Editorial

This issue of Public Archaeology presents three papers related to the complex relationship between archaeology and sustainable development, all centred on the American continent but adopting different perspectives.

In the first paper, Agathe Dupeyron introduces the concepts of development and sustainability, and discusses the role that archaeology, and public archaeology in particular, can have in complementing efforts for development ventures. While potential economic, social, and environmental benefits can be harnessed, archaeology alone does not guarantee success, as argued also by P. Gould (2018). In this paper, Dupeyron analyses some of the elements that led to unsuccessful experiences, advocating for rigorous monitoring and evaluation frameworks which consider the interconnections between different impacts, often lacking in developing countries (and also in some Western countries: see Ripanti, 2019). Participatory evaluation methods, which are often utilized in the context of public archaeology and are in line with the ethos of such projects, could provide monitoring frameworks capable of adapting to the different and changing conditions of each country.

Claire Novotny gives a practical example of the challenges that international cooperation can encounter, in the second paper of this issue. The author draws from her personal experience in Belize to highlight power imbalances between different stakeholders over the control of the past. While the local communities should be ‘natural’ stakeholders, Novotny’s experience shows that community archaeology initiatives can sometimes be looked at with hesitation both by those who are in charge of the management of archaeological sites and by the communities themselves, which obviously include different views. Alongside achieving scientific outcomes, the Aguacate Community Archaeology Project empowered the local community to use the site primarily for their own benefit and priorities (identified in that case with the need for a leisure space for local families to enjoy). The paper showcases the complexity of the negotiations that the team had to establish with different stakeholders. This element should be taken into account by funders of archaeology projects abroad: on one hand, the time and costs to build relationships and networks should be recognized; on the other hand, the efforts of building these networks should be supported by long-term funding projects (in contrast to the vast majority of funding streams which privilege short-term projects). Claire Novotny concludes her paper with reflections on post(?)-colonial archaeology, and the role that archaeologists can have in mediating between different power structures, advocating for community empowerment and human rights (see also Pyburn, 2007).

Novotny’s final reflections lead to the third paper of this issue, written by Sonya Atalay. The paper starts from acknowledging the potential of community-based archaeology for the well-being of communities and for its contribution to overcome colonial narratives and practices in Indigenous contexts (Atalay, 2012). However, the author notes the risks associated with making the Indigenous rights, knowledge, and practices more visible, especially in the current political climate which frequently allows (if not fosters) racism and hate speech and undermines science. The popular underestimation and mistrust in science have actually been maximized by the social, economic, and political stress caused by the Coronavirus pandemic, which happened after this paper was written. In this context, an Indigenous knowledge system, long denied, is threatened, potentially creating further occasions for harassment of Indigenous communities. In this paper, Atalay presents a framework to bridge the divide between Western science and Indigenous knowledge, which was tested in an educational context.

The fourth paper of the issue, written by Silvina Seguí and colleagues, presents a student training experience at a former illegal detention centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina. They exemplify the potential of archaeological fieldwork to engage with a difficult and dark past — in this case the Argentinian dictatorship. Through a collaborative process that incorporates human rights issues into fieldwork training, the field school could ethically and responsibly explore the memories and emotions connected to this past. Through reflecting on their own practice of field training and lab work, the authors cemented the role of ethics as being critical to the archaeological process and simultaneously critique their teaching and its conventions. The authors hope that by positioning archaeology as a subject that trains students and citizens, they will also ‘revive the archaeological calling’ by teaching skills that are difficult to learn.

Two reviews close the volume, one of which —The Cultural Turn in International Aid, written again by Agathe Dupeyron — is closely related to the key topic of sustainable development. In the second review, Amy Buono comments on The Disobedient Museum, a concise but thought-provoking book on museum activism.