Advertisement

I ♥ Archaeology

An Experiment in Appreciative Inquiry
  • John R. WelchEmail author
Chapter
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

This application of appreciative inquiry, a mode of deliberation that encourages purposeful identification of the best the world has to offer, singles out six loveworthy attributes of archaeology. Archaeology is both utterly distinctive and wildly diverse, allowing practitioners to define their own unique professional path. Archaeology has matured to become extroverted, inclusive, and increasingly proactive, a quintessentially social and often outwardly focused humanistic science. Archaeology is still becoming and reinventing itself, developing in dynamic and constructive response to stimuli from within and well beyond disciplinary boundaries. Archaeology has consolidated modest shares of power and credibility with governments and industry leaders, allowing archaeologists to collaborate and advocate, often with significant effect, on behalf of threatened places and associated belongings, traditions, and communities. Archaeology is almost universally loved, endowing practitioners with the enormous privilege of inspirational exchanges with individual and collective imaginations and of public confidence and resulting social and political licenses to operate. Finally, despite all of these extraordinary advantages, archaeology is typically humble, grounded in uncertainty, and cognizant of its own limitations without ceding its powers and capacities to discover, reveal, connect, safeguard, and inspire. These six lovable attributes, and the archaeologists who do so much loving of, in, and through their work, position archaeologists to guide and be guided by our diverse clientele—real and potential audiences of people who care about the past as prologue, as refuge, as inspiration, as data, as cautionary tale, or as some combination. Keeping eyes, minds, arms, and hearts open to possibilities for unanticipated ways of seeing, knowing, and collaborating—a discipline dependent as much on relaxation as on rigor—opens archaeology to the benefits of humankind’s most potent ally, positive affect.

Keywords

Love Appreciative inquiry Archaeology Archaeological practice Personal archaeology 

References

  1. Agbe-Davies, A. S. (2010). An engaged archaeology for our mutual benefit: The case of New Philadelphia. Historical Archaeology, 44(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Anthropological Association. (2018). Field school opportunities. http://www.americananthro.org/LearnAndTeach/ResourceDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=12949
  3. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atalay, S., Clauss, L. R., McGuire, R. H., & Welch, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baxter, J. E. (2009). Archaeological field schools: A guide for teaching in the field. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bushe, G. R. (2012). Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In D. Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 87–103). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Canuto, M.-A., & Yaeger, J. (Eds.). (2000). Archaeology of communities: A new world perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Chandler, S. (2017). Comments on environmental and social framework draft guidance notes for borrowers. International Government Affairs Committee, Society for American Archaeology, 13 December 2017. http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/GovernmentAffairs/GUIDANCE_NOTES_COMMENTS_FINAL.pdf
  9. Doelle, W. H. (2012). What is preservation archaeology? Archaeology Southwest, 26(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
  10. Ferris, N., & Welch, J. R. (2014). Beyond archaeological agendas: In the Service of a Sustainable Archaeology. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. R. Welch (Eds.), Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects (pp. 215–237). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  11. Greer, S., Harrison, R., & McIntyre-Tamwoy, S. (2002). Community-based archaeology in Australia. World Archaeology, 34(2), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hogg, E. A., Welch, J. R., & Ferris, N. (2017). Full spectrum archaeology. Archaeologies, 12, 1–26.Google Scholar
  13. Hutchings, R. M., & Dent, J. (2017). Archaeology and the late modern state: Introduction to the special issue. Archaeologies, 13(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, M. (2014). Lives in ruins: Archaeologists and the seductive lure of human rubble. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  15. Little, B. J. (Ed.). (2002). Public benefits of archaeology. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  16. Little, B. J., & Shackel, P. (Eds.). (2007). Archaeology as a tool of civic engagement. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lyons, N. (2013). Where the wind blows us: Practicing critical community archaeology in the Canadian North. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lyons, N., Schaepe, D. M., Hennessy, K., Blake, M., Pennier, C., McIntosh, K., Phillips, A., Welch, J. R., Charlie, B., Hall, C., Hall, L., Point, A., Pennier, V., Phillips, R., Williams, J., Jr., Williams, J., Sr., Chapman, J., & Pennier, C. (2016). Sharing deep history as digital knowledge: An ontology of the Sq’éwlets website project. Journal of Social Archaeology, 16(3), 359–384.Google Scholar
  19. McAtackney, L., & Ryzewski, K. (Eds.). (2017). Contemporary archaeology and the city: Creativity, ruination, and political action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mills, B. J., Altaha, M., Welch, J. R., & Ferguson, T. J. (2008). Field schools without trowels: Teaching archaeological ethics and heritage preservation in a collaborative context. In S. W. Silliman (Ed.), Collaborating at the Trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology (pp. 25–49). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sabloff, J. (2008). Archaeology matters: Action archaeology in the modern world. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  23. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2017). The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 256–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaepe, D. (2007). Personal communication to Welch. Vancouver.Google Scholar
  25. Schaepe, D., Angelbeck, B., Snook, D., & Welch, J. R. (2017). Archaeology as therapy: Connecting belongings, knowledge, time, place, and well-being. Current Anthropology, 58(4), 502–533.Google Scholar
  26. Shaw, J. (2016). Archaeology, climate change and environmental ethics: Diachronic perspectives on human: Non-human : Environment worldviews, activism and care. World Archaeology, 48, 449–465.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2016.1326754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silliman, S. W. (Ed.). (2008). Collaborating at the Trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wang, S., & Zhao, X. (2013). Re-evaluating the silk Road’s Qinghai route using dendrochronology. Dendrochronologia, 31(1), 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Welch, J. R. (2000). The White Mountain Apache Tribe heritage program: Origins, operations, and challenges. In K. E. Dongoske, M. Aldenderfer, & K. Doehner (Eds.), Working together: Native Americans and archaeologists (pp. 67–83). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
  30. Welch, J. R. (2015). The last archaeologist to (almost) Abandon Grasshopper. Arizona Anthropologist (Centennial Edition), 107–119. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XkNrK4Tk2I0J:https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/arizanthro/article/download/18856/18499+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
  31. Welch, J. R. (2017, October–December). Earth, wind, and fire: Pinal Apaches, miners, and genocide in Central Arizona, 1859–1874. Sage Open, 1–19. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017747016
  32. Welch, J. R., & Ferris, N. (2014). ‘We have met the enemy and it is us’: Improving archaeology through application of sustainable design principles. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. R. Welch (Eds.), Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects (pp. 91–113). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  33. Welch, J. R., & Lilley, I. (2013). Beyond the equator (principles): Community benefit sharing in relation to major land alteration projects and associated intellectual property issues in cultural heritage. Report on a forum at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 5 April 2013, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. International Journal of Cultural Property, 20(4), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Welch, J. R., Altaha, M. K., Hoerig, K. A., & Riley, R. (2009). Best Cultural Heritage Stewardship Practices by and for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 11(2), 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wylie, A. (2005). The promise and perils of an ethic of stewardship. In L. Meskell & P. Pells (Eds.), Beyond ethics: Anthropological moralities on the boundaries of the public and the professional (pp. 47–68). London: Berg Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser University and Archaeology SouthwestBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations