Society for American Archaeology 2012 77th

Annual Meeting, Memphis, TN

Session: Lessons from the Trenches: The Pedagogy of Archaeology and Heritage A CASE FOR INCORPORATING ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODS IN GRADUATE ARCHAEOLOGY CURRICULA

Rebecca K. Zarger and Thomas J. Pluckhahn Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave, SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 Archaeologists have increasingly turned to ethnography as a tool for understanding the contemporary social context of material culture and archaeological practice. This work has produced significant insights, demonstrating the potential for research and collaboration at the interface of the two sub-disciplines. However, much of the research has relied on a limited range of ethnographic methods. We suggest that archaeologists working in this area would benefit from using a wider repertoire of ethnographic data collection tools and provide some suggestions for relevant approaches. In the long term, the most effective and far-reaching solution may be to require, or at least encourage, ethnographic methods training for graduate students in archaeology.

Over the past two decades, as the contemporary social context of their work has become

increasingly difficult to ignore or take for granted, archaeologists have turned more and more to

ethnography as a methodological and conceptual tool for understanding and improving the manner

in which their work is approached and apprehended by non-specialists. Of course, the use of

ethnography by archaeologists is not new; ethnoarchaeology emerged as a distinct field of study

during the processual heyday of the 1960s and continues as an active area of research. Beginning

with the ascendancy of postprocessual approaches in the 1990s, however, a new strand of

ethnographic research emerged in archaeology (e.g, Abu el-Haj 2001; Bartu 2000; Breglia 2006b;

Castañeda 1996; Edgeworth 1991, 2003; Handler and Gable 1997). In contrast with the generally

positivist and uniformitarian assumptions of ethnoarchaeology, these studies are founded in a desire

for a reflexive, self-critical understanding of archaeological practice. Most of this work could be

broadly categorized as a form of public archaeology, although a variety of related, finer taxonomic

categories have been proposed, including “community” (Marshall 2002, 2009; Tully 2007),

“engaged” (Little 2007) and “ethnocritical” (Lightfoot 1998) archaeologies, among others. Most

recently, the terms “archaeological ethnography” and “ethnographies of archaeology”1 have gained

greater currency and have arguably emerged as a distinct field of inquiry (Castañeda and Matthews

2008; Edgeworth 2006; Hollowell and Mortensen 2009; Hollowell and Nicholas 2008; Meskell 2005,

2007). Various definitions have been offered (for examples, see Castañeda 2008; Castañeda and

Matthews 2008:5-6; Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos 2009:66) but perhaps the simplest is best;

Hollowell and Mortensen (2009:7) succinctly describe archaeological ethnography as “the

implications of archaeologized places, pasts, and ideas for others, and how people make these things

their own.”

We come to this body of work from differing, but complementary perspectives. Zarger, a

cultural anthropologist whose research focuses on environmental knowledge and practice in

Q’eqchi’ and Mopan Maya communities in Belize, currently works with archaeologists on a

collaborative research project investigating long-term change in human-environment relationships in

southern Belize. In addition to the ethnographic components of the project, since 2006 she and

collaborators work closely with a community-based organization (Uchb’enka K’in Ahaw Association

[UKAA]) that serves as liason between the Mopan Maya community at the archaeological site and

the project. She and her students are incorporating the results of research into an environmental

and cultural heritage curriculum, radio show, and interpretive botanical trail (Toledo Environmental

and Cultural Heritage Alliance [TEACHA]). She also regularly teaches a Research Methods in

Applied Anthropology course, required for sociocultural graduate students in the M.A. and Ph.D.

programs at the University of South Florida.

Pluckhahn is an archaeologist with a research focus in the southeastern U.S., whose current

NSF-funded project at the famous Crystal River site in Florida has a significant public component.

He regularly teaches a seminar in Public Archaeology, a required course for the Ph.D. in

Anthropology and the M.A. in Public Archaeology at the University of South Florida (the latter,

having started in 1974, is the oldest such program in the country). Both this course and the broader

program in which it is housed were originally conceived mainly in terms of CRM, conservation, and

public education—in the sense of public archaeology described in seminal works by McGimsey

(1972) and Davis (1972). However, the focus has steadily shifted to a broader understanding of

public archaeology, incorporating considerable reading and directed work in the vein of

ethnographic archaeology and its kin.

Our engagement with the literature on archaeological ethnography has provided valuable

insights for our work and that of our students. We agree with Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos

(2009:66) that the merging of ethnographic and archaeological practices has the potential to “explore

the contemporary relevance and meaning of the material past for diverse publics, the politics of

archaeological practice, and the claims and contestations involving past material traces and

landscapes.” However, in our own readings, as well as in class discussions, we have also noted some

challenges in this emerging body of literature; specifically: ethnographic sample sizes are small,

methods are rarely specified, and a limited range of ethnographic methods are employed. In this

paper, we briefly explore some of these issues. We suggest that archaeologists working in this area

would benefit from using a wider repertoire of ethnographic data collection tools and provide some

suggestions for relevant approaches. In the long term, the most effective and far-reaching solution

may be to require, or at least encourage, ethnographic methods training for graduate students in

archaeology.

To provide a more systematic foundation for our impressions regarding the ways methods

and practice of ethnographic archaeology are typically approached, we assembled a sample of 15

recent works (Table 1). Our sample is drawn primarily from several recent edited volumes appearing

under this title (Edgeworth, ed., 2006; Mortensen and Hollowell, eds. 2009), as well as a 2009 special

issue of the journal Public Archaeology. We included case studies in ethnographic archaeology, while

omitting programmatic statements and general syntheses (e.g., Bateman 2006; Cartman 2006;

Goodwin 2006). We also excluded studies that fall closer to the realm of auto-ethnography (e.g.,

Erdur 2006; Karlsson and Gustafsson 2006; Marshall et al. 2009), as well as studies wherein the

ethnographic component entailed only informal discussions with one or two people (e.g., Gordillo

2009).

Our study includes 13 single authored and two co-authored publications. Of the former, six

were written by archaeologists, five by ethnographers, and two by authors trained in both

archaeology and ethnography. One of the two single authored papers was written by an

archaeologist and an adult educator, the other by an archaeologist and a sociologist. The subject

matter is diverse: eight studies focus on community perceptions of, or relations to, archaeological

sites or projects; six studies center on archaeological training and interpersonal relations among

fieldworkers; finally, one study focuses on looting.

Our sample confirms our general impressions regarding lack of specificity and variation in

ethnographic methods2. Five of the 15 studies rely on interviews alone, two on a combination of

participant observation and interviews, and two on participant observation alone. Only two of the

seven studies using interviews provide any description of how these interviews were conducted; one

describes formal and informal interviews in person and by phone, the other notes that the interviews

were semi-structured. In two of the 15 studies, the ethnographic component consists of comments

in visitor books. Two other studies rely solely archaeologists’ field notes. One study is based

primarily on comments made at a community meeting. Only two of the studies utilize additional

ethnographic research methods: one employs a two-page questionnaire, another uses diary forms

distributed to field workers at appointed times over the course of a day.

The sample sizes in the selected studies are frequently unspecified, and where they are

specified the samples are generally quite small. Of the seven studies that included interviews, five do

not specify how many people were interviewed, one specifies a sample size of 11, and one lists a

sample of five formal interviews and an unidentified number of informal interviews. For the two

studies of archaeologists’ field notes, one lists a sample of five (including the author’s own) and the

other does not specify how many notebooks were examined. Studies of visitor comment books

were more explicit in their sample sizes (one looked at 2800 texts, the other at 250 entries), as was

also the case with questionnaires (one had a sample size of 58) and diary forms (distributed to 13

people).

Data analysis methods are even less explicitly described. One study notes that interview data

were entered into Atlas.ti and analyzed using a constant comparative technique. Another study

indicates that entries from visitor comment books were coded and text analysis was performed. The

12 remaining studies presumably used some sort of qualitative and informal method of data analysis,

although these are not mentioned.

We realize that many of these studies may be more thoroughly described in longer

publications and reports. We also recognize that much of this literature is conducted in the interest

of reflexivity and self-criticism, for which issues of ethnographic sample size and methods may not

be entirely germane. In addition, there is great variability in the degree to which cultural

anthropologists describe ethnographic research methods in published scholarship, reflecting sub-

disciplinary and paradigmatic customary practice. Relatedly, we agree that ethnography can refer not

only to a specific method of fieldwork, but also to “a form of descriptive writing that results from

that process” (Hollowell and Mortensen 2009:3).

Still, we agree with Breglia (2006a:182) that ethnographic archaeologists and ethnographers

of archaeology, “...should not be entirely caught up in a closed hermeneutics of disciplinary

reflexivity.” If archaeologists and ethnographers of archaeology want their work to be taken

seriously by wider audiences---including not only the interested public, but other policy makers, land

managers, and the like---it is important that our scholarship is methodologically and ethically sound.

More broadly, we agree with Pyburn (2009:165), who notes that “evidence for problems created by

well-intentioned archaeologists without sufficient ethnographic knowledge is mounting.”

One potential solution to this problem is greater collaboration among archaeologists and

ethnographers. However, this solution, while perhaps preferable in some cases, runs the risk of

foregoing the sort of understandings that can be generated by ethnographies conducted by

archaeologists themselves. As Meskell (2007:384) observes, ethnographies of archaeology

conducted by archaeologists are not necessarily better than those undertaken by ethnographers, but

grounded differently; the insider expertise of “the craft and its results”—a sort of “ethnography of

us”—lessens the “exotic patina.” Relatedly, like Holtorf (2009:312), we do not thinks academics are,

or should be, merely “...technicians trained in applying a set of distinct methods and techniques to

certain canonical questions.”

We thus feel that a better solution is more specialized training in ethnographic methods for

archaeologists pursuing advanced degrees in public archaeology or with interests in community-

based archaeology and ethnographic archaeologies. The SAA, in devising a model applied

anthropology curriculum, has advocated including ethnographic methods among a list of suggested

elective courses (Neusius 2009). This is a step in the right direction, and we agree that the flexibility

of having this as an elective is probably essential to incorporate the diversity of training required for

careers in applied and public archaeology. However, we propose that training should be more

strongly encouraged and an integrated component of degree programs, particularly for students who

intend to pursue research involving human subjects. One possible solution could be to include an

ethnographic method component in graduate classes in public archaeology; however, having

struggled to cover the basic legal, ethical, and interpretive frameworks for public archaeology in a

single semester, we are loathe to suggest adding any additional material. Ethnographic training may

come in the form of existing ethnographic methods courses aimed generally at students of

sociocultural anthropology, but we can also envision the development of ethnographic methods

courses specifically suited to archaeology and heritage, either as stand-alone courses in university

programs or as intensive short courses of the sort offered by NSF (at national meetings and as

intensive, short courses). In the remainder of this paper, we briefly outline what such training might

entail and why it might enhance the burgeoning fields of study and practice.

First, relative to our review of the literature of archaeological ethnography, it is important for

archaeologists who are interested in these sorts of analyses to be aware of the range of ethnographic

methods available. Data collection can include much more than formal and informal interviews,

although these are certainly time-tested and legitimate means for collecting information. For

example Pyburn (2009) has recently suggested that archaeologists would benefit from greater

familiarity with the methods of Participatory Action Research (PAR), and Castañeda (2009) has

proposed “ethnographic installation” (publicly-staged exhibitions) as a means of eliciting reflections

regarding people’s perceptions of archaeological work and its effect on the community. Efforts to

“decolonize” archaeological practice call for greater attention to collaborative and community-

defined research, education, and heritage projects (e.g., Moser et al. 2002; Pybrun 2003; Smith and

Jackson 2008; Zimmerman 2005). In light of such calls, it is helpful to note that there is a large

corpus of literature on community-based, participatory ethnographic research that has been

developed in medical anthropology, anthropology and education, visual anthropology, and

environmental anthropology, as well as applied anthropology in general (Hale 2008; LeCompte and

Schensul 2010; McIntyre 2008; Trotter and Schensul 1998). In particular, anthropological critiques

of community-based conservation and natural resource management abound over the last 15 years

and many of the same challenges confronting indigenous peoples around rights to resources and

autonomy of representation have been scrutinized, providing parallel scholarship that would be of

great interest to archaeological ethnographers (Tsing et al. 2005; West 2005; West et al. 2006).

Drawing insights and best-practices from diverse areas of expertise will ensure that ethnographic

archaeologists are not asked to reinvent the wheel and adapt useful tools and techniques given

expertise in issues such as more sophisticated sampling strategies, spatial mapping and GIS.

Competing epistemologies necessarily influence choice of research methods in sociocultural

anthropology and archaeological ethnography is clearly no different. Care in selection of methods by

students should be linked to a broad understanding of the range of tools and techniques currently

used by anthropologists, their theoretical underpinnings, and decisions about which are the best fit

for the tasks and issues at hand3. Old dichotomies of qualitative being held in opposition to

quantitative methods are being questioned, as exemplified in an edited volume on methods in

environmental social science that incorporates complementary methods that bridge this divide with

a materialist emphasis to which most archaeologists can easily relate (Vaccaro et al. 2010). In their

introduction, Vaccaro and Smith (2010:9) suggest that, “these diverse approaches have great

potential to be synergistic, such that when combined they produce far more than the sum of what

they can offer in isolation.” With the aim of promoting a similar synergy across archaeological and

cultural anthropology divides, some additional tools and techniques of data collection that may be

useful for ethnographers of archaeology and public archaeologists are outlined briefly here with

examples of how they might be integrated into archaeological practice.

