arrives in 1492 and is greeted by smiling black faces. Instead of humansacrificing Aztecs and socialist Incas, Europeans might have found the gentle
culture of Africa or the dream-time of Australian Aboriginal people. Alas, we
shall never know what could have been. The murderous genocide carried out
by invading Indians destroyed the offspring of Luzia and her fellow blackskinned original Americans, leaving only a few of their bones and
fragments of their beautiful art.

The same holds true for the political implications that were expounded
when the Kennewick materials were erroneously reported as Caucasian

109

110

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

in the popular press, especially when groups such as the Asatru Folk
Assembly used the opportunity to practice their brand of paganism or
Eurocentric supremacy. Pontes viewpoint on this issue, written on 5
October 1999 (Ponte, 1999b), is perhaps typified in the following:
On todays university campuses, the fashion is to depict Euro-Americans as
evil and Native Americans and most Hispanics as the virtuous survivors of
white colonial exploitation, rape, and genocide. Kennewick Man might prove
the opposite that the true Native Americans were white, victims of
murderous genocide by the ancestors of todays Indians who seized their
land. The European invasion of the past five centuries, in this potential
revisionist history, merely reclaimed land stolen 9,000 years earlier from
their murdered kin.

Pontes comments can be likened to Orwells Winston Smith musing: All

history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as
was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was
done, to prove that any falsification had taken place (Orwell, 1949: 41).
Perhaps through a continued rescraping and reinscribing of history,
Europe will gain legal control over Paleo-America and the populations that
might (or might not) have descended from those early people.
The inconsistent use of contemporary geographical terminology has a
major impact on the general publics perception of the peopling of North
and South America. When anthropologists write of general relationships
between early Native Americans and East Asian populations, contemporary politico-geographical names are rarely used. And, while it might be
appropriate to say that some of the earliest inhabitants of North America
might have come via the continent we now call Australia, via the group of
islands now known as Japan and so forth, one cannot say the people who
came through those geographical area were Australians or Japanese.
Such geopolitical groups did not exist in the past, and they serve no function
other than to introduce geopolitical intrigue when used in discussing past
populations.
How do we come to grips with situations such as these that arise when
people try to define past populations using contemporary political and
geographical definitions/descriptions? How do we deal with the impacts
that such pronouncements and interpretations have on indigenous populations? At what point can such groups cease to be tied to the past through
anthropological hyperdescentism and consider themselves merely
human? And, getting back to Thomas discovery issue, Western scientists,
by naming the populations from which Native North American populations
originate as European, Australian, or African, can further alienate the
heritage of North Americas indigenous people from contemporary Native
Americans. Again citing Orwell: Who controls the past . . . controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past (1949: 35).

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

American anthropologists Douglas Owsley and Richard Jantz, in writing

about the situation revolving around the Kennewick Man (known by many
indigenous groups as the Ancient One), declare that the legal challenge is
not against Native Americans per se . . . It is in the interest of all people that
a clear and accurate understanding of the past be available to everyone
(Owsley and Jantz, 2002: 141). Patty Gerstenblith disagrees, however, noting
that Owsley and Jantzs explanation that their research will benefit all
humankind . . . justifies their unilateral appropriation of cultural and human
remains and their control over interpretation of the past through these
remains (2002: 175). Australian archaeologist Colin Pardoe, in writing about
the conflict between the scientific and indigenous perspectives in Australia
10 years earlier, felt archaeologists might have . . . legitimised our curiosity
by appealing to the noble view of world history, a democracy of knowledge
for all . . . [which] no one person could own (1992: 140).
Contemporary political situations again play an important role in
heritage rights issues as well. Sarah Harding (1999: 300) notes: The debate
between the cultural internationalists those who believe cultural
heritage is the property of all humankind and the cultural nationalists
those who believe that it is first and foremost the property of source
nations has been well-documented in the ever-growing mound of literature on the disposition of cultural heritage. I will not repeat that debate
here, but, as I argue elsewhere (Watkins, 2005), such a dichotomy seems to
be shortsighted, removing indigenous people (who often exist within, and
are even more politically peripheral than, Third World countries) from the
discussion as if they have no right to have a voice. While American Indian
tribes have separate status as sovereign nations, the control of heritage and
cultural property extends only to lands owned by the tribe or the US
government.
Cultural intra-nationalists indigenous populations or other cultural,
social, or religious enclaves within source nations often feel that they
should be able to control the heritage material they see as rightfully theirs.
The tension between cultural property and the groups that relate to them
has become increasingly obvious. While industrialized societies might not
see their representations and appropriation of indigenous heritage as an act
of cultural internationalism, but, as Timothy and Boyd note how the representation of heritage can act to legitimise existing social and political values
and structures (2003: 257). Thus, although industrialized societies might not
see their representations and appropriation of indigenous heritage as an act
of cultural internationalism, it becomes more difficult to see such acts as
harmless. When Harding writes: One of the most important issues with
respect to cultural heritage is the historical denial of indigenous peoples
right to determine the fate of their own cultural heritage and to protect it
from violation and theft (1999: 302), she is writing not only about the
physical violation and theft of cultural heritage by all types of looters

111

112

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

(including archaeologists, perhaps) but also the metaphysical violation and

theft of cultural heritage as well.
Graeme Aplin notes how national heritage an agreed-upon set of
values, localities, or origin stories can be used by a government or
dominant group in society to legitimize the state, to help define it, and to
advance individuals identification with it (2002: 16). Heritage can be a
strong cement to construct a group ethos within a population, but it likewise
has the capability of excluding other portions of the population those
economically, politically, philosophically, or socially on the fringes of the
dominant culture from that constructed group, a point that Arnold (1990),
Fowler (1987), Trigger (1986) and others have applied to archaeology.
There are those who will see the issue of using contemporary geographical terms as unimportant in relation to the search for the original sources of
the population of North and South America, or that such distinctions are
inconsequential, but I disagree. Archaeologists are often intricate in
developing words to describe artificial and particular situations. We argue
about the connotations and implications of calling something an arrowhead
as opposed to a projectile point, yet we quibble over the use of contemporary geopolitical names to describe non-contemporary populations.
While I believe it is important that we communicate with the general
public in ways easily understood by all of our various publics, we must be
careful that we do not present our information in an over-simplified way.
We have gone to great lengths to insure that people understand that
humans did not evolve from apes, but that humans and apes evolved from
a common ancestor at some time in the past. Archaeologists agree that
humans came into the North American continent from some other location,
but the use of contemporary geopolitical terms in over-simplified statements such as Europeans were the first Americans runs the risk of creating
the same sort of misunderstanding as saying humans evolved from apes
that detractors of evolution use to support initiatives to get Intelligent
Design taught in public educational systems.

WORD INTERPRETATIONS
Okay, not wanting to belabor the point, it becomes increasingly necessary
that archaeologists be aware of the difference in meanings portrayed when
we speak to the public as well as the situations that underlie our researches.
In Cultural Resource Management (CRM) a branch of archaeology into
which perhaps 90 per cent of the USs newly minted archaeologists enter
archaeological sites are often described as being not significant. Those who
do CRM know immediately that not being significant means that the site
does not meet the criteria in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and that the impacts of a project on it do not have to be lessened

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

(mitigated). But the term has a different implication to tribal populations

that hold the site to have meaning. Not significant is deemed by tribal
people to be the same as insignificant, a term that has an entirely different meaning to cultural resource managers than it does to tribal people. To
cultural resource managers, it means they do not have to worry about
Section 106 or other compliance procedures beyond merely identifying the
material culture one might expect to encounter during survey or other
cultural protection procedures. To tribal people, however, the term implies
that the sites have no meaning beyond the very minimum, as well as
implying that the material manifestations of their culture do not matter
enough to be afforded some level of protection.
In 2000, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) produced a
volume entitled Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-first Century. Edited
by Susan Bender and George Smith (2000), the volume speaks about ways
to refurbish the undergraduate education system in a broad sense, but Anne
Pyburn, Pam Cressey and I looked at ways that the discipline should reach
out to our non-academic public, especially those members of descendant
communities (Watkins et al., 2000). We talked about developing relationships, learning what areas the public were interested in and how to reach
out to them, and the necessity of presenting our research to the public in
ways that were easily understood. Few of us are able to do such things.
Look at the following fictional paragraph:
The initial examination of the material culture was purposefully delayed
until it was feasible to record the material with an appropriate medium.
Upon resumption of the investigations, it was determined that the artifactual
assemblage was indicative of a pre-ceramic material culture that resided
within certain topographical restrictions and, in conjunction with the readily
provable laws of superposition, it was determined that the depositional
sequence was consistent with the chronological sequencing we had expected
to encounter.

Translated it says: We waited until we loaded our cameras to take pictures.

Archaic period artifacts were found associated with certain landforms and
the stratigraphy was normal and not reversed.
Which sounds more scientific? The first, of course, but it takes 75 words
to say what could be said in 27 words. Of course there are certain concepts
that we must use scientific phrases to describe, and we should be careful
about dumbing down too much, but we need also to speak to the public
on a level easily understood. We pride ourselves on our ability to scientifically present data, but we all too often lose our audience within the first
page. Are we doing a service if the people who pay for our research are not
interested in what we have to say?
Let us look more closely at what happens when we are unable to communicate our intentions and abilities to the public. We constantly decry the
illegal excavation of archaeological sites, likening the destruction to grave

113

114

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

robbing. To us, scientific excavation carries with it the concept of a noble

pursuit at gaining knowledge. To many American Indian tribal groups,
however, it makes no difference whether the disturbance is caused by looters
or by qualified archaeologists. As Devon Mihesuah has written, the only
difference between an illegal ransacking of a burial ground and a scientific
one is the time element, sun screen, little whisk brooms, and the neatness of
the area when finished (Mihesuah, 1996: 233). If we fail to communicate our
findings to the public in words that everyone can understand, we may be
something much better than a grave robber, but who will know it?
And there are other publics with whom we are failing miserably to
communicate. In 2000, I had a discussion (some of it public, a great deal
private) with a collector concerning the relationship between professional
archaeologists and the collecting public (Watkins, 2000). The collectors
response, printed initially in the Summer 2000 edition of the Ohio Archaeologist (Fenn, 2000) and later posted on the Friends of Americas Past
website (http://www.friendsofpast.org/forum/mother.html), raised some
important issues that we as archaeologists should take to heart concerning
our inability to communicate with a large public. Most importantly, in my
opinion, Mr Fenn noted that state and federal governments spend millions
of taxpayers [sic] dollars to survey, excavate, protect, preserve, conserve, and
curate the archaeology of the United States. What does the average
American citizen get for his money? Most of the results appear as unpublished contract reports written in an oppressive technical jargon that the
public cannot decipher (Fenn, 2000, online version at http://www.friendsofpast.org/forum/mother.html).
Although I still disagree with Mr Fenn on many issues, we do agree on
this one: the average American citizen is getting short-changed in the way
we present the results of public-funded archaeology to them, and we are
not getting any better at doing so, in spite of our years of practice.

WORD SMITHING
Brian Fagan is one of the finest archaeologists I know regarding presenting
information to the public. He does so in such an easy, captivating manner
that the reader learns something without realizing it. I use one of his textbooks in an introductory archaeology class, and find that my students read
ahead without me having to force them to do so. Fagan uses words much
the same way that a novelist would and keeps his readers captivated by the
story, and not merely by reciting dry, dusty facts. Fagan (2002: 5) says:
Success in the future will depend on communicating with very different
audiences, especially those with no background in archaeology whatsoever.
He later writes: above all, we have to realize that the best archaeology is
written in fluent, jargon-free prose that makes people want to learn about

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

the past, not avoid it because it is incomprehensible (Fagan, 2002: 7,

emphasis in original).
The written word is perhaps our most potent weapon in the battle to
protect our cultural heritage, and yet we are poorly prepared to communicate our ideas, thoughts and passions to those who can better help us. We
have so many publics to reach, so many people who want to help, who
understand why we do the things we do, and the stories we can give them,
but we are failing to reach them. It is up to us to come to grips with the
issues inherent in inter-cultural communication and to become more adept
at getting our point across. Our discipline depends on our ability to do so.

Acknowledgements
The nucleus of this article was presented at a public lecture at Washington State
University in 2003; I wish to thank Brenda Bowser, Mary Collins and Bill Lipe for
discussions relating to this topic resulting from that presentation. I also wish to
thank Brian Fagan for his comments on an early version of this article. Special
thanks go to Carol Ellick for conversations that helped strengthen and focus the
thoughts that form the nucleus of this article. Any mistakes of fact, lapses in
judgment, or jumps in logic, however, are entirely my own.

References
Aplin, G. (2002) Heritage Identification, Conservation, and Management.
Melbourne: Oxford Press.
Arnold, B. (1990) The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi
Germany, Antiquity 64: 46478.
Begay, R. (2004) Ts Byah Aniih: Chaco Canyon and its Place in Navajo
History, in D.G. Noble (ed.) In Search of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, pp. 5560. Santa Fe: SAR Press.
Bender, S.J. and G. Smith, eds (2000) Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First
Century. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Castaeda, Q. (2002) Ethics and Intervention in Yucatec Maya Archaeology: Past
and Present (consulted July 2005): http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Castaneda.html
Cocom, J.C. (2002) Privilege and Ethics in Archaeology: The Experience as Fiction
(consulted July 2005): http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Cocom.html
Cohodas, M. (2002) Toward a More Ethical Mayanist Archaeology (consulted July
2005): http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Introduction.html
Cojt Cuxil, D. (2002) Mayanist Archaeology and Maya Patrimony (consulted July
2005): http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/CojtiCuxil.html
Cojt Ren, A. (2002) Maya Archaeology and the Political and Cultural Identity of
Contemporary Maya People (consulted July 2005): http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/
CojtiRen.html
Conkey, M. and J. Gero (1997) Program to Practice: Gender and Feminism in
Archaeology, Annual Reviews of Anthropology 26: 41137.
Conkey, M. and J. Specter (1984) Archaeology and the Study of Gender, Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 138.

115

116

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

Cordell, L. (1980) Prehistory: Eastern Anasazi, in A. Ortiz (ed.) Southwest, Vol. 9.
Handbook of North American Indians, pp. 13151. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Cordell, L. (1997) Archaeology of the Southwest. San Diego: Academic Press.
Deloria,V. Jr. (1995) Red Earth,White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact. New York: Scribner and Sons.
Ellick, C.J. (2001) What Happened to the Anasazi?, in B. Fagan (ed.) The Seventy
Great Mysteries of the Ancient World, pp. 2868. London: Thames & Hudson.
Elliot, C., R.J. Adams and S. Sockalingham (1999) Toolkit for Cross-Cultural
Collaboration (consulted July 2005): http://www.awesomelibrary.org/
multiculturaltoolkit.html
Fagan, B. (2000) Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent, rev. edn.
New York: Thames and Hudson.
Fagan, B. (2002) Im so Tired of Jargon and Narrow Teaching . . ., SAA Archaeological Record 2(2): 57.
Fagan, B. (2004) The Great Journey, rev. edn. Gainesville: University Presses of
Florida.
Fenn, F. (2000) The Mother of Indiana Jones (A Collector Strikes Back) (consulted
July 2005): http://www.friendsofpast.org/forum/mother.html.
Fladmark, K. (1979) Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North
America, American Antiquity 44: 5569.
Fowler, D.D. (1987) Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State,
American Antiquity 52(2): 22948.
Gero, J. and M. Conkey, eds (1991) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gerstenblith, P. (2002) Cultural Significance and the Kennewick Skeleton: Some
Theories on the Resolution of Cultural Heritage Disputes, in E. Barkan and R.
Bush (eds) Claiming the Stones, Naming the Bones: Cultural Property and the
Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity, pp. 16297. Los Angeles: Getty
Research Institute.
Gudykunst, W.B., ed. (2005) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Harding, S. (1999) Value, Obligation and Cultural Heritage, Arizona State Law
Journal 31(2): 291354.
Haynes, C.V. (1969) The Earliest Americans, Science (7 Nov.): 70915.
Hodder, I. (1982) Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuwanwisiwma, L.J. (2004) Yupkyvi: The Hopi Story of Chaco Canyon, in D.G.
Noble (ed.) In Search of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma,
pp. 417. Santa Fe: SAR Press.
Lauber, P. (2003) Who Came First? New Clues to Prehistoric Americans. Washington, DC: National Geographic.
Lepper, B.T. and R. Bonnichsen (2004) New Perspectives on the First Americans.
College Station, TX: Center for the Study of the First Americans.
Lipe, W.D. (2004) The Mesa Verde Region: Chacos Northern Neighbor, in D.G.
Noble (ed.) In Search of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma,
pp. 10715. Santa Fe: SAR Press.
Lopez, L. (2002) The Protection of Indigenous Peoples Knowledge (consulted July
2005): http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Lopez.html

