Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 371–399 | Cite as

Different Roles, Diverse Goals: Understanding Stakeholder and Archaeologists Positions in Community-Based Projects

  • Katie ShakourEmail author
  • Ian Kuijt
  • Tommy Burke
Research

Abstract

Scholars have discussed the diverse and heterogeneous nature of people that comprise communities in community-based research (McManamon in Am Antiq 56(1):121–130, 1991; Marshall in World Archaeol 34(2):211–219, 2002; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson, in Scarre, Scarre, (eds) The ethics of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 115–130, 2006; Pyburn, in Okamura, Matuda, (eds) New perspectives in global public archaeology, Springer, New York, pp 29–41, 2011: 31). The divisions within stakeholder groups are highly complex and merit more discussions. By considering community interests and needs, as well as that of different stakeholders, on a case-by-case basis we break down the term community to demonstrate a need for localized approaches to community-based research. Further we discuss some of the differential relationships within community archaeology and roles dictated by legislative requirements and other necessities. Through a community-based research project case study on Inishark and Inishbofin, County Galway Ireland, islands about five miles into the Atlantic Ocean, we explore the different stakeholder groups that comprise island community and the important role archaeologists play in the community-based research.

Key Words

Ireland Stakeholder roles Community archaeology Community-based research 

Résumé

Les chercheurs se sont penchés sur la nature diverse et hétérogène des populations composant les communautés dans le cadre de la recherche communautaire (McManamon 1991; Marshall 2002: 216; Colwell-Chanthaphonh et Ferguson 2006; Pyburn 2011: 31). Les divisions au sein des groupes de parties prenantes sont extrêmement complexes et méritent de plus amples discussions. En prenant en compte les intérêts et besoins d’une communauté, ainsi que ceux de différentes parties prenantes sur une base au cas par cas, nous analysons le terme de communauté afin de démontrer la nécessité d’approches localisées à l’appui d’une recherche communautaire. Nous discutons par ailleurs de certaines des relations différentielles au sein de l’archéologie communautaire et des rôles imposés par les exigences législatives et d’autres impératifs. Par le biais d’une étude de cas pour un projet de recherche communautaire situé à Inishark et Inishbofin, dans le comté de Galway en Irlande, qui sont des îles se trouvant à environ huit kilomètres au large de l’Océan Atlantique, nous explorons les différents groupes de parties prenantes composant la communauté insulaire et le rôle important assumé par les archéologues dans la recherche communautaire.

Resumen

Los académicos han discutido la naturaleza diversa y heterogénea de las personas que comprenden comunidades en la investigación basada en la comunidad (McManamon 1991; Marshall 2002: 216; Colwell-Chanthaphonh y Ferguson 2006; Pyburn 2011: 31). Las divisiones dentro de los grupos de partes interesadas son muy complejas y merecen más discusión. Al considerar los intereses y necesidades de la comunidad, así como los de los diferentes interesados, caso por caso, desglosamos el término comunidad para demostrar la necesidad de enfoques localizados para la investigación basada en la comunidad. Además, discutimos algunas de las relaciones diferenciales dentro de la arqueología comunitaria y los roles dictados por los requisitos legislativos y otras necesidades. A través de un estudio de caso de un proyecto de investigación basado en la comunidad en Inishark e Inishbofin, en el condado de Galway, Irlanda, que son islas a unas cinco millas mar adentro del Océano Atlántico, exploramos los diferentes grupos de partes interesadas que comprenden la comunidad isleña y el importante papel que juegan los arqueólogos en la investigación basada en la comunidad.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Meredith Chesson and Bonnie Clark for organizing the conference session that prompted this article. Additionally, we thank Audrey Horning for her insightful comments during the writing of this article. Finally, we thank the people of Inishark and Inishbofin, especially the Murray, Lacey, Burke, Prendergast, Coyne, Concannon, Gavin, Day, Lavelle, and Halloran families. They have shared their islands and heritage with us, and this project would not be possible without their support.