Giving an ethnographer a greater ability to sort out the long-standing anthropological

concern between what people say they do as opposed to what they actually do, a suite of methods are

focused on observation of behavior. Systematic behavioral observation (Johnson and Sackett 1998)

and time allocation to particular actions in daily life can give insights into emerging patterns of

behavior (Hames 2010) such as visitor experiences or interactions of multiple stakeholders with

heritage sites. These techniques, which include “spot” observations at systematically sampled times

of day, days of the week, seasons, etc., could provide additional information to complement

participant observation and informal interviews during archaeological research. Another suite of

methods with great possibility is GIS-driven sampling strategies, building on existing areas of

expertise. Structured interviews that begin with using cognitive methods such as pile sorts and

freelists to ascertain local terms and meanings and incorporate those into oral interview or written

survey questions can make questions more relevant and salient to local realities (Bernard 2011;

Weller 1998). In addition, cultural consensus analysis allows for greater understanding of differences

and similarities across community members, acknowledging problems inherent in treating any social

group as homogenous (Dressler 2005; Weller and Romney 1988). Social network analysis

(Wasserman and Faust 1993) could provide interesting information about how socioeconomic

relationships such as shared labor in the present relate to those of the past. Picture or photo voice

(Harper et al. 2009; Sands et al. 2009) and audio documentary (Makagon and Neumann 2009) as

well as blogs (Hamilakis 2011) all present techniques that can be integrated into digital and open-

access networked platforms. If an ethnographer is fundamentally committed to interpretive critique

and a primary focus on interviewing and participant observation, the foremost concern may not be

on sampling or quantification of “data.” However, sufficient time must be allocated to carrying out

these time-intensive and experience-near approaches. Analyses of such information can also be

approached in many ways, as discussed below.

Similarly, archaeologists need to acknowledge the diversity of theoretical frameworks and

techniques that shape the analysis of ethnographic data. As noted above, one of the studies in our

sample analyzed the content of their interviews with Atlas.ti, commonly-used qualitative data

analysis software. Although that software is designed to reflect the premises of grounded theory to

guide coding and creation of explanatory models (Glaser and Strauss 1967: Strauss and Corbin

1990), additional theories of qualitative text analysis and discourse analysis exist (Bernard and Ryan

2010; Wolcott 1994; Wutich and Gravelee 2010) and many other software programs are also

available (see for example Dedoose or Transana4. More archaeologists would benefit from knowing

about such software and the types of analyses that can be performed. Furthermore, triangulation of

results from different types of data collection and analysis would be beneficial in addressing

variability and contradictions in perspectives and views of those interviewed or local actors involved

in co-constructing or designing participatory research projects.

Issues of ethnographic sampling also require specialized training. Pyburn (2009) has noted

that recent ethnographers of archaeology have often failed to adequately problematize their

conceptions of community, ignoring a long history of discussion on this topic in cultural

anthropology. We agree, but believe the problem is more fundamental. Archaeologists are trained

to understand proper sampling techniques and intervals with regard to shovel tests, test units, mesh

sizes, and the like, but without additional specialized training are poorly equipped to extend this

knowledge to the particularities of ethnography. Pluckhahn, for example, in guiding his students in

their research projects for his graduate-level seminar, encourages them to consider how the time of

day, day of the week, and season of the year may influence the types of visitors that may be expected

at public archaeological sites and exhibitions.

Additionally, we think archaeologists who engage in ethnographic studies should place

consideration of the ethics of ethnographic research front and center in the preparation stages of

research and community-based projects and explore how they may be in conflict with ethical codes

of archaeology. The discrepancies between the ethical principles of SAA, which privilege

stewardship of material remains, and those of the AAA and most other organizations comprised

mainly of cultural anthropologists, which privilege obligations to collaborators, are well known

(Groarke and Warrick 2006; Pyburn 2009). Confronting challenges of representation, authenticity,

and uneven power relationships between those who study heritage and those whose heritage is being

interpreted is certainly not straightforward or easy work, as many anthropologists working in this

area have noted (McAnany and Parks 2012; Pyburn 2011). In-depth training is needed to confront

such ethical, theoretical challenges as well as reconsider the ways we engage in archaeology of the

past and present. The World Archaeological Congress, as well as several other archaeological

organizations, gives priority to the concerns of descendant communities and other affected

stakeholders. Our graduate students are exposed to these nuances in their coursework in Public

Archaeology, but we expect this is not the case with many programs. Moreover, we think that

archaeologists are predisposed to consider the conservation of the archaeological record as

paramount; training in the ethics of ethnographic fieldwork is not likely to dispel this assumption,

but it may help mitigate it. We must acknowledge that it is difficult for students to be masters of

everything, particularly when starting their professional careers. It is enough to expect graduate

students---particularly M.A. students---to become fluent in the theory and methods of a single sub-

field of anthropology. Nevertheless, as the well-known applied anthropologist Erve Chambers

(2004:207) observed nearly a decade ago, “the kinds of career opportunities and challenges that

many archaeologists now face might require new skills and areas of specialization, some of which

can be provided by their cultural colleagues.”

Although it may be true that archaeologists are uniquely positioned to carry out such

research, working in tandem with cultural anthropologists who have an understanding and

appreciation for the practice of archaeology may result in complementary and more far-reaching

efforts than either working alone. However, as expectations that archaeologists will be carrying out

ethnographic projects increases, it is an obligation to provide the opportunities for students to

receive training in these skills, techniques, and ethical considerations.

Notes

1. For a thorough discussion of the similarities and differences between “ethnographic archaeology”

and “ethnographies of archaeology” see Castañeda (2008). While recognizing differences in scope

and emphasis, we consider these approaches more similar than different and thus have not drawn a

division here.

2. None of the studies in our sample mention whether or not they sought approval of an

Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the ethnographic component of the research. This is also

frequently unmentioned in ethnographic publications, so we have not raised it as an area of concern

for this study. Nevertheless, we follow Dawdy (2009:138) in her concern that this is a topic that

public archaeologists should consider more seriously, while also acknowledging that it may not

always be necessary or appropriate (see McDavid 2009:166-167).

3. DeMunck (1998) and contributors provide a very accessible and useful treatment of these issues

in a volume aimed at students in particular.

4. Formerly known as EthnoNotes, Dedoose was developed by anthropologists to provide web-

based field notes, memos, and integrate qualitative and quantitative data sets:

http://www.dedoose.com/LearnMore/VideoTour.aspx?autoplay=true. Transana is an open-source

program particularly useful for sharing video and audio files for analysis and coding:

http://www.transana.org/index.htm.

References Cited

Abu el-Haj, N. 2001 Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Antoniadou, Ioanna 2009 Reflections on an Archaeological Ethnography of ‘Looting’ in Kozani, Greece. Public

Archaeology 8(2–3):246–261. Bartu, A. 2000 Where is Catalhoyuk: Multiple Sites in the Construction of an Archaeological Site. In

Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Catalhoyuk, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 101–9. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Bateman, Jonathan 2006 Pictures, Ideas, and Things: The Production and Currency of Archaeological Images. In

Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 68-80. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Benavides, O. Hugo 2009 The Recovery of Archaeological Heritage in the Ecuadoran Andes: Ethnography,

Domination, and the Past. In Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of the Past, edited by Lena Mortensen and Julie Hollowell, pp. 151-169. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Bernard. H. Russell 2011 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Fifth Edition. AltaMira

Press, Lanham, Maryland. Bernard, H. Russell, and Gary W. Ryan

2010 Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California.

Breglia, Lisa 2006a Complicit Agendas: Ethnography of Archaeology as Ethical Research Practice. In

Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 173-184. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

2006b Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2009 When Patrimonies Collide: The Case of Chunchucmil, Yucatán. In Ethnographies and

Archaeologies: Iterations of the Past, edited by Lena Mortensen and Julie Hollowell, pp. 55-70. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Cartman, John 2006 Digging the Dirst: Excavation as a Social Practice. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice:

Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 95-102. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Castañeda, Quetzil E. 1996 In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring Chichén Itzá. University of Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis. 2008 The “Ethnographic Turn” in Archaeology: Research Positioning and Reflexivity in

Ethnographic Archaeologies. In Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices, edited by Quetzil E. Castañeda and Christopher N. Matthews, pp. 25-61. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

2009 The ‘Past’ as Transcultural Space: Using Ethnographic Installation in the Study of

Archaeology. Public Archaeology 8(2–3):262–282. Castañeda, Quetzil E., and Christopher N. Matthews 2008 Introduction: Ethnography and the Social Construction of Archaeology. In Ethnographic

Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices, edited by Quetzil E. Castañeda and Christopher N. Matthews, pp. 1-24. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Chambers, Erve 2004 Epilogue: Archaeology, Heritage, and Public Endeavor. In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as

Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Erve J. Chambers, pp. 193-208. Routledge, New York.

Chourmouziadi, Anastasia 2009 Scripta Manent: Notes on a Book. Public Archaeology 8(2–3):208–224. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip 2009 Archaeology on the Periphery: Locating a “Last Great Place.” In Ethnographies and

Archaeologies: Iterations of the Past, edited by Lena Mortensen and Julie Hollowell, pp. 240-259. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Davis, Hester A. 1972 The Crises in American Archeology. Science 175(4019):267-282. Dawdy, Shannon Lee 2009 Millennial Archaeology. Locating the Discipline in the Age of Uncertainty. Archaeological

Dialogues 16(2):131-142. De Munck, Victor C., and Elisa J. Sobo (editors) 1998 Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. Altamira Press, Lanham,

Maryland. Dressler, W.W. 2005 What’s Cultural About Biocultural Research? Ethos 33(1):20-45. Edgeworth, Matt 1991 The Act of Discovery: An Ethnography of the Subject-Object Relation in Archaeological

Practice. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom.

2003 Acts of Discovery: An Ethnography of Archaeological Practice. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2006 Multiple Origins, Development, and Potential of Ethnographies of Archaeology. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 1-19. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Edgeworth, Matt (editor) 2006 Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. AltaMira

Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Erdur, Oğuz 2006 Realisafiction: A Day of Work at Everybody-Knows-Land. In Ethnographies of Archaeological

Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 103-113. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Everill, Paul 2007 A Day in the Life of a Training Excavation: Teaching Archaeological Fieldwork in the UK.

World Archaeology 39(4):483–498. Goodwin, Charles 2006 A Linguistic Anthropologist’s Interest in Archaeological Practice. In Ethnographies of

Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 45-55. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Gordillo, Gastón 2009 The Ruins of Ruins: On the Preservation and Destruction of Historical Sites in Northern

Argentina. In Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of the Past, edited by Lena Mortensen and Julie Hollowell, pp. 30-54. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Groarke, Leo, and Gary Warrick 2006 Stewardship Gone Astray? Ethics and the SAA. In The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical

Perspectives on Archaeological Practice, edited by Chris Scarre and Geoffrey Scarre, pp. 163-177. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hale, Charles R. 2008 Introduction. In Engaging Contradictions: Theory, Politics, and Methods of Activist Scholarship, edited

by Charles R. Hale, pp. 1-30. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hames, Raymond 2010 Production Decisions and Time Allocation: A Guide to Data Collection. In Environmental

Social Sciences: Methods and Research Design, edited by I. Vaccaro, E.A. Smith, and S. Aswani, pp. 35-56. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Hamilakis, Yannis 2011 Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and

Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 40:399-414. Hamilakis, Yannis, and Aris Anagnostopoulos 2009 What is Archaeological Ethnography? Public Archaeology 8(2–3):65–87. Handler, R., and E. Gable 1997 The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Duke University

Press, Durham, North Carolina. Harper, K. 2009 Using Photovoice to Investigate Environment and Health in a Hungarian Romani

(Gypsy) Community. Practicing Anthropology 31(4):10‐14. Hodder, I. 1997 Always Momentary, Fluid and Flexible: Towards a Reflexive Excavation Methodology.

Antiquity 71:691-700. Hollowell, Julie, and Lena Mortensen 2009 Introduction: Ethnographies and Archaeologies. In Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of

the Past, edited by Lena Mortensen and Julie Hollowell, pp. 1-17. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Hollowell, Julie, and George Nicholas 2008 A Critical Assessment of Ethnography in Archaeology. In Ethnographic Archaeologies:

Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices, edited by Quetzil E. Castañeda and Christopher N. Matthews, pp. 63-94. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

2009 Using Ethnographic Methods to Articulate Community-Based Conceptions of Cultural

Heritage Management. Public Archaeology 8(2–3):141–160.

Holtorf, Cornelius 2006 Studying Archaeological Fieldwork in the Field: Views from Monte Polizzo. In Ethnographies

of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 81-94. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

2009 A Comment on Hybrid Fields and Academic Gate-Keeping. Public Archaeology 8(2–3):310–

316. Johnson, Jeffrey and Ross Sackett 1998 Direct Systematic Observation of Behavior. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology,

edited by H. Russell Bernard, pp. 301-331. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Karlsson, Håkan, and Anders Gustafsson 2006 Among Totem Poles and Clan Power in Tanum, Sweden: An Ethnographic Perspective on

Communicative Artifacts of Heritage Management. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 137-147. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

LeCompte, Margaret D. and Jean J. Schensul 2010 Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research, Second Edition. Vol. 1, Ethnographer’s Toolkit.

Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1998 Toward an Ethnocritical Archaeology of Indian-White Relationships on the Plains. In, Mark

Plew (ed.), Explorations in American Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Wesley Hurt, Lanham, MD: University Press of America. pp. 259-268.

