The Future of Archaeology: Towards a Meaningful Community-Based
Archaeology
Brett Wieckhoff, April 2019

2023 Anthropology Capstone Reader
Angèle Smith, Editor

DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

WIECKHOFF

Archaeology and archaeological theory are currently largely in the era of postprocessualism1. This has been significant as it has changed the ways that archaeologists interact
with communities who are stakeholders in community-based archaeological research. However,
not all archaeological research has followed suit and in many countries the archaeology still
practiced does not include or benefit the local communities. I argue that moving into the future,
archaeology must adopt a community-based approach as a mandatory practice in all situations.
Community-based archaeology is relatively new in many parts of the world and thus its meaning
is still ambiguous. How can we, as archaeologists, do better for the communities we work with
and create long-lasting meaningful relationships with them? Community-based archaeology can
mean many things and its breadth is part of what makes it so useful, but I argue that it must
include meaningful engagement with the source community which leads to a form of heritagebuilding and empowerment.
This essay begins by exploring the current theories widely practiced by archaeologists
before I discuss the concept of heritage. I cover Laurajane Smith’s discussion of (2006)
intangible heritage and authorised heritage discourse and explain how heritage can be misused
for nationalistic purpose using a case study from Greece. Following that, I explore what
community-based archaeology is and provide an example of community-based archaeology in a
case study from Belize that I argue failed by being meaningless to the community. Lastly, I
examine community-based archaeology that includes heritage-building and what I argue creates
meaningful research. As an example, I use a recent archaeological research project in Crete that I
1

Post-processualism in archaeological theory emerged in the 1980s as a movement that
emphasizes subjectivity and interpretation of archaeological findings. See discussion on pg. 2

1

Community-Based Archaeology

believe to be an outstanding example of what all archaeology, as a means to heritage building,
should look like.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY
Much like the whole of anthropology, the history of archaeology is steeped in colonial
injustices and nationalism (Lewis 1973; Forbes 2014). Archaeology and anthropology have come
a long way in trying to make amends for their pasts and move into the future with new, more
relevant and inclusive theories. The related fields of archaeology and heritage are now both
moving in the same direction into the future. The two archaeological theories of postprocessualism and symmetrical archaeology provide the basis of this paper’s research in
examining the present and future intersection of archaeology and heritage building.
Post-Processualism
Post-Processualism emerged during the 1980s as a counter response to processualism and
formed along with feminist, post-colonialist, and postmodernist theories. It starts from the idea
that “history (including prehistory) is written in the present and, in that sense, only exists in the
present” (Flemming 2006:268). It aimed to prove that “one cannot be objective but, rather than
float on a sea of relativity, one can position oneself so as to ask questions and propose
interpretations that [are] deem[ed] relevant to contemporary concerns… we have to go beyond
the evidence… [it] does not of itself deliver an understanding it is open to any number of
interpretations” (Bender in Flemming 2006:268). Post-Processualism can be seen as a turning
away from Processual archaeology’s mission to be accepted into the sciences, towards an
archaeology focusing on contemporary societies and social issues. The Post-processual approach
is important to understand as it was a significant shift in archaeology which “opened up the
2

WIECKHOFF

discipline to more players, more voices and has made valid new subject matters” (Meskel 1998:
6). The type of community-based archaeology which combines with heritage-building owes its
existence to post-processualism discourse.

Symmetrical Archaeology
Symmetrical archaeology follows a similar approach as post-processualism, and in fact
could be better described as a branch of post-processualism, as it focuses on the archaeological
past and its relevance in contemporary society using multiple historical narratives. This theory
explores the dualisms created through the history of archaeology and reconsiders the
“relationships between past and present, people and things, biology and culture, individual and
culture” (Shanks 2007:590). Symmetry is also concerned with ideas of continuity with, and
memory of, the past. We are not separate from the past but rather there is a cultural continuity
with our ancestors which needs to be examined through collective memories which “unlock”
parts of our past (Shanks 2007:593). Symmetrical archaeology shares a lot of similarities with
theories of heritage, especially with respect to the idea of cultural continuity and the importance
of collective memories.

HERITAGE
Heritage can be defined as our array of inherited culture, our traditions, objects,
monuments, and memories. As well, heritage does not exist within a vacuum and is not strictly
our past: heritage is how our past affects our present. The past is constantly renegotiated to make
it correspond with the present as we choose what parts of our cultural past to preserve and pass
on to future generations (Smith 2006, Littler 2014, Holtorf 2012). Heritage can also be defined as
3

Community-Based Archaeology

a practice, that has protocols followed by heritage managers, archaeologists, museum curators,
and community members. Heritage can be turned into profit through tourism, but most
importantly, it is the social and culture practice of meaning and identity making (Smith 2006:13).
Heritage is a vast subject which will be examined in terms of its relationship with archaeology
and identity building. Heritage can be used both negatively and is regularly used to perpetuate
hegemonic2 power and nationalism. However, it also has been used to rebuild collective
identities and empower marginalized communities.
Intangible Heritage & Memory
According to Smith, heritage tends to focus on the aesthetically pleasing things which can
be placed inside a museum and admired (Smith 2006:29). These tangible parts of heritage, ones
which exist physically in our world, are of importance to our heritage and collective identity, but
there is another aspect of heritage which is more subtle but even stronger than cultural objects.
Intangible heritage has a “focus on practices and expressions that do not leave extensive material
traces… such as storytelling, craftsmanship, rituals, dramas and festivals” (Littler 2014:95).
Intangible heritage is the experiential parts of culture that define our sense of belonging, and the
idea that we are who we are because we have been practising and experiencing this for
generations. This type of heritage is created through collective memories of the past, distinct
from history, as acts of remembering and forgetting which create the heritage we practice and
preserve today.
Intangible heritage and memory are intimately related to the “present through the
personal and collective actions of remembering… [and] is an important constitutive element of

2

Simply put, hegemonic power is that of the ruling or dominant class in a political or social
context.
4

WIECKHOFF

identity formation” (Smith 2006:60). Being created from the past does not mean that heritage is
necessarily “history” which seeks to clearly define and analyze the truths of the past; rather,
heritage does not have to follow the strict narratives of historical continuity. Memories that are
shared often have been widely accepted as something which should be remembered, and this
sharing becomes social glue which creates feelings of belonging and security within
communities which further creates cultural continuity (Smith 2006:63). However, not all
collective memories and historical narratives are thought to be equal; heritage discourse has
often focused only on dominant ideologies and has been misused for nationalistic purposes.

Authorized Heritage Discourse and Nationalism
As previously discussed, heritage discourse tends to focus on our material heritage, the
physical aspects which are admired for their aesthetic. While our monuments and our
masterworks are important parts of our cultural identity, it is only one aspect of heritage.
Laurajane Smith (2006:29) has termed this the “authorized heritage discourse” (AHD) which
focuses on “aesthetically pleasing material objects, places and/or landscapes that current
generations ‘must’ care for, protect and revere so that they may be passed to nebulous future
generations for their ‘education’”. However, our heritage extends far beyond the “aesthetically
pleasing” material objects only and thus authorized heritage discourse is often problematic and
exclusionary. Similarly to archaeology, “heritage arose during the nineteenth century as a way to
consolidate national identity and served as a foundational component of nationalism, with
archaeological evidence frequently being used to support these heritage narratives” (Westmont
and Antelid 2018:238). Heritage is a powerful force in creating collective and national identities
and thus can be used in a way that is harmful towards minority groups. It can prevent the
5

Community-Based Archaeology

participation of minorities “in the selection and creation of historical sites and narratives”
(Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:242). There is power within authorized heritage
discourse and that power establishes who can speak for the past, by creating a single historical
narrative and national identity that gives power to those who fit that identity and takes power
from those who do not. However, heritage is “also a process that continually creates and
recreates a range of social relations, values and meanings about both the past and present… it
legitimizes and defines the identities of a range of social actors” (Smith 2006:42). While
authorized heritage discourse has the power to create space for other heritage narratives, it is
largely used for nationalistic purposes to solidify dominant ideologies and silence minority
voices. Authorized heritage discourse can use archaeology to give power to these dominant
ideologies by not allowing space for dissonant voices. The power within authorized heritage
discourse is illustrated perfectly in a Greek context where the government has spent many
decades pushing a single idea of what it means to be Greek.

