TEACHING ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURYsense of place among many populations, a process that canencourage contemporary peoples to ally themselves in previouslyunrecognized ways for social and political change(Gadsby and Chidester 2011).ConclusionIn 2000, the Society of American Archaeology published theedited volume Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century,(Bender and Smith 2000). In it, Anne Pyburn describedthe discipline of archaeology as “under siege;” according toPyburn, we were in a precarious position, with shrinkingfunding from the National Science Foundation, fewer andfewer academic jobs for PhDs, and politicians and a generalpublic who put us on the defensive by viewing our work as“frivolous” (Pyburn 2000:121). Though nearly 15 years havepassed since Pyburn’s article was published, it seems that littlehas changed. Perhaps we are all doing a good job ofdemonstrating archaeology’s relevance in our college classrooms,but, if so, then that work has evidently allowed usonly to maintain the status quo. Perhaps we could becomemore effective in integrating our studies across the collegecurriculum and highlighting the contemporary relevance ofarchaeology to students in disciplines as diverse as Physicsand Philosophy, and, thus, 15 years from now, find ourselvesand our discipline feeling more confident and less embattled.Regardless, clearly articulating the social relevance ofarchaeology for ourselves, for our students, for our communities,and across the college curriculum as a whole is notsimply good practice. It is vital to the continued health of ourfield.References CitedBender, Susan J. and George S. Smith (editors)2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century. Society ofAmerican Archaeology, Washington, D.C.Davis, Hester A., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Judith Bense, Elizabeth M.Brumfiel, Shereen Lerner, James J. Gadsby, David A. andRobert C. Chidester2011 Heritage and “Those People”: Representing Working-ClassInterests through Hampden’s Archaeology. HistoricalArchaeology (45)1:101–113.Davis, Hester A., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Judith Bense, Elizabeth M.Brumfiel, Shereen Lerner, James J. Miller, Vincas P.Steponaitis, and Joe Watkins1999 Teaching Archaeology in the 21st Century: Thoughts onUndergraduate Education. SAA Bulletin 17(1).Hastorf, Christine A., and Sissel Johannessen1993 Pre-Hispanic Political Change and the Role of Maize inthe Central Andes of Peru. American Anthropologist 95(1):115–138.McAnany, Patricia Ann, and Norman Yoffee2010 Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability,and the Aftermath of Empire. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.Pyburn, K. Anne2000 “Altered States: Archaeologists Under Siege in Academe.”In Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, editedby Susan J. Bender and George S. Smith, pp. 121–124.Society of American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.Redman, Charles L.1999 Human Impact on Ancient Environments. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.Schwartz, Glenn M., and John J. Nichols2006 After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson.14 The SAA Archaeological Record • May 2014
TEACHING ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURYTHE LAST CHAPTER(HOW) ARE WE TEACHING ARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHICS ANDVALUES TO OUR UNDERGRADUATES?John D. SeebachJohn D. Seebach teaches at Front Range Community College, Larimer Campus, Fort Collins, Colorado.As many recent edited volumes suggest (Adler andBruning 2012; Scarre and Scarre 2006; Zimmermanet al. 2003), today’s archaeologists think and read a lotabout ethical practice. Yet the syllabus survey conducted byKamp (2014) suggests that, out of the seven curriculumgoals put forth by the SAA Committee on Curriculum, ethicsand values do not command much attention in our classrooms.This is paradoxical and even somewhat unsettling: ifwe are training the next generation of professional archaeologists,why are we apparently neglecting to instruct them inthe ethics and values that support our practice? The shortanswer, and good news, is that we aren’t so neglectful. A briefsurvey of the domains considered to be part of ethical practice,as codified by the SAA Ethics in Archaeology Committee(Lynott and Wylie 1995), and of the textbooks commonlyused in introductory-level courses reveals that ethical considerations,to varying degrees, pervade almost all of our pedagogy.What we are guilty of is not making our ethical standardsmore explicit on syllabi and potentially in our lectures,which we should strive to do. Students leave our classroomswith only their syllabi, notes, and memories, and if we arenot more open about the ethical stances we take as individualsand as a profession, we run the risk of making our valuesseem less important than they are. This is of particular concernfor those students who will not continue on in archaeologyand who will be bombarded in their lives by media featuringmisused or illegally gained archaeological finds.Before going further it is useful to consider what kinds ofsubjects and concepts fall under the broad heading of“Ethics and Values.” In the mid-1990s, the SAA Ethics inArchaeology Committee was charged with creating a set ofstatements codifying our values. The resulting list wasdebated and passed by the membership at large (Lynott1997). These eight statements later appeared in print (Lynott1997; Lynott and Wylie 1995) and can be found online onthe SAA website (SAA 1996). Given the dual scientific andhumanistic nature of our discipline, the eight principles areunderstandably broad. They are comprised of two statementsregarding our responsibility to the past in the presentand six statements that refer to professional practice(though Lynott (1997:593–594) notes that these are notmeant to govern our conduct). The list begins with “Stewardship,”the primary term covering the ways professionalarchaeologists try to inculcate nonprofessionals (whetherstudents or avocationals) with our deeply held belief that thematerial remains of the past are nonrenewable, important,and worthy of preservation in the face of rampant lootingand development. Consciousness-raising is the goal: lootingdestroys our knowledge of the past; antiquities should notbe bought and sold on the art market; and context is paramount.The second principle, “Accountability,” states thatarchaeologists should make good faith efforts to consultwith interested stakeholders, including descendant communities,land developers, our respective municipal and stategovernments, and other affected entities. This issue is ofobvious importance to cultural resource legislation, repatriation,and, importantly, our authority to interpret the past tocommunities that may or may not have a more immediateconnection to the cultural properties controlled by thearchaeologist (Stone 2014).The six statements about professional practice begin with“Commercialization,” stating that archaeologists should avoid“activities that enhance the commercial value of artifacts” andactively discourage the sale of antiquities. “Public Educationand Outreach” asks archaeologists to recruit the public instewardship efforts by engaging them in our work througheducation, whether in public lectures, print, or other mediasources. Similarly, “Public Reporting and Publication” asksarchaeologists to publish their work in a timely fashion andalso to disseminate their research results to the lay public.Doing so is good scientific practice, as well as an acknowledgmentthat we work in the public trust. “Intellectual Property”reminds us that the products of our research, including fieldnotes, maps, and other documents, are also part of the archaeologicalrecord and should be stewarded as much as the prehistoricand historic material remains we curate. “Records andPreservation” is a related notion, stating that all records ofresearch should be preserved. As a principle, “Training andResources” affirms that fieldwork should be undertaken onlyaccording to the highest currently accepted standards.May 2014 • The SAA Archaeological Record15
Change language