References

  1. Atalay, S. (2007). Global application of indigenous archaeology: Community based participatory research in Turkey. Archaeologies,3(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C. (2016). Community archaeology: More questions than answers. Archaeology Ireland,30(3), 37–40.Google Scholar
  4. Bald, W. (1816). Map of Mayo: Inishbofin and Inishshark. Sheet 21.Google Scholar
  5. Biagi, P., et al. (1984). Qurum: A case study of coastal archaeology in Northern Oman. World Archaeology,16(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breen, C. (2012). Dunluce castle: History and archaeology. Dublin: Four Courts Press.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, S. (2012). Community archaeology as knowledge management: Reflections from Uneapa Island, Papua New Guinea. Public Archaeology,11(1), 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Census. (2011). Census 2011 results for County Galway. Dublin: Central Statistics Office.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, H., & Croucher, K. (2012). Field schools, transferable skills and enhancing employability. In H. Mytum (Ed.), Global perspectives on archaeological field schools (pp. 25–40). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., & Ferguson, T. J. (2006). Trust and archaeological practice: Towards a framework of virtue ethics. In C. Scarre & G. Scarre (Eds.), The ethics of archaeology: Philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice (pp. 115–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., & Ferguson, T. J. (2010). Intersecting magisteria: Bridging archaeological science and traditional knowledge. Journal of Social Archaeology,10(3), 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., et al. (2010). The premise and promise of indigenous archaeology. American Antiquity,75(2), 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Concannon, K. (Ed.). (1993). Inishbofin through time and tide. Inishbofin Development Association.Google Scholar
  14. Cooney, G. (1996). Building the future on the past: Archaeology and the construction of national identity in Ireland. In M. Diaz-Andreu & T. Champion (Eds.), Nationalism and archaeology in Europe (pp. 146–163). New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dalglish, C. (Ed.). (2013). Archaeology, the public and the recent past. Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
  16. Davidson, A. (Ed.). (2002). The coastal archaeology of Wales. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
  17. Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. (2013). National monuments service managing and protecting Ireland’s archaeological heritage. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  18. Donnelly, C. J., & Horning, A. J. (2002). Post-medieval and industrial archaeology in Ireland: An overview. Antiquity,76(292), 557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doyle, I. W. (2018). Community archaeology in Ireland: Less mitigator, more mediator? In V. Apaydin (Ed.), Shared knowledge, shared power (pp. 45–59). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. R. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe (pp. 129–137). London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  21. Edgeworth, M. (2006). Ethnographies of archaeological practice: Cultural encounters, material transformations. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  22. Forsythe, W. (2013). The measure and materiality of improvement in Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology,17, 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franklin, M. E., & Moe, J. M. (2012). A vision for archaeological literacy. In R. Skeates, C. McDavid, & J. Carman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public archaeology (pp. 556–580). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Government of Ireland. (1930). National Monuments Act, 1930, No 2, Irish Statute Book. Accessed May 15, 2019, from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1930/en/act/pub/0002/print.html.
  25. Hamilakis, Y., & Anagnostopoulos, A. (2009). What is archaeological ethnography? Public Archaeology,8(2–3), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horning, A. (2013). Politics, publics, and professional pragmatics: Re-envisioning archaeological practice in Northern Ireland. In C. Dalglish (Ed.), Archaeology, the public and the recent past (pp. 95–110). Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
  27. Horning, A. (2017). Crossing the battlefield archaeology, nationalism, and practice in Irish Historical Archaeology. In A. Brooks & N. Mehler (Eds.), The country where my heart is: Historical archaeologies of nationalism and national identity (pp. 172–201). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  28. Horning, A., & Brannon, N. (2012). Irish archaeology 25 years on—Upwards, downwards and onwards. Archaeology Ireland,26(2), 11–14.Google Scholar
  29. Isherwood, R. (2011). Community archaeology: Conceptual and political issues. In G. Moshenska & S. Dhanjal (Eds.), Community archaeology: Themes methods and practices (pp. 6–17). Oxford: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jameson, J. H., Jr. (1997). Presenting archaeology to the public: Digging for truths. Walnut Creek: Altamira.Google Scholar
  31. Jameson, J. H., Jr. (2004). Public archaeology in the United States Public Archaeology. In N. Merriman (Ed.), Public archaeology (pp. 35–72). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, M., & Simpson, B. (2013). Public engagement at prestongrange: Reflections on a community project. In C. Dalglish (Ed.), Archaeology, the public and the recent past (pp. 55–64). Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
  33. Kador, T. (2014). Public and community archaeology—An Irish perspective. In S. Thomas & J. Lea (Eds.), Public participation in archaeology (pp. 34–47). Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
  34. Kelleher, O. (2014). Western off-shore islands fight loss of community funding. Irish Times. Nov 17, 2014.Google Scholar
  35. Kelly, E. P. (1994). Protecting Ireland’s archaeological heritage. International Journal of Cultural Property,3(2), 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy, B. P. (1990). Dreams and responsibilities: The arts in independent Ireland. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  37. Kluth, R., & Munnell, K. (1997). The integration of tradition and scientific knowledge on the Leech Lake Reservation. In N. Swidler, K. Dongoski, R. Anyon, & A. Downer (Eds.), Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground (pp. 112–119). Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kuijt, I., et al. (2011). Reconsidering early medieval seascapes: New insights from Western Ireland. Journal of Irish Archaeology,19, 51–71.Google Scholar
  39. Kuijt, I., et al. (2015). Vectors of improvement: The material footprint of nineteenth-through twentieth-century Irish National Policy, Inishark, County Galway, Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology,19(1), 122–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lash, R. (2018). Pebbles and Peregrinatio: The taskscape of medieval devotion on Inishark Island, Ireland. Medieval Archaeology,62(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liddle, P., & Southworth, E. (1989). Community archaeology in Leicestershire museums. In E. Southworth (Ed.), Public service and private indulgence? The museum archaeologist 13 (pp. 44–46). Liverpool: Society of Museum Archaeologists.Google Scholar
  42. Little, B. J. (2012). Public benefits of public archaeology. In R. Skeates, C. McDavid, & J. Carman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public archaeology (pp. 213–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lyons, N., & Blair, S. (2018). Looking both ways at community-oriented archaeologies in Canada. Canadian Journal of Archaeology,42(1), 172–183.Google Scholar
  44. Marshall, Y. (2002). What is community archaeology? World Archaeology,34(2), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCutcheon, C., & Meenan, R. (2011). Pots on the hearth: Domestic pottery in historic Ireland. In Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature (pp, 91–113).Google Scholar
  46. McGhee, F. L. (2012). Participatory action research and archaeology. In R. Skeates, C. McDavid, & J. Carman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public archaeology (pp. 213–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. McGuire, R. (2008). Archaeology as political action. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. McKinnon, J., Mushynsky, J., & Cabrera, G. (2014). A fluid sea in the Mariana Islands: Community archaeology and mapping the seascape of Saipan. Journal of Maritime Archaeology,9(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McManamon, F. P. (1991). The many publics for archaeology. American Antiquity,56(1), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore, J. D., & Gasco, J. L. (1990). Perishable structures and serial dwellings from coastal Chiapas: Implications for the archaeology of households. Ancient Mesoamerica,1(2), 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moser, S., et al. (2002). Transforming archaeology through practice: Strategies for collaborative archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeology,34(2), 220–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Monuments Service. (2019a). Archaeology Survey of Ireland SMR Database.Google Scholar
  53. National Monuments Service. (2019b). NMS 1-2019 Excavation License Application Form.Google Scholar
  54. Nevell, M. (2013). Archaeology for all: Managing expectations and learning from the past for the future—The Dig Manchester community archaeology experience. In C. Dalglish (Ed.), Archaeology, the public and the recent past (pp. 65–75). Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
  55. Norton, J., & Lane, S. (2007). Clay tobacco-pipes in Ireland, c. 1600–1850. In A. Horning, R. Ó’Baoill, C. Donnelly, & P. Logue (Eds.), The Post-Medieval Archaeology of Ireland, 1550–1850 (pp. 435–452). Dublin: Wordwell Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ordnance Survey Map of Ireland. 1838. Map. Ordnance Survey of Ireland. Dublin.Google Scholar
  57. Ordnance Survey Map of Ireland. 1898. Map. Ordnance Survey of Ireland. Dublin.Google Scholar
  58. Orser, C. E., Jr. (2005). Symbolic violence, resistance and the vectors of improvement in early nineteenth-century Ireland. World Archaeology,37, 392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oswald, A. (2007). Involving the community in field survey. The Archaeologist,63, 20–21.Google Scholar
  60. Preucel, R. W., & Cipolla, C. N. (2008). Indigenous and postcolonial archaeologies. In M. Leibmann (Ed.), Archaeology and the postcolonial critique (pp. 129–140). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  61. Prossor, L., Lawrence, S., Brooks, A., & Lennon, J. (2012). Household archaeology, lifecycles and status in a nineteenth-century Australian coastal community. International Journal of Historical Archaeology,16(4), 809–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pyburn, K. A. (2008). The pageantry of archaeology. In Q. Castaneda & C. Matthews (Eds.), Ethnographic archaeologies: Reflections on stakeholders and archaeological practices (pp. 139–156). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  63. Pyburn, K. A. (2011). Engaged archaeology: Whose community? Which public? In K. Okamura & A. Matuda (Eds.), New perspectives in global public archaeology (pp. 29–41). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Quinn, C. P., et al. (2019). Along the margins? The later bronze age seascapes of Western Ireland. European Journal of Archaeology,22(1), 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rathbone, S. (2010). Booley Houses, Hafods and Sheilings: A comparative study of transhumant settlements in and around the Northern Basin of the Irish Sea. In A. Horning & N. Brannon (Eds.), Ireland and Britain in the Atlantic World (pp. 111–129). Dublin: Wordwell.Google Scholar
  66. Roche, N. (2007). The manufacture and use of glass in post-medieval Ireland. In A. Horning, R. Ó’Baoill, C. Donnelly, & P. Logue (Eds.), The Post-Medieval Archaeology of Ireland, 1550–1850 (pp. 405–420). Dublin: Wordwell Press.Google Scholar
  67. Shackel, P. A. (2002). Broadening the interpretations of the past at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. In B. Little (Ed.), Public benefits of archaeology (pp. 157–166). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  68. Silliman, S. W., & Ferguson, T. J. (2010). Consultation and collaboration with descendant communities. In W. Ashmore, D. Lippert, & B. Mills (Eds.), Voices in American archaeology (pp. 48–72). Washington: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
  69. Simpson, F. (2009). Evaluating the value of community archaeology: The XArch Project. Treballs d’Arqueologia,15, 51–62.Google Scholar
  70. Simpson, F., & Williams, H. (2008). Evaluating community archaeology in the UK. Public Archaeology,7(2), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, L., Morgan, A., & Van der Meer, A. (2003). Community-driven research in cultural heritage management: The Waanyi women’s history project. International Journal of Heritage Studies,9(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tully, G. (2007). Community archaeology: General methods and standards of practice. Public Archaeology,6(3), 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Venn, J., & Venn, J. A. (eds.). (1922–1958). Browne, George. Alumni Cantabrigienses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Zimmerman, L. J. (1997). Remythologizing the relationship between Indians and archaeologists. In N. Swidler, K. Dongoske, R. Anyon, & A. Downer (Eds.), Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground (pp. 44–56). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anthropology DepartmentUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.University of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  3. 3.InishbofinIreland

Personalised recommendations