it is a disscussion based on readings

User Generated

wy6036n

Writing

Description

I will upload the readings and here is the requirements: After this week's second set of readings, what topics does Blakey expose in the realm of public archaeology and museology? How does public understanding of the past play out in the present? Do archaeologists have responsibilities to equality when interpreting the past, and are current practices, according to Blakey, equitable? In what ways to do you agree or disagree with Blakey's analysis?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Past Is Present: Comments on "In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American Plantation Archaeology" Author(s): Michael L. Blakey Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 31, No. 3, In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American and Plantation Archaeology (1997), pp. 140-145 Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25616555 Accessed: 13-01-2019 19:56 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Archaeology This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms COMMENTARY MICHAEL L. BLAKEY Patrice Jeppson's discussion of the politics of South African archaeology is a richly textured analysis of the use of history for the creation of Past Is Present: Comments on well as South African archaeology's emphasis on essentialized African ethnic/tribal distinctions. "In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American Plantation Archaeology" Discussion social distance between whites and blacks, as What must appear to many Africaaners as an objective appreciation of group traditions also implicates archaeology in a strategy of divide and rule. I think of the former Kwazulu "Homeland" for the effects of a divide and rule strategy fostered by the National Party, which created political opposition to the African National Congress Many of the ideas and experiences expressed throughout this volume are not only intellectually engaging but encouraging with respect to a new archaeology of public engagement. Progress to ward new, responsive relationships between ar chaeologists and the public suggested by these papers emerges from encounters with the prob lems inherent in current interactions of archaeol ogy and the broader society. Therefore, just as working through these problems offers real promise, those experiences equally imply the disturbing aspects of the current societal and intellectual context in which these authors' expe riences take place. Four areas of concern seem to cover most of the terrain, including the politics of the past, Euroamerican insistence on control, relations be tween archaeology and African-American schol arship, and the democratization of knowledge. Each of these politicized aspects of the archaeo along "tribal" lines. I am reminded of my South African refugee classmates who, when asked about their ethnicity, would always make a point of identifying themselves as "South Af rican" in a conscious resistance to the divisive use of their ethnic identities in the hands of those who meant them little good. The "situationalness" or constructed nature of ethnicity, Jeppson claims, is liberating. One can change that which one creates through dialecti cal, social interaction. This is perhaps akin to the decision even to identify oneself as "South African." Drake Patten raises similar issues re garding the Foster site in Virginia, stressing the impact of current racial categories on perceptions of historic identities. She too wishes the public to recognize how identity is culturally con structed. Yet who constructs these identities, for logical and interpretive projects discussed here, is whom, and for what purpose are questions that are key to the significance of the identities ulti mately constructed. affected by racism. Many of the questions and comments that I have about these papers derive past head-on as she and her colleagues critically Euroamerican attitudes and behaviors toward examine and explicate the interests served by the Jordan plantation archaeology, similarly to Leone from an appreciation of contemporary African Americans that are examined, below. My basic contention is that the African-American past being examined by these studies serves to mediate a discourse about the relations between Euroamericans and African Americans in the present. I attempt to raise a mirror to the field, and ask the reader to find the familiar. Carol McDavid also takes the politics of the and his associates in Annapolis (Leone et al. 1987). Jeppson and Christy Matthews point to the importance of breaking bonds of white denial by exposing the racism which structures the lives of people in both settler states?Union of South Africa and the United States of America. Ywone Edwards and McDavid call for intereth Historical Archaeology, 1997, 31(3): 140-145. Permission to reprint required. This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms COMMENTARY: PAST IS PRESENT 141 Perhaps the degree to which blacks lack inter nic dialogue to rediscover (or discover) the real histories and identities of the peoples comprising est in, avoid, or reject interpretations, as the nation. Euroamericans cannot begin to know Matthews shows, relates to the majority presence about themselves until the African-American, and of Euroamericans in what might be seen as an multicultural, story is told, Edwards tells us. intimate and painful "family" experience for Archaeology may assist Euroamericans in tran African Americans. I want to ask, what would scending the state of denial which fails our com be the reactions to these interpretations if mon understanding and reconciliation. This state brought to the neighboring historically black of Euroamerican denial, as it affects other university, Hampton? Perhaps that would be a branches of anthropology, has been examined in more attractive context for black visitors. Yet, detail elsewhere (Blakey 1994). African-American denial, too, might undermine The ideology of white supremacy continues to their participation there. Another explanation is burden relations among Americans. Discrimina that the interpretations are themselves uninterest ing because African Americans have had too al. 1991), as do neighborhood segregation and little to say about what interests them at the resegregation of public education, despite Williamsburg. This is not to suggest that one tory hiring practices continue en force (Turner et Euroamerican claims to egalitarian ideals (Jaynes should segregate archaeological interpretation, but and Williams 1989). While the institution of acknowledges the existence of the social and slavery may be a thing of the past upon which psychological dynamics of ethnic segmentation to reflect, white racism continues to antagonize and antagonism within which these fields of the already wounded relationships between Euro American art and science operate. pean and African Americans. According to the Archaeology, therefore, enters the political fray National Research Council's study (Jaynes and in a difficult effort to bring new knowledge, to Williams 1989), most African Americans ac reveal ourselves, and to create social change, or, knowledge the continuity of racism, while most it reinforces the status quo by obfuscating the Euroamericans deny it. If such denial can ex kinds of issues we all have trouble discussing. ist regarding current practices, what must be the Concerns for patrons, clients, and the entertain revisionist perceptions of the past? ment value of interpretation as revenue-generat Perhaps, due to this continuity of slavery's ing must come into play as interpreters of ar legacy, there are some issues blacks do not yet chaeological material think about the relation feel comfortable about sharing with whites. between their career security and the stories they can tell. This is the manner in which archaeol Given the extent of denial and racist thinking, Euroamerican visitors might not be trusted to interpret African-American life and history with out the use of stereotypical lenses. Are they likely to laugh or cry in the "wrong" places during colonial reenactments? Are Euroamericans also likely to invoke justifications for the inequities they historically fostered?and continue to benefit from?which protect their ogy is us. It articulates with broader political, economic, and psychological interests and moti vations. "Nevertheless," writes Edwards, "some archaeologists still present strong authoritative discourses disguised in a cloak of objectivity and apolitical rhetoric." By whom, for whom, and for what is archae ology brought to bear on American political life? own favorably-constructed identity at the expense As a politically loaded endeavor, archaeology of an adequate sensibility toward the tragedy and needs to take seriously the relevance of values courage embedded in the African-American ex of participatory democracy for its practice, as other anthropologists have begun to do (Forman surveys and interviews meant to elicit racism 1994). If we acknowledge that politics influence related attitudes and other sociological informa us, we, as producers of social knowledge, must tion on the perceptions of colonial interpreta also acknowledge that we influence politics. tions. Given these intrinsic relationships, we have an perience? It would be useful to have actual This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 142 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 31(3) obligation to decide the kind of political practice in which we are willing to participate. The traditional position, that archaeologists are equipped as apolitical individuals to discern ob jective truth, is materially baseless. Such notions may actually be evidence of the field's cultural influences. As Ruth Frankenberg's (Frankenberg 1994) interviews tell so convincingly, even lib eral, antiracist white women tend to be imbued with the notion that they have the unique right have not had an opportunity to take for granted, or even to agree with. In my experience of North American and Maya archaeology, in which I was engaged dur ing the 1960s and '70s; and of bioarchaeology and physical anthropology in the United States, Europe, and Africa ever since, archaeologists are afflicted by the same racist ills as other Ameri cans. One thing comes through the numerous cases of negotiation between African