Little, Barbara J. 2007 Archaeology and Civic Engagement. In Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, edited by

Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel, pp. 1-22. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Lucas, G. 2001 Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. Routledge,

London. McAnany, Patricia A. and Shoshaunna Parks 2012 Casualties of Heritage Distancing: Children, Ch’orti’ Indigeneity, and the Copán

Archaeoscape. Current Anthropology 53(1):80-107. McClanahan, Angela 2006 Histories, Identity, and Ownership: An Ethnographic Case Study in Archaeological Heritage

Management in the Orkney Islands. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 126-136. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

McDavid, Carol 2009 Back to the Futurist. Response to Dawdy. Archaeological Dialogues 16(2):163-169.

McGimsey, Charles R., III 1972 Public Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York. McIntyre, Alice 2008 Participatory Action Research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles. Makagon, Daniel, and Mark Neumann 2009 Recording Culture: Audio Documentary and the Ethnographic Experience. Sage, Los Angeles. Marshall, Yvonne 2002 What Is Community Archaeology? World Archaeology 34(2):211-219. 2009 Community Archaeology. In The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology, edited by Barry Cunliffe,

Chrsi Gosden, and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 1078-1102. Oxford University Press, New York. Marshall, Yvonne, Sasha Roseneil, and Kayt Armstrong 2009 Situating the Greenham Archaeology: An Autoethnography of a Feminist Project. Public

Archaeology 8(2–3):225–245. Meskell, Lynn 2007 Falling Walls and Mending Fences: Archaeological Ethnography in the Limpopo. Journal of

Southern African Studies 33:383-400. 2005 Archaeological Ethnography: Conversations Around Kruger National Park. Archaeologies

1(1):81–100. Mills, Barbara 2006 A Diversity of Curricula for Archaeology Graduate Programs. The SAA Archaeological Record

6(5):25-26. Mortensen, Lena 2009 Producing Copán in the Archaeology Industry. In Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of

the Past, edited by Lena Mortensen and Julie Hollowell, pp. 178-198. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mortensen, Lena, and Julie Hollowell (editors) 2009 Ethnographies and Archaeologies: Iterations of the Past. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Moser, Stephanie, Darren Glazier, James E. Phillips, Lamya Nasser el Nemr, Mohamed Saleh

Mousa, Rascha Nasr Aiegh, Susan Richardson, Andrew Conner, and Michael Seymour 2002 Transforming Archaeology Through Community Practice: Strategies for Collaborative

Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeology 34(2):220-248.

Neusius, Sarah W. 2009 Changing the Curriculum: Preparing Archaeologists for Careers in Applied Archaeology.

The SAA Archaeological Record 9(1):18-22.

Parks, Shoshaunna 2010 The Collision of Heritage and Economy at Uxbenká, Belize. International Journal of Heritage

Studies 16(6):434–448. Prufer, Keith, and Rebecca K. Zarger 2006 Collaborating with Communities to Represent the Past and Create Futures: Cultural and Environmental Heritage in Archaeological Site Development. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, San Jose, California. Pyburn, K. Anne 2003 Archaeology for a New Millenium: The Rules of Engagement. In Archaeologists and Local

Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

2009 Practising Archaeology—As if it Really Matters. Public Archaeology 8(2-3):161-175 2011 Engaged Archaeology: Whose Community? Which Public? In New Perspectives in Global Public

Archaeology, edited by K. Okamura and A. Matsuda, pp. 29-41. Springer, New York. Rodriguez, Timoteo 2006 Conjunctures in the Making of an Ancient Maya Archaeological Site. In Ethnographies of

Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 161-172. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Roveland, Blythe E. 2006 Reflecting upon Archaeological Practice: Multiple Visions of a Late Paleolithic Site in

Germany. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 56-67. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Sands, C., Lee Ellen Reed, Krista Harper, and Maggie Shar 2009 A Photovoice Participatory Evaluation of a School Gardening Program Through the Eyes of

Fifth Graders. Practicing Anthropology 31(4):15-20. Sandlin, Jennifer A., and George J. Bey, III 2006 Trowels, Trenches, and Transformations: A Case Study of Archaeologists Learning a More

Critical Practice of Archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 6:255-276. Smith, Claire, and Gary Jackson 2008 The Ethics of Collaboration: Whose Culture? Whose Intellectual Property? Who Benefits?

In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphohn and T.J. Ferguson, pp. 171-202. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Trotter, Robert II and Jean Schensul 1998 Methods in Applied Anthropology in Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. H. Russell

Bernard, editor, pp. 691-735. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, J. Peter Brosius, and Charles Zerner 2005 Raising Questions about Communities and Conservation. In Communities and Conservation: Histories

and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management, edited by J.P. Brosius, A.L. Tsing, and C. Zerner, pp. 1-36. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Tully, Gemma 2007 Community Archaeology: General Methods and Standards of Practice. Public Archaeology

6(3):155-187. Vaccaro, Ismael, and Eric Alden Smith 2010 Introduction. In Environmental Social Sciences: Methods and Research Design, edited by I. Vaccaro,

E.A. Smith, and S. Aswani, pp. 1-10. Cambridge University Press, New York. Vaccaro, Ismael, Eric Alden Smith, Shankar Aswani 2010 Environmental Social Sciences: Methods and Research Design. Cambridge University Press, New

York. Van Reybrouck, David, and Dirk Jacobs 2006 The Mutual Constitution of Natural and Social Identities During Archaeological Fieldwork.

In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 33-44. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Wasserman, Stanley and K. Faust 1993 Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Weller, Sue 1998 Structured Interviewing and Questionnaire Construction. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural

Anthropology, edited by H. Russell Bernard, pp. 365-409. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Weller, Susan C., and A. Kimball Romney 1988 Systematic Data Collection. Vol. 10, Qualitative Research Methods Series. Sage, Newbury

Park, California. West, Paige 2005 Translation, Value, and Space: Theorizing an Ethnographic and Engaged Environmental

Anthropology. American Anthropologist 107(4):632-642. West, Paige, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington 2006 Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Anthropology

35:251-277.

Wilmore, Michael 2006 Landscapes of Disciplinary Power: An Ethnography of Excavation and Survey at

Leskernick. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 114-125. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Wolcott, Harry 1994 Transforming Qualitative Data. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California. Wutich, Amber and Clarence C. Gravlee 2010 Water Decision-Makers in a Desert City: Text Analysis and Environmental Social Science.

In Environmental Social Sciences: Methods and Research Design, edited by I. Vaccaro, E.A. Smith, and S. Aswani, pp. 188-211. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Yarrow, Thomas 2006 Sites of Knowledge: Different Ways of Knowing an Archaeological Excavation. In

Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, pp. 20-32. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Zimmerman, Larry J. 2005 First, Be Humble: Working with Indigenous Peoples and Other Descendant Communities.

In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith and H. Martin Wobst, pp. 301-314. Routledge, London.

Table 1. Summary Data for Sample of Archaeological Ethnography Studies Consulted.

Study training subject sample size source of ethnographic info. methods

Chourmouziadi (2009) archaeologist public perceptions of archaeological project in Greece 2800 texts visitor comment book informal text analysis

Antoniadou (2009) archaeologist understand context of looting in Greece 11 people interviews unspecified qualitative

Rodriguez (2006) ethnographer relations between field project and community in Mexico “approximately two dozen” male farmers

comments at community meeting unspecified qualitative

Roveland (2006) archaeologist field methods, interpersonal relations on excavation of LP site in Germany

5 people (including self) archaeologists’ field notes unspecified qualitative

Wilmore (2006) archaeology and ethnography

field methods, interpersonal relations on survey and excavation of BA site in UK

unidentified archaeologists’ field notes unspecified qualitative

Sandlin and Bey (2006) archaeologist and adult educator (respectively)

adult learning how archaeologists in Yucatan have arrived at new understanding of archaeological practice that is more environmentally friendly and community inclusive

formal interviews with three project leaders, informal interviews with unspecified number of students

formal and informal interviews in person and by phone

data entered in Atlas.ti and analyyzed using constant comparative technique

Yarrow (2006) archaeology and ethnography

different ways of knowing an excavation in England unidentified number of participants on excavation

participant observation unspecified qualitative

Van Reybrouck and Jacobs (2006)

archaeology and sociology (respectively)

archaeological training one (Jacobs) participant observation unspecified qualitative

Holtorf (2006) archaeology archaeological training 133 participants on project; 58 questionnaires completed

participant observation and two page questionnaires

unspecified qualitative

Everill (2007) ethnography archaeological training 5 field directors, 5 undergraduate students, 3 volunteers

diary forms distributed hourly over the course of one field day

qualitative review of diary entries

Meskell (2007) archaeology role of South African site in local and national consciousness, manner in which the archaeology was conducted, how the project was viewed

unidentified interviews unspecified qualitative

Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2009)

archaeology relative importance of archaeology as a component of place in southeastern Arizona

250 comments in visitor books; unspecified number of interviews

participant observation on tour; reading of brochures, visitor books, and web sites; semistructured interviews

entries in visitor books were coded

Mortensen (2009) ethnographer archaeological “industry” in Honduras unidentified interviews unspecified qualitative

McClanahan (2006) ethnographer values assigned to UNESCO World Heritage site in Scotland unidentified interviews unspecified qualitative

Breglia (2009) ethnographer patrimony of site in Mexico unidentified interviews and participant observation

unspecified qualitative