Watkins

Communicating archaeology

McGuire, R. (1992) Archeology and the First Americans, American Anthropologist 94(4): 81636.
Meskell, L. (2001) Archaeologies of Identity, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological
Theory Today, pp. 187213. Oxford and Malden, MA: Polity Press and
Blackwell.
Mihesuah, D.A. (1996) American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences, American Indian Quarterly
20(2): 22950.
Mills, B. (2004) Key Debates in Chacoan Archaeology, in D.G. Noble (ed.) In
Search of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, pp. 12330.
Santa Fe: SAR Press.
Mish, F.C., ed. (2003) Merriam-Websters New Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edn.
Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Incorporated.
Neves W.A. and H.M. Pucciarelli (1991) Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: An Exploratory Analysis Based on Early South American Human
Remains, Journal of Human Evolution 21: 26173.
Orwell, G.H. (1949) 1984. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Owsley, D. and R. Jantz (2002) Kennewick Man A Kin? Too Distant, in E. Barkan
and R. Bush (eds) Claiming the Stones, Naming the Bones: Cultural Property and
the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity, pp. 14161. Los Angeles, CA:
Getty Research Institute.
Pardoe, C. (1992) Arches of Radii, Corridors of Power: Reflections on Current
Archaeological Practice, in B. Attwood and J. Arnolds (eds) Power, Knowledge
and Aborigines, pp. 13241. Bundoora, Victoria: La Trobe University Press.
Ponte, L. (1999a) Politically Incorrect Genocide, Part One (consulted July 2005):
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=2658
Ponte, L. (1999b) Politically Incorrect Genocide, Part Two (consulted July 2005):
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=2659
Rincon, P. (2004) Tribe Challenges American Origins, BBC News Online (consulted
July 2005): http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3634544.stm
Sebastian, L. (2004) Understanding Chacoan Society, in D.G. Noble (ed.) In Search
of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, pp. 939. Santa Fe:
SAR Press.
Stanford, D. and B. Bradley (2000) The Solutrean Solution, Scientific American
Discovering Archaeology 2(1): 545.
Stanford, D. and B. Bradley (2002) Ocean Trails and Prairie Paths: Thoughts About
Clovis Origins, in N.G. Jablonski (ed.) The First Americans: The Pleistocene
Colonization of the New World, Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences
No. 27, pp. 25571. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Storti, C. and L. Bennhold-Samaan (1997) Culture Matters: The Peace Corps CrossCultural Workbook. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Online
(consulted July 2005): http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/culturematters/index.html
Strauss, L.G. (2000) Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality,
American Antiquity 65(2): 21926.
Sucec, R. (1997) Telling the Whole Story, Common Ground: Archaeology and
Ethnography in the Public Interest 2(3/4): 514.
Swentzell, R. (2004) A Pueblo Womans Perspective on Chaco Canyon, in D.G.
Noble (ed.) In Search of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma,
pp. 4853. Santa Fe: SAR Press.

117

118

Journal of Social Archaeology 6(1)

Thomas, D.H. (2000) Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for
Native American Identity. New York: Basic Books.
Timothy, D.J. and S.W. Boyd (2003) Heritage Tourism. London: Pearson Education
Limited/Prentice Hall.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005) Identity Negotiation Theory: Crossing Cultural Boundaries, in W.B. Gundykunst (ed.) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication,
pp. 21133. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trigger, B. (1980) Archeology and the Image of the American Indian, American
Antiquity 45(4): 66276.
Trigger, B. (1986) Prehistoric Archaeology and American Society: An Historical
Perspective, in D.J. Meltzer, D.D. Fowler and J.A. Sabloff (eds) American
Archaeology, Past and Future, pp. 187215. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.
Trigger, B. (2003) Artifacts and Ideas: Essays in Archaeology. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Vivian, R.G. (2004) Puebloan Farmers of the Chacoan World, in D.G. Noble (ed.)
In Search of Chaco, New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, pp. 713.
Santa Fe: SAR Press.
Watkins, J. (2000) Salvaging our Ethics, Anthropology News 41(3): 267.
Watkins, J. (2005) Heritage at Issue: Whos Right and Whose Right?, International
Journal of Cultural Property 12: 117.
Watkins, J. and T.J. Ferguson (2005) Working with Indigenous Peoples, in H.D.G.
Maschner (ed.) Handbook of Archaeological Methods, pp. 13711405. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Watkins, J., K.A. Pyburn and P. Cressey (2000) Community Relations: What the
Practicing Archaeologist Needs to Know to Work Effectively with Local and/or
Descendant Communities, in S.J. Bender and G. Smith (eds) Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-first Century, pp. 7381. Washington, DC: Society for
American Archaeology.
Willey, G.R. and J.A. Sabloff (1993) A History of American Archaeology, 3rd edn.
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Wylie, A. (2005) The Promise and Perils of an Ethic of Stewardship, in L. Meskell
and P. Pels (eds) Embedding Ethics: Shifting Boundaries of the Anthropological
Profession, pp. 4768. London: Berg Press.
Yoffee, N. (2001) Chaco Rituality Revisited, in L. Cordell, W.J. Judge and J. Piper
(eds) Chaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999 Conference, pp. 6378.
New Mexico Archaeological Council Special Publication 4. Albuquerque: New
Mexico Archaeological Council.

JOE E. WATKINS, Choctaw Indian and archaeologist (Associate

Professor of Anthropology, University of New Mexico), researches the
ethical practice of anthropology and its relationships with aboriginal
populations. His book Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values
and Scientific Practice (AltaMira Press, 2000) is in its second printing; his
latest book, Sacred Sites and Repatriation (Chelsea House Publishers), has
just been released.
[email: jwatkins@unm.edu]