Americans, to be in control, to lead, and to speak in the anthropologists, and museums in which I have authoritative and objective voice reserved for been involved: if one is to understand how ar "normal" individuals. They define whiteness as chaeology articulates with African-American acultural, or otherwise express fears of recogniz communities, one must consider how ing what Euroamerican cultural identity would Euroamerican racism is expressed by the behav represent if it existed, especially considering the iors of archaeologists. The way I see it, anthropologists and critiques of other ethnic groups. This emic construction of whiteness partly museologists have often sought to maintain con denies that whites are a social group with re trol of cultural, and career, resources in a man sponsibilities and privileges of membership, ner with which African Americans are all too while ascribing to them, as individuals, an au familiar. In fact, I suspect this is where much thoritative voice. This aspect of Euroamerican of Maria Franklin's "push and shove" originates. culture contradicts egalitarian and democratic In our society, there is what might be called the values, while it is nonetheless deeply influenced by notions of the primacy of the individual to which such rights and freedoms are ascribed. This is, indeed, a fundamental contradiction of American national life, informed by the legacy of the liberal Revolutionary ideals and the white supremacist and classist practices upon which the "racist power relations routine," which governs interaction between whites and "the other." It partly governs the relations between African Americans and archaeologists, but can be found in any historically white organization. The routine begins with thoughtless disregard for "the other's" involvement in what had been nation was founded. a realm of white-controlled decision-making. "The other" had not been involved previously, and little thought is given to current involve ment. In the second phase, if "the other" seeks their culture in which archaeology is, therefore, embedded. Or, is focusing on archaeologists as involvement, efforts will be made to exclude white people unfair? Is it fairer to express what them, unless forced by laws or risk of social the anthropologist Frankenberg shows to be the sanction. Laws governing public comment, af emic view, that archaeologists, too, are just or firmative action, discrimination, and repatriation dinary people acting as individuals who seek to do exist and are used as leverage by "the other" seeking inclusion and empowerment. Persistent be objective scientists? As those who just hap efforts for inclusion are then likely to be toler pen to exert control over the construction of ated by Euroamerican organizations, but only in everyone else's history as a result of personal powerless roles and token numbers if necessary career choices? No self-respecting social scien tist would describe any other sociocultural group or opportune?or by bringing the "other" into a as so amorphous and culture-free. American developing research, interpretive, or other pro archaeology is a 99.9 percent Euroamerican or gram toward the end in order to validate deci Archaeologists, with precious few exceptions, were born and raised as white people, and it is ganization, and Euroamericans seem bent on controlling things to an extent that other groups sions already made by Euroamericans. In the third phase of the routine, should things progress This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms COMMENTARY: PAST IS PRESENT 143 to that point, Euroamericans begin to cry "re white people, albeit their interest in African verse racism" and "unfair" if "the other" claims American history. equal or greater power in decision-making than Black people do not want to work for white is held by whites. African Americans with people's purposes at the expense of their own equivalent or greater credentials are often more empowerment, perhaps especially not when it adamantly obstructed because they are not easily comes to the study and interpretation of them peripheralized. The practices of inclusion and selves. Franklin cautions that archaeologists are meritocracy thus threaten the deprivileging of not the appropriate ones to determine who whites, a conflict of Revolutionary ideals and among African Americans should represent the white supremacist attitudes. views of the descendant community. The ten Each reaction is intensified when African dency to presume such authority relates to Americans, as "the other," bring to the table the Frankenberg's findings, and the second phase of most potentially confusing and insulting quality the "racist power relations routine." What is so for many Euroamericans, that of equal or greater encouraging, however, is that these archaeologists qualifications for the task at hand. What could got the message and were secure enough to re be more belittling and threatening to the social spond appropriately: they began to share real status or ego of individual Euroamericans, control. In the case of the New York African Burial enculturated with notions of white supremacy, than that individual blacks might be equally or Ground Project, African Americans cared too more qualified than they? Whatever personal much to turn away. They would not allow themselves to be defined or to have their ances self-questioning of competence one may have entertained must be heightened under those cir try constructed by archaeologists and physical cumstances. anthropologists who were openly taking them This contradiction may be especially great in through the "racist power relations routine." a scientific field, given the profound When an African-American research institution interpenitration among definitions of the "scien tist," "whiteness," and modern "sapiens" which, interestingly enough, anthropologists served to create for our enculturation. Here I refer to the characteristics of intelligence or objective reason ing, leading to authority or control of natural and human resources (Blakey 1990, 1991). This is part of the culture with which African-American anthropologists must contend in order to work. Given that these power relations are grounded in notions of white supremacy, it should be no surprise that the African-American public shows little interest in participation when they encoun ter them. McDavid ran into that brick wall, and I believe it is partly what Linda Deny also ex perienced. They were proceeding under norma tive Euroamerican cultural assumptions that drive became involved, and regarded the descendant as its ethical client, a choice became available that allowed African Americans to redress racism and claim control of their community's cultural con struction (LaRoche and Blakey, this volume). Some very positive results of community en gagement have been shown. The community's involvement and interest is essential to the sig nificance and even financial support for archaeo logical projects, as demonstrated by the African Burial Ground. Public interest and pressure can be more persuasive to federal agencies and other funders than are anthropologists alone. John Baker shows, furthermore, like Deny and others, the richness of the database that communities, if interested and empowered, may bring to the table. All of the papers speak compellingly of the routine. African Americans ignored or avoided those archaeological and preservation the promise of engagement, despite its problems. Furthermore, as Edwards and others point out, initiatives until they were afforded an adequate share of real decision-making influence. Other wise, they would simply serve the interests of there are major African-American cultural and historical institutions that, as I choose to put it, have been interpreting African-American history This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 144 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 31(3) since long before American archaeologists were availed of contracts for studying those who pre viously were of little interest. African Ameri cans have long invested in the study of their objects remains at the fore, some movement has occurred to include obligations to the living in archaeology. NAGPRA did not accidentally pre cede these changes. (Physical anthropology has own history. Now that archaeologists are so no formal ethical guidelines, and that is possibly increasingly involved, how odd and telling it is for the better). Both fields would be served by that they rely so little on African-American ex attending to the American Anthropological pertise, curricula, literature, and professional or Association's Statement of Ethics, which, while ganizations. There is no possibility of viewing vague, has benefited from the longer exposure of "the other" as equal if they cannot also be fol cultural anthropologists to the ethical treatment lowed in areas other than sports and entertain of living people. One thing is for sure, it does ment. Certainly, the unusually high participation not much matter what one finds as a result of of African Americans in "In the Realm of Poli research when the public is disinterested or even tics" has made for a critical debate of issues that opposed to the way in which information is ob might not otherwise have emerged. tained. When Native American representatives The great divide persisting between African compared bioarchaeological research to Nazi American cultural institutions and African-Ameri medicine, I initially saw little relationship. Af can archaeology?or the Euroamerican archaeol ter some struggle with this, the comparison now ogy of African-American life?continues to give seems useful. Should we use inhumanely ac testament to the unbroken legacy of racial seg quired data? The sharing of power and, yes, the ability of regation within and without the academy. To bridge these fields and the ethnic groups repre a people to tell their own story are in and of senting them means sharing leadership and themselves among the most positive results that power. Can Euroamerican scholars at times an archaeological research program can have on choose to follow the intellectual lead of blacks? a community. The opposite case, of course, is also true. To deny a people empowerment for Is it somehow a racist proposition to suggest that African-American scholars and institutions have self-definition