Case Study: Greece’s Misuse of Heritage
Using Greece as an example, I would like to illustrate the ways in which heritage can be
misused and ways that archaeology without community involvement can create dangerous
identity politics. Greece has spent decades forging itself into a nation-state based on a collective
identity based on Hellenism, Greece’s ancient past (323 BC – 31 BC). Since the early 19th
century to today, archaeology in Greece has been used by its government to “legitimize the
identity of the nation. The claim was that a direct cultural link existed between ancient Classical
Greeks and the people living in the same region” (Sakellariadi 2010:516). Modern Greece has

6

WIECKHOFF

had its connections to the classical past solidified since the War of Independence (1821-1829)
from the Ottoman Empire.
The connection to Greece’s classical past was born during Ottoman occupation (from the
mid-15th century to 1821). Under this Turkish Ottoman rule, high-status Greeks sought to claim
their unique difference from their oppressors by emphasizing that they had an unbroken
connection to the ancient Hellenic spirit and culture. Yet, this “unbroken connection” was an
invention, as a continuous connection with this past had not existed (Forbes 2014:83). After
independence, the Hellenistic obsession only continued and was further reinvigorated with
Greece’s membership to the European Union in 1981 (Gotsi in Forbes 2014:83). In an attempt to
prevent European homogeneity, Greece used its classical past to differentiate itself from the rest
of the European Union. Greece “compromised its modern identity so as to prove itself worthy of
this legacy at the expense of a far richer past than the one that suited the national narrative”
(Sakellariadi 2010:516). The creation of a single national narrative had led to the denial, and
even prosecution, of alternative heritages. Greek citizens have been arrested and charged with
crimes, usually with disrupting public peace, if they publicly recognize minorities. One such case
in 2001, saw a citizen jailed for 15 months for “disseminating false information which could
provoke public anxiety and give the impression that there are minority problems in Greece… the
court ruled that claiming that any minority language groups existed in Greece was a lie” (Forbes
2014:79). However, minority groups do exist, and the misuse of archaeology and heritage has
created a sense of disconnect and unbelonging for minority groups within Greece.
Arvanites, an ethnic minority of Albanian origins living in southeastern Greece, have
experienced discrimination due to their non-Hellenistic past despite their permanent residence in
the region since the 9th century. Arvanites even faced modern ethnic cleansing, not in the
7

Community-Based Archaeology

extreme sense of genocide, but still a deliberate attempt to erase Arvanitic identity. One way in
which the Greek government did this was to remove all indigenous Arvanitic place names with
Greek names in order to claim the land as historically Greek (Forbes 2014:87). The Arvanite
population also faced increasingly xenophobic attacks because they were erroneously associated
with Albanian refugees in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The belief that “of all the migrant
groups in Greece… ethnic Albanians were the most visible, most reviled and most particularly
associated with criminality in Greek social consciousness” led the native Arvanitic population to
be attacked (Forbes 2014:90). Arvanites were faced with assimilating into the hegemonic Greek
identity and differentiating themselves from Albanian refugees.
Constant discrimination and lack of representation has severely affected the Arvanite’s
heritage and sense of belonging in Greece. Arvanites are very proud of their “distinctive
language, culture and origins, directly challenging the dominant national discourse on ‘true’
Greek identity” (Forbes 2014:89). Having an unwanted heritage, a heritage deemed uninteresting
at least, and dangerous at worst by Greek researchers led Arvanites to create their own discourse
on heritage. With the creation of Arvanitic associations, Arvanites entered the battle of who was
“more Greek”. These associations focused on the “primeval origins of Arvanite’s civilisation…
[and] that the original ancestors of Albanians and Greece’s Arvanites were the Pelasgians, a
mythical race that the ancient Greeks believed inhabited Greece before they arrived” (Forbes
2014:90). This narrative thus placed the Arvanites in Greece before the Greeks themselves,
making Arvanitic heritage as important as, if not more than, the dominant Greek heritage.
Using heritage for nationalistic purposes is dangerous, it pushes minorities further into
the margins and creates conflict about who truly belongs to the state. Community-based
archaeology would assist in breaking this hegemonic heritage discourse in Greece by
8

WIECKHOFF

highlighting dissonant historic narratives and bringing minorities into the national view. In order
to normalize other Greek identities and create more diverse heritage, Greek archaeology needs to
expand beyond the authorized heritage discourse. Doing so will add value to the heritage, create
more diverse tourism, and economically benefit smaller, local diverse communities (Sakellariadi
2010:523). Community-based archaeology provides an opportunity for minority voices to be
heard and allow researchers to explore histories beyond of the authorized heritage discourse.

COMMUNITY-BASED ARCHAEOLOGY
Community-based archaeology (CBA) is a relatively new concept within archaeology.
Although CBC is already deeply rooted in archaeology that deals with Indigenous peoples,
especially in North America, it is still in its infancy in many parts of the world. Very simply,
CBA is defined as any outreach aspect of an archaeological project (Thomas 2017:16). However,
that allows archaeologists to label their research as community-based without any meaningful
engagement of locals. What CBA is and how it looks in practice will vary between communities
(see Atalay 2012:16-17), but I argue that to truly be considered CBA, researchers must include
locals in meaningful engagement. Types of meaningful engagement can include public outreach
by disseminating information to source communities, involvement in excavations, site
management, and conservation (Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:469). It is also important to note what,
or who, is the community. A clear definition of community, or even the community you are
specifically working with, is inherently difficult to arrive at. Community is not only the people
who reside where you do research, there are many other kinds of community, including those
based on interest and referred to as stakeholders, which can be anything from descent
9

Community-Based Archaeology

communities (which do not always reside on lands of their heritage anymore), to politicians
(Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:468). The communities that can be involved in research are pluralistic
and complex, which can both serve to enrich the process and/or add struggles.
History too is pluralistic; there is no single truth in the re-creation of the past, yet only the
most dominant narrative is widely spread. As we saw in the above case study in Greece, there is
clearly a dominant version of history that is promoted which leaves no space for other versions
of history. Community-based archaeology, by working with and listening to the voices of
minority communities, recognizes that there is no single past and that the “meaning of the past
and its remains cannot be revealed objectively, but are always created in a given contemporary
social and cultural context” (Holtorf 2012:7). Every historical narrative is up for negotiation, and
community-based archaeology allows for dissonant voices to be heard and for a more pluralistic
version of history to be offered. Community-based archaeology in the capacity it exists today in
many places, is easily abused due to its multiple and sometimes ambiguous definitions. With one
definition, a researcher only has to use local knowledge for their research to be considered
“community-based”. It is easy to have community involvement in research and it is even easier
to benefit from that involvement. However, creating meaningful engagement can be difficult and
does not always directly benefit research, but it should be a requirement to be recognized as truly
“community-based” and to receive any type of research funding.

Case Study: Almost There: Research in Belize
While community-based archaeology is unarguably a step in the right direction, it can be
far too loosely defined which is seen in Mayfield and Simmons’ (2018) research in Belize. Their

10

WIECKHOFF

idea of community-based archaeology is what I describe as the bare minimum. The following
will be an evaluation of the work Mayfield and Simmons did in Belize and why I believe they
should not call their research community-based archaeology. Their research involves the
community of San Pedro, but it still lacks meaningful engagement that serves to further the
community after the researchers’ departure. The community is also loosely defined; they are not
working with a specific community but instead just allowed locals in a city to interact with the
research. It is clear that their intentions were not to exploit the source community for their
knowledge, as they speak about how positive and enlightening experience it was to work with
locals. However, by only focusing on what the community could offer their research they
effectively leached the local knowledge and fled back to America with their results.
Mayfield and Simmons’ research took place on the property of a hostel in San Pedro
Town in northern Belize. They set out with the goals to work in clear view of the community and
invite the public to ask questions and engage in the research and were successful with immediate
public responses on the first day. Four people approached the researchers and each of them “had
seen artifacts similar to those … excavated on their property… [they] got leads on previously
unidentified sites and were informed of community members who might be able to answer some
… questions” (Mayfield and Simmons 2018:30). The team clearly benefited greatly from
including source communities, but the lack of meaningful engagement sets a low bar for future
community-based projects. Chirikure and Pwiti (2008:468) outline the need for meaningful
engagement which benefits source communities socially and economically as an important facet
of community-based archaeology. I believe that Mayfield and Simmons missed the mark with
their research and only took advantage of the benefits archaeologists can receive from
community-based objectives without thinking about how they could give back to the community.
11

Community-Based Archaeology

This might be at best considered to be public archaeology, but it is not truly “community-based”
archaeology.

THE FUTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY: A CLEARER COMMUNITY-BASED
APPROACH
Community-based archaeology has come to dominate the field of archaeology in many
places across the world, especially in places dealing with indigenous archaeology, but has been
slow to pick up in other areas (Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:467). Its multiple and ambiguous
definitions have also led to misinterpretations of what correctly is community-based archaeology
and in some cases has only benefited the archaeologists, as shown in Mayfield and Simmons’
(2018) archaeological project. I argue that to truly be considered community-based, archaeology
must include meaningful engagement with the source communities, and one such way to ensure
this is through heritage-building. Archaeology must also make itself relevant to minority
communities and cannot exist within a vacuum, just as with heritage, archaeology reflects and is
embedded in present-day society (Holtorf 2012:6). Community engagement can be understood
in many ways, and these understandings can range from having limited or a great deal of
engagement.
As discussed, the past is pluralistic and filled with many narratives which come from
both dominant and marginalized communities. This means that archaeologists must become
advocates for communities if it is going to be community-based. Post-Processualism presented
archaeologists with the need to give source communities a say in the research and allow them to
present their needs to researchers. Research that does not do this, such as in the above-mentioned
case study in Greece, explicitly goes against anti-colonial research standards which were
12

WIECKHOFF

commonly practiced since the 1980s. In North America, research that does not follow the criteria
of CBA would not even be able to find research funding. This type of archaeology, however, is
less common in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Community-based archaeology is a
powerful tool against nationalistic movements which strive to create a single identity, but
because the “heritages that underlie these nationalistic claims to power are entirely dependent on
constructed versions of the past, versions that oftentimes require as much forgetting as they do
remembering, their authenticity can be challenged” (Westmont and Antelid 2018:238).
Community-based archaeology challenges hegemonic history by hearing the voices of
marginalized communities and providing the physical means to help strengthen their claims to
their own heritage. Interacting with communities is an important aspect of community-based
archaeology and an excellent way to gather information which benefits both the archaeologist
and the community is through ethnographic archaeology.
Ethnographic Archaeology
Ethnographic archaeology is an important tool that links archaeology with heritagebuilding and should be an integral part of any archaeological research. Ethnographic research
involving source communities provides valuable information, not just for archaeological
research, but it also provides insight into what is important to these communities and the ways
that archaeological research may help them. This kind of research involves “short interviews, or
more in-depth ethnographic research… [and] merges accountability with public education and
truly practices an archaeology beneficial to diverse stakeholders” (McGill 2010:476). Engaging
in such a way with the community provides insight for the archaeologist but it is also a tool for
encouraging stewardship of the past through education. Ethnographic research does this by
highlighting material remains and the “embodied and narrative performances in which locals
13

Community-Based Archaeology

relate to them” (Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:250). Ethnographic archaeology becomes
an important aspect when paired with a symmetrical archaeology approach. Symmetrical
archaeology aims to discover the multiplicity of history and how these multiple narratives relate
to contemporary communities, and thus requires the method of ethnographic research. Creating
links between contemporary populations and the material past breeds an interest in the past
which leads to increased stewardship and a renewed sense of heritage.
The material past becomes important in the present because people are then able to attach
memories and emotions to objects. McGill (2010:468) argues that “through discussion with
local stakeholders, I believe all archaeologists have better opportunities to link the professional
ethics of accountability, public education, and stewardship in their research.” This can be as
simple as asking the community what is important about the place they live in. Erin Gibson
(2018), during her research in a rural town in Cyprus, asked this question of the villagers and
provided cameras for them to photograph these places. The villagers then “decided they wanted
to videotape practices because heritage isn’t always about places, it’s about things that happen at
those places, it’s about certain traditions” (Gibson 2018). Gibson’s research is now being
continued by the villagers as they continue to film and record their heritage. Ethnographic
research and archaeology should be inseparable and benefits archaeologists by forming
relationships between contemporary communities and the ancient past they study. In cases where
there are no direct descendent groups, such as in Egypt, the community that lives on the
archaeological site still has a great depth of knowledge of the ancient past (Lorenzon and
Zermani 2016). However, I have argued that archaeologists cannot just use the community’s
knowledge without giving back and providing meaningful opportunities which empower the
community.
14

WIECKHOFF

Empowering Communities
Any archaeological research project should strive to leave the source community with
tools to create a better situation. Far too often archaeologists have extracted knowledge from a
community and fled with the findings. Empowerment can come in many forms, not just
economically, it can relate to the physical wellbeing of a community. Archaeological projects
involving veterans to combat war trauma has proven that “involvement and interaction with
heritage… [has been] shown to have positive ‘wellbeing’ outcomes” (Thomas 2017:24) which
can be measured medically. The simplest way a community can be empowered through
community-based archaeology is by providing a platform for those whose voices are often not
heard. Our research as archaeologists should serve to educate about marginalized populations
and provide the resources for these groups to continue and benefit from this education also. This
type of archaeology should always seek to challenge metanarratives “which seek to formulate
people as one and move away from the singularities of class, sex, geopolitical locale, [and]
sexual orientation” (Meskel 1998:4).
Archaeologists must counter nationalistic discourse which uses archaeology as evidence,
especially in areas which are politically volatile. The representation of different heritages of both
dominant and marginalized communities can often be problematic and cause increased tensions
between these communities, but it can also foster greater respect for each other’s identities and
opens our society to different ways of expressing identity (Golden 2004:195). Instead of feeding
into nationalistic motives, archaeologists should instead work “toward producing archaeological
narratives that challenge the dominant ideologies and national myths rather than support them”
(Golden 2004:199). Empowering communities should be an integral part of community-based
archaeology. The archaeological project of the “Three Peak Sanctuaries of Central Crete” is a
15

Community-Based Archaeology

prime example of community-based archaeology that empowers local communities through
meaningful engagement which includes heritage-building.

Case Study: Community-Based Archaeology Done Right: An Example from Central Crete
The “Three Peak Sanctuaries of Central Crete” project investigated materials from
previous salvage excavations in three Minoan peak sanctuaries3: Philioremos-Gonies, KeriaGonies, and Pyrgos-Tylissos. What makes this project unique is its use of ethnography and the
ways in which it builds upon heritage, specifically of women whose voices are often left out of
these types of research. The project's goal was to practice “a pragmatic, context-specific,
ethnographically informed archaeology that retains its critical distance from official versions of
heritage, but seeks to intervene in existing local disputes and participate in the planning and
execution of heritage management… and advocate for positions that are underprivileged in the
AHD [authorized heritage discourse]” (Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:243). Previous
archaeological research in Crete has left the community feeling robbed of their heritage. In one
example from 1954, local Cretan heritage was literally taken from them when a local man
discovered a suit of armour while digging a cellar in his basement. The artifact was promptly
taken by the Heraklion Museum curator and neither the man nor his descendants have been
allowed to see the armour as the museum is unwilling to find it within their stores (Kyriakidis
and Anagnostopoulos 2016:249). While the communities on Crete recognize that archaeology
can bring tourism and revenue, they have not had positive experiences with archaeologists.

3

These sites, found high in the mountains on the island of Crete in Greece, are thought to have
been used for religious rites in the Minoan culture, which was part of the Bronze Age Aegean
civilization from about 3500 BCE to 1100 BCE.
16

WIECKHOFF

Ethnographic research is a way to break down the boundaries of distrust and through building
rapport, archaeologists can better work with the community and learn what they want from
archaeological research.
Ethnographic research was a key aspect of the Three Peaks Sanctuaries project. The
purpose of the ethnographic research was to identify people most willing to partake in heritage
management and to establish the aims of the community which most importantly was community
regeneration (Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:246). Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos
learned that the community’s interests were in economic development and that the local
community members had no personal interest or investment in the Minoan ruins beyond
economic opportunity. As a result of this finding, the project had to turn its attention to modern
heritage as well to build an interest in, or stewardship of these heritage sites while also building
upon the community’s interest in their more recent past (Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos
2016:244). This turn in the research direction is extremely important for community-based
archaeology because it recognizes the needs of the community as equal to the archaeological
interests. While there was little attachment to the ancient heritage of the sites, local community
members did connect to these places because of more recent and personal memories and
heritage. When asked “What is Philioremos to you?” one elderly man answered “it is everything;
when we cut class we hid there, when the Nazis came to sack the village we flew there, when our
mothers wanted to give us a beating we hid there, when the Ottomans were here, we organized
up there, Philioremos is our freedom, it is every we have” (Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos
2016:255). The past is multilayered: the ancient past of these Minoan ruins clearly is not the only
past, nor even the most important past to the local community members. The past can also be
interpreted differently by different village communities as was evident in the conflicting histories
17

Community-Based Archaeology

of surrounding villages, as each tried to claim they had more rights to the Minoan heritage than
did the others. Using archaeological evidence, Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos (2016) were able
to disprove other villages’ claims to the heritage. This is also why the ethnographic research is
important as it brings forth the experiential connection different communities have with a place
of antiquity. These ancient sites have meaning both about the ancient pasts and as part of the
everyday lives of people.
The Three Peaks project had a clear goal to give back to the community. It was made
explicit from the beginning “that this research project would be small-scale and would not funnel
funds for local development. However [the project’s] ethical commitment to give back to the
community led [the researchers] to consider ways of reimbursing the community for its
resources, its hospitality, and its time” (Kyriakidis and Anagnostopulos 2016:246) They did so in
small ways, such as providing small sums of money to the village cultural association and to
their hosts, and assisting the community in ways to attract tourism and revenue themselves
(Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:248).
The research project did this in a few specific ways that were both personal and geared
towards creating a tourism industry within the village. First, the project used people’s personal
memories to increase stewardship by re-creating clay dolls from the ruins that the elderly
residents used to play with as children. The workshop ‘evoked bodily memories of interaction
with the [dolls]… and also highlighted their importance as archaeological knowledge, and…
embodied affective notions of stewardship based on a communally perceived memory of place”
(Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:250). Second, the project assisted in setting up tourist
signposts. Third, and most importantly, this project sought to create space so that the voices of
the village women could be heard in the heritage and tourism narratives. Traditionally, women
18

WIECKHOFF

have been left out of most decisions in the village, but the women held deep knowledge of the
heritage. In the case of Crete, these women had knowledge of herbal medicine and had used tools
like those found in the ruins in their domestic labour. To highlight this, the research project
created a heritage map that focused on gendered areas of domestic work. When the village men
protested that this was not “heritage”, the project fostered an environment where the women felt
comfortable in defending themselves. The project researchers emphasized that “what is called
heritage in the village is in great part associated with female labour and domestic chores”
(Kyriakidis and Anagnostopoulos 2016:258). This was illustrated by the utensils and implements
that are today zealously preserved as family heirlooms held by the women of the village. The
Three Peaks project is a perfect example of what community-based archaeology should look like
because of its range of meaningful engagements with the local community and its strict
commitment to ethics.

CONCLUSION
In order to move into the future, archaeology needs to become more relevant to
contemporary populations. With the advent of post-processualism in the 1980s, archaeology
moved further beyond the realm of sciences and further into cultural anthropology. However,
this shift in approach is not enough. It is not enough to just consider the ways in which the past
interacts with the present and the cultural aspects of material remains, archaeology needs to join
the rest of anthropology in becoming socially engaged. Heritage studies are following a similar
approach as archaeology; however, heritage can still be misused for nationalistic purposes of the
dominant community. Community-based archaeology has the tools that can counter nationalistic
heritage movements by providing evidence supporting the existence of marginalized
19

Community-Based Archaeology

communities and their heritages. The Three Peaks projects in Crete is a good example of when
community-based archaeology and heritage intersect and how they counter each other’s
weaknesses. All types of archaeology across the world need to adopt a community-based
archaeology which involves meaningful engagement that empowers the communities we work
with. Today, archaeologists who adopt these methods are seen as going above and beyond, but I
believe this type of research should be the standard as we continue into the future.

20

WIECKHOFF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Angèle Smith for her guidance in both this
research paper and unending kindness as a teacher, mentor, and friend. I would also like to thank
my capstone classmates Rhiannon Gammon, Rowan Paulson, Laura Pyke, and Christa Flowers
for giving their time in editing and providing feedback on all of our projects.

21

Community-Based Archaeology

REFERENCES CITED

Atalay, Sonya
2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local
Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Chirikure, Shadreck and Gilbert Pwiti
2008 Community Involvement in archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management: An
Assessment from Case Studies in Southern Africa and Elsewhere. Current Anthropology
49(3):467-485.
Flemming, Andrew
2006 Post-processual Landscape Archaeology: A Critique. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 16(3):267-280.
Forbes, Hamish
2014 Archaeology and the Making of Improper Citizens in Modern Greece. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 27(1):79-100.
Gibson, Erin
2018 Pathways to Heritage: Community-Based Research in a Rural Cypriot Village.
Electronic document, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAVSc34OBE, accessed April
1, 2019.
Golden, Jonathon
2004 Targeting Heritage: The Abuse of Symbolic Sites in Modern Conflict. In Marketing
Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past, edited by Yorke Rowan and Uzi
Baram, pp. 183-204. Rowman and Littlefield, California.

22

WIECKHOFF

Holtorf, Cornelius
2012 Search for the Past – Find the Present: Qualities of Archaeology and Heritage in
Contemporary Society. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Kyriakidis, Evangelos and Aris Anagnostopoulos
2016 Archaeological Ethnography, Heritage Management, and Community Archaeology: A
Pragmatic Approach from Crete. Public Archaeology 14(4): 240-262.
Lewis, Diane
1973 Anthropology and Colonialism. Current Anthropology 14(5):581-602.
Littler, Jo
2014 Intangible Roles: Theory, Policy, Practice and Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Ethnologies 36(1-2):93-106.
Lorenzon, Marta and Isabel Zermani
2016 Common Ground: Community Archaeology in Egypt, Interaction Between Populations
and Cultural Heritage. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 3(3):183-199.
Mayfield, Tracie and Scott E. Simmons
2018 Why the Present Matters: The Important of Community Outreach and Public
Engagement in Archaeology. Anthropology Now 10(1):25-39.
Meskel, Lynn
1998 Introduction: Archaeology Matters. In Archaeology under fire: Nationalism, Politics
and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Edited by Lynn Meskel,
pp.1-12. Routledge, London.

23

Community-Based Archaeology

McGill, Dru
2010 The Public’s Archaeology: Utilizing Ethnographic Methods to Link Public Education
with Accountability in Archaeological Practice. Archaeologies 6(3):468-484.
Sakellariadi, Anastasia
2010 Community Archaeology: A Threat or an Opportunity for Greek Archaeology?
Archaeologies 6(3):514-527.
Smith, Laurajane
2006 Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.
Shanks, Michael
2007 Symmetrical archaeology. World Archaeology 39(4):589-596.
Thomas, Suzie
2017 Community Archaeology. In Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by Gabrial
Moshenska, pp. 14-30. UCL Press, London.
Westmont, Camille and Andreas Antelid
2018 The place to be: Community archaeology as a tool for cultural integration. Journal of
Community Archaeology & Heritage 5(4):237-249.

24