is one of the most harmful results accumulated leading insights about their own possible from archaeological research imaginable. I have emphasized one of two fundamental historical experience? Much obviously remains unknown about their history, but the needed ex aspects of Euroamerican social relations, that ploration should begin at its most developed which is guided by the norms and expectations inherent in their albeit underexamined adherence point. to the ideology of white supremacy. There is, as For African-American intellectual leadership to be acknowledged and used requires, if not a revolution beyond white supremacist thinking, at least a process of inclusion and empowerment where a difficult conversation can take place between old antagonists. Both public engage ment and an increase in the representation of African-American archaeologists and physical anthropologists are essential to that process. That process should transform Euroamerican identity in healthy if painful ways. Perhaps through this process the levels of constructive criticism can be raised and appreciated on all sides. In search of ethical principles for engagement, Franklin finds that while protection of material earlier discussed, another side guided by the values inherent in the nation's Revolutionary egalitarian ideals. This over-examined belief in meritocracy, justice, diversity, and equality sheds but half the light, leaving in shadow that side of archaeological practice, Euroamerica, and the United States that if illuminated would inform an understanding of a conflict and contradiction that better defines Euroamerica. Both sides should be acknowledged, and were it not for the liberal side of things, we would not be having this dis cussion. My experience with archaeologists has also repeatedly shown the progressive side of American culture to be widespread. Hence, the quandary of Euroamerican liberalism has been This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms COMMENTARY: PAST IS PRESENT 145 emphasized in my comments because, in their intrinsic conflict, there is hope. Rightists seem beyond the pale, and black students of archaeol Gathercole and David Lowenthal, pp. 38-48. Unwin Hyman, London. 1991 Man and Nature, White and Other. In Decolonizing Anthropology, edited by Faye V. Harrison, pp. 8-16. ogy are still witness to their overtly racist behav Association of Black Anthropologists and the ior, just as my black mentors and I had been. Yet, liberal or rightist, the modern Euroamerican resolution of the American contra diction tends to reside in a belief in human American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. 1994 Passing the Buck: Modernization and Individualism as Anthropological Expressions of Euro-American Denial. In Race, edited by Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek, pp. 270-284. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. equality under the requisite condition that whites retain privilege and control. African Americans often see the hypocracy in that posture and fail forman, shepard to recognize the absence of racism among those 1994 Diagnosing America: Anthropology and Public who insist upon controlling the construction of Engagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. their heritage. Similar conflicts occur between American archaeologists and national govern ments or indigenous peoples in other parts of the world where archaeologists work. These nations and ethnic groups increasingly hold in check the Frankenberg, Ruth 1994 Whiteness and Americanness: Examining Constructions of Race, Culture, and Nation in White Women's Narratives. In Race, edited by Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek, pp. 62-77. Rutgers vestiges of colonialism that American University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. archaologists represent, when legal and bureau cratic means are used to employ and empower Jaynes, Gerald D., and Robin M. Williams, Jr. their own scholarship at the expense of the kind 1989 A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society. of wholesale discretion over the world's cultural National Academy Press, Washington, DC. resources that antiquarians and scientists of Eu Mark P., Parker B. Potter, Jr., and Paul A. ropean descent once enjoyed. This is the con Leone, Shackel text in which African-American, and Native 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology American, archaeological issues need also to be understood. This is the context in which archae ologists-as-Euroamericans might better understand the daily choices they are making about their own roles in the making of tomorrow's history. 28(3):283-302. Turner, Margery, Michael Fix, and Raymond J. Struyk 1991 Opportunities Denied, Opportunities Diminished. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. REFERENCES Michael L. Blakey Blakey, Michael L. Department of Sociology and Anthropology New York African Burial Ground Project Cobb Laboratory 1990 American Nationality and Ethnicity in the Depicted Past. In The Politics of the Past, edited by Peter Howard University Washington, DC 20059 This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Santa Clara University Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Anthropology 2-2013 Cultures in Contact at Colony Ross Kent G. Lightfoot Sara Gonzalez Darren Modzelewski Lee M. Panich Santa Clara University, lpanich@scu.edu Otis Parrish See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/anthro_fac_pubs Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Gonzalez, Sara, Kent G. Lightfoot, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, Otis Parrish, and Tsim Schneider (2007). Cultures in Contact at Colony Ross. In Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology, by S. Neusius and G. T. Gross, pp. 302-309. Oxford University Press, Oxford. This material was originally published in Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology edited by Sarah W. Neusius & G. Timothy Gross, and has been reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press. For permission to reuse this material, please visit http://www.oup.co.uk/ academic/rights/permissions. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact rscroggin@scu.edu. Authors Kent G. Lightfoot, Sara Gonzalez, Darren Modzelewski, Lee M. Panich, Otis Parrish, and Tsim Schneider This book chapter is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/anthro_fac_pubs/63 Cultures in Contact at Colony Ross 221 CASE STUDY When thinking about the European colonization of California, it is easy to forget that Russia as well as Spain was a colonial power along this part of the Pacific Coast. Yet Russians competed for trade well south of Alaska , establishing a colony, called Colony Ross, north of what today is San Francisco. Here the Russian-American Company rather than the Spanish had considerable effect on Native people, as detailed in this case study about the Fort Ross Archaeological Project. The fort community was multiethnic, including Alaskan Natives, Coast Miwok and Kashaya Pomo Indians, and Russians. This case study describes a collaborative program between the Fort ·Ross State Historic Park, the Kashaya Pomo Tribe, California State Parks, and the University of California at Berkeley that focuses on the impact of Russian colonialism on the Native peoples of this area. Because of their collaboration with Kashaya Pomo elders, the archaeologists were able to develop low-impact strategies for gathering data primarily by using geophysical testing as well as traditional excavation. They also are major contributors to changes in the interpretive program at Fort Ross through their work on a Kashaya Pomo interpretive trail and a digital website that will make the native story at Colony Ross more widely accessible. As you read this case study, reflect on the example it provides of how archaeologists now try to incorporate diverse stakeholders in their work. How does this context change the story that gets told? CULTURES IN CONTACT AT COLONY ROSS Kent G. Lightfoot, Sara Gonzalez, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, Otis Parrish, and Tsim Schneider For thousands of years before the coming of Europeans, Kashaya Pomo and Coast Miwok peoples inhabited the coastal lands north of San Francisco Bay. Like many other California Indians, they were huntergatherers who harvested wild plants and animals from the sea and land for food, medicine, clothing, housing material, and ceremonial regalia. Villages nestled along protected coastal embayments and ridge tops of the Northern Coast Ranges mountains contained tule-thatched or redwood bark houses, ceremonial structures (round houses), sweat houses, dance enclosures, and extramural cooking and work areas. Large villages served as the political centers for broader communities of dispersed family groups who would come together for periodic dances, ceremonies, initiation rites, and feasts. With the founding of Colony Ross in 1812 by the Russian-American Company (RAC), a mercantile enterprise licensed by the tsar of Russia, life would change forever for the Kashaya Pomo and the Coast Miwok. The Russian merchants placed the primary administrative center of the colony, which they called the Ross settlement, in the heart of Kashaya Pomo territory, and they chose Bodega Harbor in Coast Miwok country to be the principal port facility (Port Rumiantsev) (Figure 7.15). The Russian-American Company came to California to profit from the exploitation of the region's natural bounty. The mercantile ,;_ ~ xkh Ross Settl emen\_,...,tr ~,~❖ "r-'''-; Ranch * Kostromitinov Ran * Khlebnikov Port Rumiantsev N h ~ • Farallon Artel Far
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: ARCHEOLOGY AND MUSEOLOGY
1

Archeology and Museology
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

ARCHEOLOGY AND MUSEOLOGY
2
Archeology and Museology
What topics does Blakey expose in the realm of public archaeology and museology?
Blakey exposes four key topics in the domain of archeology and museology that seems to
affect the past and the present. In his topic on ‘Past Is Present: Comments on "In the Realm of
Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American Plantation Archaeology"’, he
points out on the archeology of public engagement where he argues that encountering...


Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags