Global divides and cultural diversity: Challenges for the World Archaeological Congress.

Global Divides and Cultural Diversity:Challenges for the World ArchaeologicalCongress

Claire Smith, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box

2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT________________________________________________________________

The major challenge of our generation is breaking down global divides,

especially as these relate to inequities of wealth, power, and access to

knowledge. Related to this is the impact of globalization on cultural

diversity. Using the example of the World Archaeological Congress as a case

study, this paper explores how scholarly organizations can impact upon,

and be impacted by, these divides. This study identifies measures that

narrow the gap between richer and poorer and which enhance global

diversity, as well as measures that act in a converse direction. Finally, this

paper identifies challenges for the future of archaeology that arise from this

discussion.________________________________________________________________

Resume: Le grand defi de notre generation est de faire disparaitre les

fractures mondiales, notamment dans la mesure ou elles se rapportent a

des inegalites de richesse, de pouvoir et d’acces aux connaissances. Il faut

ajouter a cela les consequences de la mondialisation sur la diversite

culturelle. A l’aide de l’exemple du Congres archeologique mondial comme

etude de cas, le present article examine comment les organismes de

recherche universitaire peuvent jouer un role dans ces fractures et etre

touches par elles. Cette etude identifie les mesures qui reduisent l’ecart

entre les riches et les pauvres et qui ameliorent la diversite mondiale, ainsi

que les mesures qui agissent en sens inverse. Enfin, cet article identifie les

defis pour l’avenir de l’archeologie qui decoulent de cette discussion.________________________________________________________________

Resumen: El principal desafıo de nuestra generacion es derribar las

divisiones mundiales, especialmente cuando se refieren a desigualdades de

riqueza, poder y acceso al conocimiento. Relacionado con esto esta el

impacto de la globalizacion sobre la diversidad cultural. Utilizando el

ejemplo del Congreso Arqueologico Mundial como un estudio de caso, el

presente documento explora como las organizaciones academicas pueden

influir en, o verse influidas por, estas divisiones. El presente estudio

RESEARCH

ARCHAEOLO

GIES

Volume11

Number

1A

pri

l2

01

5

4 � 2015 World Archaeological Congress

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (� 2015)

DOI 10.1007/s11759-015-9267-x

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11759-015-9267-x&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11759-015-9267-x&domain=pdf

identifica medidas que reducen la brecha entre los mas ricos y los mas

pobres y que aumentan la diversidad global, ası como tambien medidas

que actuan en direccion contraria. Finalmente, el presente documento

identifica los desafıos para el futuro de la arqueologıa que surgen de este

debate._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Globalization, Cultural diversity, The politics of archaeology, Global divides_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is far too little sense that we are all in this together. Failure to establishshared values and ethical standards in national and international decision-making is at the heart of the divides and controversy surrounding globaliza-tion. Although global markets, transportation, and communication increas-ingly connect us, we are increasingly divided between rich and poor, Northand South, religious and secular, and them and us (Mary Robinson, UN Hu-man Rights High Commissioner, 31st December, 2003).

Introduction

The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) has challenged global inequi-ties and promoted cultural diversity from its establishment in 1985. Sincethis time, developments in world markets, transportation, and communica-tion have reduced geographic divides, but economic disparities have in-creased, exacerbated by a new digital divide. Though innovative modes ofcommunication facilitate new global collaborations, intellectual divides anda failure to find shared values can mitigate against such collaborations.

This paper reflects on the challenges and opportunities that have beenfaced by the World Archaeological Congress over the 10 years when I wasPresident, from June 2003 to January 2014. It focuses on WAC’s un-planned mission to redress global divides and celebrate cultural diversity asthey relate to archaeological knowledge and archaeological communities.These topics are discussed through the lens of how WAC has addressed themajor challenge of our generation: breaking down global divides ‘betweenrich and poor, North and South, religious and secular, them and us’(Robinson 2003). This paper considers accomplishments and steps towardsuch a purpose, as well as challenges, limitations, and disappointments.

Global Divides and Cultural Diversity 5

The Genesis of WAC

The genesis of WAC lies with the 11th International Congress of the Inter-national Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (UISPP), whichwas planned for Southampton, England, in September 1986. Late in 1985,the local labor-dominated city government of Southampton announcedthat it would withhold promised financial support from the planned Con-gress if the UIPPS allowed South African and Namibian delegates to par-ticipate. Against a backdrop of growing violence in South Africa, and inlight of the United Nations’ cultural and academic bans against Botha’sapartheid regime, the Southampton organizers of the conference decided tosupport the city’s decision to ban South African participants from theevent. They argued that the entire conference would collapse financially ifthey did not go along with the city ruling, and also that this was a moralissue and it was time for archaeology to recognize its potential for con-tributing to change in the present. Peter Ucko, the National Secretary ofthe Southampton Congress, expresses an evolution in his views in the fol-lowing passage:

For months I acted as a traditional academic would, arguing that academicfreedom was more important than anything else, and I claimed to myselfand others that one could be totally against apartheid while at the same timedoing nothing about it in the sphere of academia. Shockingly, it took manymonths for me to realize what a patronising stance I was adopting (Ucko1987, p. 4).

The critical meeting was held in Paris, in January 1986. The participantsincluded Jacques Nenquin, the Secretary-General of the UISPP, Henri deLumley, L. Balout, Ed Ripoll, Michael Day, Marcel Otte, Phillip Tobias (ofSouth Africa), and Peter Ucko. At this meeting, it became clear that theviews of the Southampton conference organizers and the International Ex-ecutive of the UISPP could not be reconciled and the UISPP withdrewsupport for the Southampton conference. From the point of view of theUISPP, the issue was not only about academic freedom, but also aboutsupporting colleagues from all parts of the world, irrespective of politicalpersuasion:

We did not want to tell our colleagues they could not come to the confer-ence. This was about individual people, not nations. In prehistory, politics isnot important. If you are a communist, or a Marxist, it is not important.When Henri was Secretary-General of the UISPP in 1976, we did not stopcommunists from going to the conference. On the contrary, we tried to fa-cilitate relationships.

6 CLAIRE SMITH

Prehistory is sans frontiers —there are no borders, no national units, no po-litical units. Phillip Tobias was a good scientific colleague, and we did notunderstand why the English Committee would not accept his lecture.It is possible that part of the problem was the different political contexts inEngland and in France. These countries do not have the same relationshipswith South Africa.(Marie-Antoinette de Lumley pers. comm. 6th September 2006)

The position held by the UISPP Executive received support from anumber of other archaeological organizations, including the Society forAmerican Archaeology (SAA). In December 1985, the SAA’s ExecutiveCommittee issued a statement to all its members that:

The SAA upheld, and will continue to uphold, the principles of freedom ofresearch and the freedom of scholars from all nations to meet and exchangeideas (cited in Hodder 2004, p. 118).

The fallout was immediate and far-reaching. The media covered the de-bate in venues such as Science, the Times Literary Supplement, and News-week, and presented the dispute as being between academic freedom, onthe one hand, and apartheid politics, on the other hand. Many members ofthe UISPP British Committee withdrew their involvement in the UISPP.Though the Southampton Congress received support from many otherparts of the world, especially the Eastern European block, Africa, India,and South America, many members of the global archaeological communi-ty withdrew their participation. The entire Israeli delegation withdrew, asdid all but a few North American archaeologists. An unanticipated out-come was that this rift would put British archaeologists at odds with theircounterparts in the USA, as well as in Western Europe. Individual scholarswere forced to take a position on this issue, and their motivations, and thepressures they endured, were complex. The Congress of the UISPP wasrescheduled for Mainz, Germany, in September 1987, and the Southamp-ton Congress was held in September 1986 under the name the World Ar-chaeological Congress. The excitement and ‘seat of the pants’ flavor of thismeeting (see Ucko 1987; Stone 2006) are indicated in Figure 1, which de-picts a harried Peter Stone, Student Liaison Officer for WAC-1 (and laterHonorary CEO of WAC), and Congress Secretary, Caroline Jones.

This was an exciting time for archaeologists from many, many parts ofthe world, who came together in a truly global union for the first time.Participants came from 70 different countries. Bayo Folorunso of theUniversity of Ibadan, Nigeria, remembers his experience:

When WAC was founded twenty-six years ago, its message was very clearand I can still hear its spirit saying: ‘I have not come to seek those who want


to conquer the world but those who need help to survive in the world’. Fora long time there were ‘waived memberships’ for people from economicallydisadvantaged countries, so that they were exempted from paying member-ship fee. In January 1999 in Cape Town I proposed that waived membershipbe cancelled and people be made to pay some fee no matter how minimal.The WAC Assembly endorsed the proposal and regional representatives wereto fix the fee for their regions. West African members were paying the feefixed for the region. The practice has been refined by grouping countries un-der two categories with different payable membership fees.In addition, I can state that the first sets of desktop computers (1 new and 3used) in our department at the University of Ibadan were donated throughWAC, though one can now purchase a laptop at street corners in Nigeria(Foloruso 2012, p. 194).

As an undergraduate student at the University of New England in Armi-dale, Australia, I was entranced by the depiction of WAC-1 by lecturerHarry Lourandos, who described it as entirely different from any otherconference he had attended. The WAC he described was the archaeologicalworld that I wanted to join.

WAC: Political, Social and Ethical

The broader vision of the World Archaeological Congress was cementedwith adoption of the statutes of the World Archaeological Congress whichwere adopted at WAC-2 in Baquisimeto, Venezula in 1990. These statutesdefine WAC’s purpose as a scholarly organization that promotes the

Figure 1. Peter Stone (Student Liaison Officer for WAC-1 and future Steering Com-

mittee member, Secretariat, and Honorary CEO of WAC 1998–2008) and CarolineJones (WAC-1 Congress Secretary) at WAC-1, Southampton, England, September

1986. Photo courtesy of Peter Stone

8 CLAIRE SMITH

growth and exchange of archaeological knowledge, as outlined in Article 2of the Statutes (WAC 1986):

ARTICLE 2

2.1 WAC is an international non-profit making organisation concernedwith all aspects of archaeological theory and practice. Its main em-phasis is on academic issues and questions which benefit from awidely oriented and comparative approach. It attempts to bridgethe disciplinary divisions of the past into chronological periods(such as prehistoric or protohistoric or historic archaeology), and toavoid exclusive, particularistic regional concerns.

2.2 WAC is based on the explicit recognition of the historical and socialrole, and the political context, of archaeological enquiry, of ar-chaeological organisations, and of archaeological interpretation. Itsdistinctive aims are:

a] to discuss themes which truly reflect the interest of its worldwidemembership;

b] to make explicit the relevance of its studies to the wider community.

2.3 In the pursuit of its aims it shall:

a] promote the study of archaeology by the organisation of internation-al conferences concerning any aspect of the archaeological sciences.These may include specialist regional and chronological subjects in-cluding historical and culture-specific investigations;

b] promote scientific publications and contributions to such publica-tions on archaeological subjects;

c] generally in collaboration with scholars from any country engage inor foster any enterprise which will promote or further the knowledgeof archaeology or disseminate knowledge or information on ar-chaeological subjects;

d] respect in all its activities the principles of the UN and UNESCO re-garding Human Rights and it may affiliate to any other organisationwhich respects those principles.

The critical commitment is enshrined in the second article of WAC’sStatutes through ‘the explicit recognition of the historical and social role,


and the political context, of archaeological enquiry’ (WAC 1990). It shouldbe noted that these statutes do not focus specifically on redressing globalinequities, or on enhancing or protecting cultural diversity. However, sucha focus is implied in the commitment to respect the principles of the Unit-ed Nations and UNESCO in regards to human rights. The confidence andcomraderie that propelled this vision is indicated in the photograph ofPeter Ucko and Jack Golson (Figure 2) at WAC-2.

Since its inception, WAC has supported local archaeologists in advocatingfor ethical practice and the conservation of cultural heritage. Recent exam-ples of this include the withdrawal from auction on eBay of two Dong Sonvotive bronze armlets containing human arm bones from northern Vietnam;the withdrawal from Christie’s auction house of a human cranium and twofemora that were once part of Yale University’s Skull and Bones society; andpreservation of the historic Regal Cinema at Newcastle, Australia. In addi-tion, WAC has supported the growth and nurturing of archaeological com-munities and values in areas where economic and political conditions canmake this hard to sustain. Since 1986, WAC has positioned itself as a forumnot only for scholars, but also for all people who have an interest in the past(though we have not been especially successful in the latter). WAC alsoworks toward redressing global inequity within the profession of archae-ology, through supporting colleagues from economically disadvantagedcountries, even though this is not part of its Statutes.

In 1985, WAC became registered as a Charity in the U.K. and, in 2002,prior to WAC-5 in Washington DC, it was registered as a not-for-profitorganization in the USA (501.c.3). From its inception, WAC emphasizedits differences from the UISPP. The organizational structure of WAC wasinformed by that of the UISPP, but shaped to reflect values that were verydifferent to those of the UISPP at the time WAC was formed.

WAC’s structure was framed to be globally democratic. It is organizedinto 14 regions, deliberately emphasizing geographic and cultural diversity.A senior representative and a junior representative are elected to the WAC

Figure 2. Peter Ucko and Jack Golson in celebration mode at WAC-2, Barquisimeto,Venezuela, September 1990. Photo by Olivia Forge, courtesy of Peter Stone and Gus-

tavo Politis

10 CLAIRE SMITH

Council from each region, which is WAC’s fundamental decision-makingbody. In addition to these regional representatives, places were allocated toIndigenous scholars from the beginning, evidence of WAC’s determinationto support Indigenous peoples. An Assembly is formed only at WAC Con-gresses. This includes a representative from each nation represented at theCongress. The Assembly elects the Officers of WAC. The Executive consistsof these Officers and selected members of the WAC Council, who are cho-sen to extend the geographic and cultural diversity of the Executive mem-bership, one Indigenous representative and one student representative.Decisions relating to WAC policy, especially in regards to global divides,need to be informed by face-to-face discussions by people from around theworld. Important mechanisms for expressing concern with particular issuesare activated at WAC Congresses, when members of the WAC Council andAssembly make decisions that are essential to WAC’s vision. Prior to, dur-ing and after, WAC Congresses, representatives from WAC’s 14 regionalcolleges meet to discuss global issues and strategies relating to Indigenousrights, cultural heritage management, and WAC governing policies overthe next four-year period. These meetings included the election of repre-sentatives for the WAC Council, WAC Assembly, and WAC Executive. Atthe Plenary, resolutions are put forward by any individuals for consid-eration by the Assembly, which includes the members of the Council andone representative from each country that is present at that particular Con-gress. The number of 14 resolutions passed at the Plenary session of aWAC Congress is usually between 14 and 20.

Does WAC have a democratic decision-making process? Yes and no. Avision of democratic decision-making was certainly fundamental to the for-mation of WAC (Ucko 1987). However, while the basic decision-makingbody for WAC is the WAC Council, as made clear in the WAC Statutes,day-to-day decisions are made by the (democratically elected) members ofthe Executive. Though decisions on potentially controversial matters arediscussed with the WAC Council, through a dedicated list server, the Ex-ecutive undertakes the day-to-day running of the organization. Making ademocratic decision, even at the level of the WAC Executive, involves agreat deal of discussion. The number of messages sent on the WAC Ex-ecutive list provides an indication of the work that underpins decision-making. For example, 1275 messages were sent on this list from January toDecember 2011, an average of 3.5 messages per day. For the WAC Ex-ecutive, all of whom are volunteers working without dedicated administra-tive support, WAC is a daily business.

In June 2003, I was elected as the youngest, and first female, Presidentof WAC. This occurred at the Fifth World Archaeological Congress (WAC-5) held in Washington DC. The Academic Secretary for WAC-5 was JoanGero, and I was her Deputy Academic Secretary (Figure 3).


No doubt, the success of WAC-5 gave people confidence that I wouldbe an effective leader. At this time, WAC’s programs consisted of Con-gresses that were held for every 4 years, Inter-Congresses on themed topicsthat were held intermittently, task forces that investigated the critical issuesof the day, and the One World Archaeology Series of edited books derivedfrom the presentations given at WAC Congresses and Inter-Congresses. Asthe new President of WAC my understanding of what was needed was de-veloped through conversations with members, particularly those on theWAC Executive and Council. Our hopes for the future included the fol-lowing initiatives: a web site; a WAC list server; standing committees; aformalization of WAC’s grants and awards programs; new book series; andan international refereed journal (Smith 2003). These initiatives aimed notonly to extend WAC’s existing mechanisms for promoting the exchange ofknowledge and perspectives, but also to explore other means of redressingglobal divides through increasing scholarly communication between mem-bers of WAC. A by-product of the book series and the journal was to cre-ate a revenue stream for the association that could be channeled intosupporting Indigenous people and people from non-Western countries.With the support of WAC members, all of them came into being.

Measures to Redress Global Divides

Global divides exist because of differences in faith, ideology, values, history,and political platforms. Redressing any such divides is no simple or uni-di-

Figure 3. Joan Gero, Claire Smith, and H. Martin Wobst at WAC-5, Washington DC,

USA, June 2003. Photo courtesy of Stephen Loring and Joan Gero

12 CLAIRE SMITH

rectional matter and is particularly challenging when channeled into an ar-chaeological context: archaeology does not provide fresh water, housing,freedom from persecution, or access to services, but it can, and does, en-able people to articulate values that are important to them, recognizeinequalities in the past as well as the present, and reveal, in some measure,the historical trajectories that have led to contemporary forms (cf. Ollman2014). In achieving any of these goals, WAC has always emphasized di-verse, global membership, the creation of channels of communication be-tween members, and the political action that can result when thatmembership and those channels of communication cohere.

The membership of WAC varies according to what is happening in anyparticular year. During the period that I was President of WAC financialmembership ranged from around 250 people from 20 or so countries to some1500 people from almost 80 countries. Membership numbers were highest fol-lowing WAC-6 in Ireland. One of the greatest challenges to breaking downglobal divides is the capacity to communicate between these members. Ac-cordingly, enhancing the capacity of archaeologists to communicate globallythrough the use of digital media became a priority of the post WAC-5 Coun-cil. A new web site was established in 2004 and replaced by a re-designed web-site in 2009. Several list servers were established using the facilities of FlindersUniversity: the WAC list, for open discussion, with around 3000 members:the WAC News list, for those who only wish to obtain announcements ofWAC events, with around 150 members; the WAC Council server, for com-munication between WAC Council members; and the WAC Executive server,which is used for regular communications among the WAC Executive. In thelatter years of my tenure as WAC President, Skype was used to hold meetingsof the Executive. This was in addition to daily email contact regarding theday-to-day business of WAC. We found that the Skype meetings had somedifficulties in terms of internet access (not everyone has good access at thesame time), but that this system was useful for discussing complex issues.

Political action is also needed to redress global divides. The principalway in which WAC undertakes political action is through press releasesand task forces. During the period from 2003 to 2014, task forces ad-dressed issues such as the illicit trading of artifacts, heritage preservation inregions affected by conflict, and the coordination of international efforts inrepatriation. These task forces are one of the principal ways in which WACis able to focus specialist knowledge and provide informed, high-quality,and timely advice to governments and other bodies.

At a broader level, WAC’s diverse membership backs the dedicated ef-forts of committees working in local contexts as well as across global di-vides. Following WAC-5, WAC experimented with the standingcommittees that were designed to deal with issues of ongoing and diverseconcern, such as ethics or student representation. Our success was uneven.


Some standing committees never really became active. In my view, this isbecause they did not have a clear remit, or need, and because WAC couldnot provide any resources to support them. Some committees were activeat particular points in WAC’s development. WAC’s publication committee,for example, played an important role in setting a direction for WAC’spublications when we were establishing new book series. The outstandinglysuccessful committees are the Ethics Committee in the years 2003–2008;the Travel Awards Committees, for both WAC-6 (2008) and WAC-7(2013); the Peter Ucko Memorial Committee; and the Students Committee,which continues to operate today.

The Ethics Committee provided critical input into WAC policy prior toWAC-6, but lost momentum after this, due, I think, to the distress causedto individual members of the committee by the controversy around a pos-sible partnership with Rio Tinto, discussed further below. Transparency inWAC’s allocation of funding support for members to attend WAC Con-gresses was ensured by the Travel Awards Committee, which developedguidelines in 2008 regarding the allocation of support and assessed hun-dreds of applications for travel awards for WAC-6 and WAC-7. This in-volved an enormous workload. In the end, 230 people were supported forWAC-6 in 2008 and 440 people were supported for WAC-7 in 2013. TheStudents Committee developed guidelines for a student prize, assessed ap-plications for this prize, and provided input into the day-to-day function-ing of WAC through a dedicated position on the WAC Executive.

In 2007, the Peter Ucko Memorial Committee was established to assessnominations for the Peter Ucko Memorial Lecture and Peter Ucko Award,which were instigated following Peter Ucko’s untimely death in June 2007in recognition of the unique contribution that Peter Ucko made to WACand world archaeology. The Peter Ucko Memorial Lecture is presentedduring every major WAC Congress to an individual at whatever stage oftheir career, and whether or not they have followed a traditional academicpath, who has made a significant contribution to archaeology as envisagedby WAC. The Peter Ucko Memorial Committee is appointed by the WACExecutive to reflect the global nature and membership of WAC. There isno direct link between the Lecture and Award, though it is possible thatthe Lecturer could receive the Award.

So, what is the lesson to be learnt here? It seems to me that, when peo-ple are willing to give their time to redressing global inequities, they needto be given the tools to succeed. WAC standing committees were designedto be one such tool. They rely on the energy of individuals, which is en-hanced when people have a clear task, little or no controversy surroundingthat task, and some financial support to achieve an outcome.

14 CLAIRE SMITH

Scholarly Communication

A level playing field for scholarly publication is an essential requirementfor redressing global divides in the academy. One of the most importantachievements for WAC during the period from 2003 to 2014 was a broad-ening of its publication base. Since it was established in 1986, the backboneof WAC was the Congresses and the One World Archaeology Series, supple-mented for some years by the WAC Bulletin. The One World ArchaeologySeries contains selections of the papers presented at the WAC Congresses,held every 4 years. It developed as an outcome of the inaugural World Ar-chaeological Congress held in Southampton, England, in 1986. The subjectmatter of this series is wide-ranging, reflecting the diverse interests ofWAC. This series gives place to considerations of power and politics inframing archaeological questions and results. It also gives place and privi-lege to minorities who have often been silenced or regarded as not beingcapable of making main line contributions to the field. Following manyproductive years with Routledge, the OWA series moved to Left CoastPress, and then to Springer. This move allowed WAC to take advantage ofimportant benefits, including lower prices, direct discounts for members,and increased royalties. Over sixty books have now been published in theOne World Archaeology Series.

After WAC-5, other publication opportunities arose and several newWorld Archaeological Congress book series emerged, each of which was tar-geted toward particular needs. The Indigenous Archaeologies Series, publishedby Left Coast Press, emerged from an exciting period in Indigenous archae-ology, in which archaeological theory and practice changed to integrate theworldviews and methods of Indigenous peoples. This series is committed tothe promotion of Indigenous voices and the empowerment of Indigenouspeoples. Its aim is to access contemporary developments in Indigenous ar-chaeology, increasing the profile, intellectual depth, and growth of this areaof archaeology. This is an area full of stimulating debates that are producingmethodological and theoretical advances in the discipline, as part of a de-colonisation of archaeology. Thus, the reach of this series goes beyondIndigenous archaeology, as the ethical practice of archaeology is grounded inquestions relating to social justice and human rights.

The Worlds of Archaeology Series (Haber and Burke 2004) was developedto focus on how the lived experience of doing archaeology in different partsof the world affects the data that are generated, analyzed, and presented byarchaeologists. The aim of this series was to use the global diversity of ar-chaeology to access new, disparate, and challenging ways of imagining thepast. In this series, the regional diversity in archaeology was linked to differ-ent conceptual ways of imagining the past and the many social roles that are


fulfilled by the practice of archaeology. The challenge for this series was totranspose these differences in lived experiences into the written form. Thisseries was established with Alta Mira Press in 2004, but ultimately did notprosper. After the commissioning editor, Mitch Allen, moved from Alta Mi-ra to establish Left Coast Press, Alta Mira withdrew support for the seriesdue to the ‘limited marketability’ of the books. The fundamental problemwas that not enough books could be sold at a price to make publishing thebooks viable (email to Series Editor Heather Burke 29 January 2007). One al-ternative would have been to ask authors to provide a subvention (financialsubsidy) for their books, but this would have undermined the fundamentalaim of the series to publish the voices of people from parts of the world thatare less economically advantaged.

The Global Cultural Heritage Manuals published by Springer are hands-on field books that provide basic tool kits for conducting archaeologicalfieldwork in each of the WAC regions. Drawing upon WAC strengths inunderstanding the contemporary social, political, and ethical issues sur-rounding archaeological practice, these manuals constitute step-by-stepguides to undertaking and successfully completing cultural heritage field-work, from finding funding and designing research (including the ethicaland legal responsibilities involved in setting up fieldwork projects), to themain techniques necessary to locate, record, and analyze archaeologicalsites within each region.

In 2014, Springer published a four-volume set, Ethical Archaeologies. ThePolitics of Social Justice (Ireland and Gnecco 2014), which explores howethics are constructed socially and politically in different parts of the world.Organized by Series Editors Cristobal Gnecco, of Colombia, and Tracy Ire-land, of Australia, this is a landmark set that is certain to inform ar-chaeological practice into the future.

All WAC book series were designed to cross divides by generating bene-fits not only for individual authors, in terms of providing an internationalforum for publication that was otherwise unavailable in many parts of theworld, but also for the global community of archaeologists, in terms ofsupporting physical means to access knowledge. The WAC book seriesachieved this in three ways. The first was to redressing global financial di-vides which is through the distribution of royalties. All royalties fromWAC book sales are donated to the World Archaeological Congress to sup-port the travel of scholars from financially disadvantaged groups and coun-tries to WAC conferences. In this way, the second was to provide freecopies of all WAC books to developing countries through the Global Li-braries Program, discussed below. On top of this, all WAC publishers alsoagreed to provide

16 CLAIRE SMITH

• Direct discounts to members on all WAC series books purchased:20% on hardback; 30% on paperback.

• Direct discounts to WAC members for all archaeology titles in non-WAC series published by publishers of WAC books.

These measures have made WAC books greatly more accessible globally,not only in terms of price, but also in terms of distribution. Taken togeth-er, WAC publications have increased WAC’s profile, empowered archae-ologists from different parts of the world, and contributed to the creationof internationally recognized and respected standards of excellence that areembedded in an ethical and politically aware archaeology.

Two major initiatives were developed to redress global inequities duringmy tenure as President of WAC. Both programs were proposed by mem-bers from Ghana, Cameroon and Nigeria on my visit to Nigeria in 2005(see Foloruso 2012). The Archaeologists Without Borders Program was de-veloped to enrich archaeological and cultural heritage management capacityin economically disadvantaged countries. The philosophy behind this pro-gram was to enable archaeology topics taught by people from differentparts of the world in economically disadvantaged countries at limited costto the local community. The aim was to assist scholars in these countriesto broaden their curriculum, enrich the teaching at their institutions, andextend professional networks, both internationally and within the region.This program was criticized on the basis that it overlooked the capacity ofscholars in low-income countries to contribute to archaeological programsin high-income countries. However, there were insufficient funds to sup-port scholars from low-income countries traveling to economically advan-taged countries as part of a two-way exchange, combined with a view suchfunds could be sought from within economically advantaged countries. In2009, the basic program was trialed in Nigeria and in Colombia. It includ-ed support for students from neighboring countries to attend the work-shops. An in-principle application was approved subsequently for Iran, butnot taken further by the applicants. The second program developed duringthis period was the Global Libraries Program, which was established togrow collections of archaeological literature in institutions in economicallydisadvantaged countries. WAC solicits donations of archaeological books,and organizes for them to be sent to institutional libraries, to augment theresources available in less economically advantaged parts of the world. Insome cases, scholars in recipient countries also donated to the program,enhancing global knowledge with information from their part of the world.A list of 50 libraries was developed, in countries ranging from Peru, Bots-wana, and Papua New Guinea, to Jamaica, the Ukraine, and Sri Lanka.This program needs revamping within the capacities of a digital age, takinginto account the recommendations made by the person in charge of this


program, Ashley Sands, who calls for WAC to encourage and support localand non-English publications, open access works and journals, commonsbased licensing, and e-repositories (Sands 2012).

WAC Inter-Congresses

Inter-Congresses are held to investigate specific themes and are organizedto occur between major international congresses. Normally, WAC Inter-Congresses are organized by members of WAC’s regional electoral colleges.In 2009, after several years of discussion, guidelines for preparing proposalsfor a WAC Inter-Congress (WAC 2009) were issued. These guidelines makethe process of applying for an Inter-Congress both transparent and ac-countable. The diversity of topics that have been dealt with provides someinsight into issues that are of concern for a particular region. During mytenure as President of WAC, Inter-Congresses were held on a wide rangeof themes in many parts of the world. These include

• Cultural Landscapes (April 2005, United Kingdom).• The Uses and Abuses of Archaeology for Indigenous Populations

(November 2005, Rangataua, New Zealand), see Figure 4.• Repatriation (July 2005, Canberra, Australia).

Figure 4. Scene from the inter-congress on the uses and abuses of archaeology forindigenous populations, held at Waipapa Marae, Auckland, in November 2005. Some

of the organizers support Des Kahotea’s speech with a waiata/song. Co-ordinatorsDes Kahotea (far left), Caroline Phillips (third from right); administrative assistant and

later member of WAC Council Margaret Rika-Heke (second from right); and kaimahi/assistants from left to right: Jacqueline Joseph, Jocelyn Logan, Paula Thorogood, Alice

Storey, and Gerard O’Regan. Photo courtesy of Caroline Phillips

18 CLAIRE SMITH

• Kyosei-no-koukogaku: Co-existing in the past and the present (Jan-uary 2006, Osaka, Japan).

• Threats to Archaeology: its importance, its values, and its develop-ment (May 2007, Kingston, Jamaica).

• Archaeological Theory in South America (July 2007, Catamarca, Ar-gentina).

• Overcoming Structural Violence (August 2009, Ramallah, PalestinianTerritories).

• Archaeological Invisibility & Forgotten Knowledge. (September 2009,Lodz, Poland).

• Archaeology in Conflict (April 2010, Vienna, Austria).• Indigenous People and Museums (June 2011, Indianapolis, USA).• Heritage Management in East and South East Asia (July, 2011, Bejing,

China).• Development and Contract Archaeology (June 2013, Porto Alegre,

Brazil).

Analysis of the titles of these Inter-Congresses elicits four fundamentalareas of concern: the impact of development (Japan, Jamaica, China andBrazil); indigenous rights (New Zealand, Australia, USA); conflict andmemory (Palestinian Territories, Poland, Austria); and theoretical concerns(UK, Argentina). I participated in seven of these Inter-Congresses. WhileInter-Congresses were held in South America, Europe and the UnitedKingdom, Australia and New Zealand, the Caribbean, East Asia, and theMiddle East, it is regrettable that none were held in Africa.

WAC Controversies

Any organization that is inherently and overtly political and that attemptsto redress global divides is fundamentally controversial. During the periodwhen I was President, WAC was involved in several controversies aroundwhere Congresses should (or should not) be held and on what basis, thenature of WAC’s relationship with other, external, corporate organizations,and freedom of speech.

The Hosting of WAC Congresses

As its premier event, WAC Congresses are a major tool for assailing globaldivides. While other organizations seek global participation in their confer-ences—particularly the UISPP—WAC Congresses are the only conferencesthat I have attended that are genuinely informed by global and cultural


diversity. This diversity is ensured by a pricing system in which people fromhigh-income countries pay high registrations in the knowledge that thesefunds are used to ensure the participation of people from low-income coun-tries. The diversity of people who attend WAC Congresses is breathtaking.WAC Congresses routinely have participants from 70 to 80 countries—andthis does not include the diversity of views that are put forward by peoplefrom First Nations. This diversity engenders an extraordinary range of expe-riences, views, and knowledge, transmitted in a bubbling, multi-vocal dis-course. The views of people from 80 countries cannot be transmitted in onevoice. WAC’s acknowledgement of multiple views may be a key that opensarchaeology as a discipline and career path to members of Indigenous com-munities. Instead of being a single-voiced, single-minded pursuit of the past,WAC’s approach not only recognizes the worth of Indigenous views, but alsowelcomes the addition of new perspectives, and in doing so, may be makingarchaeology more useful for Native peoples worldwide. WAC’s strengths onIndigenous matters (see WAC 1989, 1991) are world leading.

This political and cultural diversity is informed by a unique, and occa-sionally unsettling, combination of hierarchy and democracy. The Patrons ofWAC Congresses include royalty, such as Charles, the Prince of Wales, andKing Abdullah of Jordan; social activists, such as Nelson Mandela; and phi-lanthropists, such as Harriet Mayor Fulbright. Moreover, WAC Congressesare informed by an array of cultural events and pre- and post-Congress toursto a range of sites, some of World Heritage significance, and some that areimportant primarily to specialists. There is limited value in going to a WACCongress purely for the duration of the Congress because they also createdframeworks for cultural knowledge enrichment before and after. Finally, thesetting of each Congress is unique because they are held only every 4 yearsand on the basis of rotating global representation, if you attend a WAC Con-gress in New Delhi, the Dead Sea or Dublin, you can be certain that anotherWAC Congress will not be held in that place within your lifetime.

More importantly, in terms of redressing divides and the controversiessurrounding globalization, WAC Congresses become the vehicle for localissues to reach an international audience. This is nowhere more apparentthan in the controversies that often attend a Congress. In my experience,the potential for controversy to arise over the social, cultural, and moralenvironments within which WAC and its members operate is realized insome fashion at every Congress. The Congress, as the major forum inwhich diversity can meet and interact, is the mechanism by which such po-tential is actualized: in other words, Congresses crystallize local issues,bring participants to the fore, and focus the attention of both insiders andoutsiders on the issues that motivate action.

One of the major challenges that face WAC every 4 years is the decisionof where the next WAC Congress will be held. Sometimes there are many

20 CLAIRE SMITH

bids to host a Congress. Sometimes there are none. Sometimes there arebids that become untenable. It is the responsibility of the WAC Executiveand Council to work its way through this quagmire every 4 years. A centraland recurring debate concerns whether the next Congress will be held inan economically advantaged country, such as the USA, the UK, or Japan,or in an economically disadvantaged country, such as many countries inAfrica or South America. This not only highlights differences in the eco-nomic capacities of different countries, but also conflicting ideas of whatconstitutes a successful conference, which ties into the long-term future,goals, and needs of the organization.

Part of WAC’s mission has always been to redress global inequalitythrough making funds held in high-income countries accessible to peoplein low-income countries. As a brand new President, what WAC-5 broughthome to me was the fact that WAC Congresses usually ran at a loss. Infact, the financial losses of the first WAC Congress, WAC-1, held inSouthampton, Britain, were so debilitating that Peter Ucko wrote an entirechapter in his book, Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of theWorld Archaeological Congress, on the subject of ‘How not to finance aCongress’ (Ucko 1987). Surprisingly, in contrast to the majority of WACCongresses, WAC-5 made a substantial surplus. Even though there had notbeen a prior agreement, Joan Gero presented all of these funds to WAC,providing the organization with financial security for the first time.

A decision on the venue of each WAC Congress is faced with a funda-mental dilemma: does the organization have to make money (or at least notlose money continually) in order to achieve its goals of redressing inequitieswithin archaeology and facilitating multi-directional access to knowledge? Ifit does, then it is a delicate balancing act when choosing a host country andorganization. Then I would link to the fact that no Congress before WAC-5made a substantial surplus. In the cases of WAC-1 and WAC-3, the Congresslost large sums and caused personal distress to the individuals who organizedthem (see Ucko 1987; Golson 1995). Following the financial stress of WAC-1, WAC-2 in Venezuela took a low risk approach financially, though stillhad 450 participants from 35 countries. This Congress focused on con-solidating the policies that would sustain and direct WAC. This approachwas also by WAC-4 in Cape Town, South Africa, which had around 700 par-ticipants and provided a small surplus. However, WAC-5 made a realizationof WAC’s vision possible in a way that had never existed before because theCongress made money. While money should not be the underlying tenet ofchoosing a Congress venue, the Executive is faced with this dilemma everytime since they are faced with this decision, if they are to safeguard the fu-ture of their membership. If WAC were to collapse financially, it wouldachieve nothing. So, financial security is the platform that allows financialrisk to happen in a sense. This is no different to members from economically


advantaged countries supporting members from disadvantaged countriesthrough membership scales.

The 300 sessions and activities at WAC-5 were informed by WAC’s di-versity internationally, a dedication to redressing global divides, and acommitment to innovation, critique, experiment, and excellence. The rich-ness that ensues from global diversity and a willingness to engage in socialjustice issues were integral to this Congress, in the same way that this wasfundamental to the birth of WAC itself and to my perceptions of my roleas President. My view of my own role at the time was that:

An appreciation of the richness obtainable from global diversity and a will-ingness to face the challenges of engaging in social justice issues are integralto WAC and, in fact, were fundamental to the birth of WAC itself … As Pre-sident of WAC, I believe my first task is to preserve and foster those veryspecial qualities of WAC that previous Officers have worked so hard to de-velop. In doing so, I hope to see WAC become more cohesive, better funded,and more politically effective, able to connect archaeologists throughout theworld and support them with practical measures that will benefit their re-gional communities (Smith 2003).

At a more fundamental level, the debate about where to host a Congressmoves beyond the country’s economic capacity to host the Congress, to can-vass crucial issues such as the social, cultural, and moral environment withinwhich a Congress will be held. For example, the WAC list server had a livelydiscussion prior to WAC-7 about whether Jordan should be used as a venue toprotest the laws that require minimal punishment of men who commit ‘honor’crimes against female relatives. Similarly, at the time when I was elected as Pre-sident of WAC in June 2003 during WAC-5, the USA, Britain, Australia, andother allied countries were invading Iraq. Naturally, Washington DC became acontroversial venue for a WAC Congress during this period and, for a time, itwas not certain that the Congress would go ahead at this location. It was ex-pected that many people would boycott as one way of expressing their opposi-tion to the invasion of Iraq. The pre-registrations for WAC-5 were low untilApril 2003, 2 months before the Congress. However, in the last few weeks,there was a change in mood. In the end, over 1100 people attended WAC-5and a total of 230 people from economically disadvantaged countries andIndigenous peoples were given support to attend the Congress.

Competing Bids for WAC-6

At the conclusion of WAC-5 in Washington DC, there was no bid to hostWAC-6. After WAC-5, one of the Council members suggested that WAC-6could be held in Jamaica. Even though there was no bid document in

22 CLAIRE SMITH

hand, a decision was made to hold WAC-6 in Jamaica. This decision wasdriven by the desire to embed the next WAC Congress into a vastly differentcultural context to that of Washington DC and to use the next venue to ex-plore the diversity of global archaeology. However, after 3 years, it becameclear that there would be very little funding to support participants fromIndigenous groups and economically disadvantaged countries. This present-ed the WAC Executive and Council with a dilemma: to hold WAC-6 in alow-income country, knowing that they could not ensure the global diversitythat had become the hallmark of WAC Congresses, or move the Congress toanother country where financial support for Indigenous people and peoplefrom low-income countries could be assured. We decided that the full par-ticipation of these groups is essential to the decision-making processes thatare integral to WAC Congresses and that WAC-6 would have to be post-poned to another time and place (Smith 2006). WAC-6 in Jamaica had beenplanned for in May 2007, and it was held as a successful Inter-Congress atthat time. Prior to this, two viable bids for WAC-6 were received, one fromColombia and one from Ireland. The latter bid was successful on the basis ofa split vote. The bid from Colombia was assessed against perceptions of un-rest in that country at the time and possibly also informed by a desire tomove the organization of WAC-6 into tried territory.

A highly exciting and productive WAC-6 was held in Dublin, Ireland,29 June to 4 July, 2008. The Patron for WAC-6 was Mary McAleese, Presi-dent of Ireland (Figure 5). This Congress brought together 1819 archae-ologists and Indigenous representatives from 75 countries to discuss,debate, and share information about world cultural heritage issues in aface-to-face forum. Indigenous values were woven into the Congress, andhighlighted by the participation of the Ngarrindjeri Aboriginal nation inAustralia at the opening ceremony (Figure 6).

While WAC-6 was superbly organized, WAC Congresses are analogousto a swan gliding on the water. Although everything may appear smoothon the surface, beneath the water there is constant movement. Organizinga WAC Congress can be both a challenge and a pleasure. The AcademicSecretary for WAC-6, Gabriel Cooney reflected that:

WAC-6 was a fantastic opportunity to bring global archaeology to Irelandand to celebrate its diversity with colleagues from all over the world. Thiswas made possible by the hard work and dedication of a team of Irish col-leagues, the support of the WAC Executive and a range of sponsors, par-ticularly a number of Irish government departments and agencies. The lateBlaze O’Connor played a crucial role as Associate Academic Secretary and allmy colleagues in the UCD School of Archaeology were pivotal in ensuring asuccessful Congress (Gabriel Cooney email communication to Claire Smith18 March 2015).


WAC-7

No bids for WAC-7 were presented at WAC-6 in Ireland. However, an ex-pression of interest was relayed from Talal Akasheh of Jordan, who had

Figure 5. Mary McAleese, President of Ireland meeting with the Academic Secretaryof WAC-6, Gabriel Cooney, members of the WAC executive, and officers of University

College Dublin. Left to right, Gabriel Cooney, Claire Smith, Dorothy Lippert, HughBrady (President, UCD), Muiris O’Sullivan (Head, UCD School of Archaeology), Akira

Matsuda, and Ines Domingo Sanz. Photo courtesy of Gabriel Cooney

Figure 6. Major Sumner leading a Ngarrindjeri Nation’s delegation of Daryle Rigney,Steve Hemming, and Chris Wilson at the opening of WAC-6, Dublin, Ireland, June

2008. Photo courtesy Gabriel Cooney

24 CLAIRE SMITH

been unable to attend WAC-6. Following WAC-6, several members of theWAC Executive and Council worked closely with Dr Akesheh as he pre-pared a bid document. Finally, the decision was made to host WAC-7 atthe Dead Sea in Jordan, in January 2013.

The highlight of 2013 for WAC was when WAC-7 was held from 13 to18 January, 2013 at the King Hussein Bin Talal Convention Centre, DeadSea, Jordan. The Patron for WAC-7 was His Majesty King Abdullah II binAl- Hussein, and the President of the Congress was his uncle, His RoyalHighness Prince El Hassan bin Talal. The Academic Secretary for this Con-gress was Talal Akasheh, supported by Arwa Badran of Hashemite Univer-sity, who was Deputy Academic Secretary, Claire Smith, who wasInternational Academic Secretary; and Mohammad Debajah and BasharBaghdadi, who provided administrative and organizational support.

As with any WAC Congress, WAC-7 faced unique challenges. In thiscase, the major challenge was unrest in the region, particularly in theneighboring country of Syria. This led some people to question whether itwas wise to hold the Congress in Jordan at this time. However, neitherWAC nor the WAC-7 organizers wavered. Holding an international confer-ence of this stature in Jordan at this time supported the stability of thecountry and it recognized Jordan’s stability, and sent a message about theworld’s confidence in this stability. In addition, WAC-7 has the largestcontinent of Arab participants of any WAC Congress.

The organization of WAC-7 was based on a different model to that usedin the past. Traditionally, a small team in the host country takes full re-sponsibility for organizing WAC Congresses. However, in April 2013, theorganizers of WAC-7 approached the WAC Executive, seeking assistancewith aspects of conference organization. While people on the ground un-dertook the majority of this work, some of the load was outsourced inter-nationally. Chair of the International Scientific Committee, Anne Pyburnof Indiana University Bloomington, took responsibility for the organizationof the program, ably supported by Dru McGill, Eli Konwest, and JaymeJenkins of IU Bloomington, and Fatma Marri of Jordan Museum. Thewebsite was run by Timo Bishop of Australia. Social media and promotionwas undertaken by an international team of people headed by Ashley Sandsand Colleen Morgan of the USA. Accommodation was co-ordinated byJacqueline Matthews of Australia and the student volunteer team that sup-ported the day-to-day running of the Congress included not only Jordani-an students, but also students from around the world. Members of theWAC Executive, including myself, obtained international funding. Around15 students from Jordan (Figure 7) combined forces with 20 students fromFlinders Archaeological Society in Australia, and another 12 students fromaround the world to run the information desk (Figure 8) provide supportfor meeting rooms and staff the video cameras that were used to livestream


the Congress proceedings. Figure 9 shows the volunteer team for WAC-7with Congress organizers, key-note speakers, and recipients of WACawards.

A special tour program was arranged so that participants could visit Jor-dan’s fascinating cultural heritage. For the first time, a tour brochure (Fig-ure 10) was developed to assist Congress participants in choosing theirpre- and post-Congress tours. Participants in WAC-7 had the unique op-portunity to visit these outstanding archaeological sites with the local, na-tional, and international experts who know them best. Around two-thirdsof WAC-7 participants took advantage of this opportunity, in the processproviding much-needed income to support diverse participation in theCongress.

Figure 7. Student volunteers, primarily from Jordan, at the WAC-7 Congress dinner.From left Asher Rooney (background), Haneen Al-Beitar, Rawan Abusakha, Faten Al-

Habarnah, Marıa Florencia Becerra, Dana Al-Khawaja, Rania Ali, Eman Al-Gharably,Marıa Victoria Roca, Hadeel Alturk, and Fatmeh Darawad. Photo courtesy of Marıa

Florencia Becerra

Figure 8. Mohammad Debajah, second from left, Marıa Florencia Becerra, Chair of

WAC Student Committee, third from left, and others at the WAC-7 Information Desk.Photo courtesy of Marıa Florencia Becerra

26 CLAIRE SMITH

Digital technology can provide more equal access to knowledge as partof developing a more equitable world. It seems that WAC-7 was the firstlarge archaeological conference to enable the live streaming of conferenceproceedings. This was achieved using the online crowdfunding platformPozible to raise $17,330 from 141 supporters to allow WAC-7 to go online(Rooney 2013). Organized by the Flinders Archaeological Society in col-laboration with WAC, the Pozible project (Figure 11) was promoted interms of redressing global inequities:

Figure 9. The volunteer team for WAC-7, with Congress organizers, key-note speak-

ers and recipients of WAC awards, Dead Sea, Jordan, January 2013. Photo courtesy ofEleanor Jenkins

Figure 10. Cover of WAC-7 tour brochure


Global economic inequalities are appalling. For example, people in countrieslike Japan, Australia or the United States earn 10 TIMES more than peopledoing the same job in countries such as Poland, Vanuatu or Botswana. WACis committed to making sure that people from all countries can participatein WAC-7. It is providing funding for around 300 people to attend the Con-gress. These are voices that are rarely heard at other archaeological confer-ences—and never in the numbers that are present at WAC Congresses. Thediscussions at WAC-7 will be unique (Rooney 2013).

The challenges of dealing with the global digital divide became apparent,even in this most salubrious of venues. As this is most likely the first ar-chaeological conference to embark on this initiative, the WAC-7 Onlineproject had its fair share of technical problems. As Jordan Ralph, an orga-nizer of the WAC-7 Online project explained

The platform we used for WAC-7 Online wasn’t ideal. Subscribers sometimescouldn’t access the livestream, and the interactive features didn’t work (ie.,those watching at home could sometimes ask questions, but they’d rarely berelayed to the speaker); internet access was restricted on the bottom floor ofthe venue, therefore, we couldn’t stream those sessions – in fact it was lookingvery much like we would not be able to livestream at all until the telecommu-nications company Zain provided WAC with internet access the day before theconference started; and finally, the audio-visual technology we used was basicbut was fine to stream sessions – as the only options we had were to buy olderequipment from an American company for a small price or rent more up-to-date equipment from Jordan for tens of thousands of dollars.That being said, those technical issues only affected a small percentage ofsubscribers. I believe this initiative was a success. It wasn’t perfect, but it wasa success. This is demonstrated by the number of thank you notes that wereceived from professionals, retirees and students throughout the world,

Figure 11. Screen shot of WAC-7 online

28 CLAIRE SMITH

particularly South America, who couldn’t attend WAC in person, but couldwatch online from home. The problems we encountered at WAC-7 can beovercome for future Congresses as websites like Livestream are becoming morefinancially accessible and more user friendly. Thus, the organizers of WAC-8could do what we did more effectively and on a smaller budget. There is still acase to be made, however, to run another crowd funding campaign similar tothe WAC-7 Pozible campaign, to assist people from low-income countries toattend WAC-8. After all, equal access was what we were trying to achieve (Jor-dan Ralph email communication to Claire Smith 15 March 2015).

In the end, WAC-7 provided funding to some 440 participants, includ-ing 140 people from Palestine and Jordan. Even though it was being heldin a country adjacent to a conflict zone, WAC-7 brought together 985 ar-chaeologists and Indigenous representatives from 82 countries to discuss,debate, and share knowledge about archaeology and cultural heritage.Funding raised through the Pozible platform increased global access for avirtual environment by 600 people. Despite these efforts, WAC-7, like themajority of WAC Congresses, ran at a substantial loss.

WAC-8

WAC-7 represented a kind of coming of age for WAC in terms of bids forfuture Congresses. In July 2012, guidelines for a bid to host WAC Con-gresses were finalized by the WAC Executive and Council (WAC 2012). AtWAC-7, four bids were presented for WAC-8 in vastly different locationsin the world: Calgary, Canada; Nairobi, Kenya; Prague, Czech Republic;and Kyoto, Japan. These were all strong bids, and each was unique in itsown way. The winning bid was from Japan, and WAC-8 will be held inKyoto in September 2016. Also, during WAC-7, Professor Koji Mozoguchiof Kyushu University was elected as the next President of WAC.

To Engage or Not to Engage

The biggest controversy during my period as WAC President was aroundWAC’s potential engagement with the international mining company, RioTinto (see Foloruso 2012; Shepherd and Haber 2011, 2012; Smith 2011).Elizabeth Bradshaw of Rio Tinto approached WAC with the aim of dis-cussing options to work together to enhance cultural heritage managementand protection in mining activities, particularly in low-income countries.The possibility of developing a partnership between the two organizationswas explored at a workshop between WAC and Rio Tinto, held on 1st and2nd of October 2007, in Melbourne, Australia.


WAC is regularly approached by external organizations wishing to ac-cess WAC resources or develop some form of collaborative engagement. Atthat time WAC had no policy for engaging with external organizations,and no formal procedures for initiating or responding to these kinds of en-gagements, so the first challenge was to establish on what basis such col-laborations might be possible. Prior to the approach by Rio Tinto WAC’srelationships with external organizations had occurred in an ad hoc and re-active manner, rather than being integrated into a broader plan for further-ing of WAC’s own goals.

It was clear to me that WAC’s ability to further its organizational goalswas limited by the capacity of the organization itself. At the Melbourneworkshop, I argued that this ability could be extended in important waysand WAC should position itself to purposefully interface with other orga-nizations. I felt that engagement with external organizations had the poten-tial to further WAC’s core objectives, to enhance WAC’s public profile,and to generate resources to support key projects, as well as provide anoth-er avenue for WAC’s priorities to help inform wider frameworks, policies,and standards. I saw a synergistic potential for WAC to enhance the abil-ities of other organizations to further areas of shared values and vision.From the perspective of other organizations, WAC has the potential to addsubstantive value in terms of furthering goals that range from cultural her-itage protection to global corporate social responsibility.

At the Melbourne workshop, it became clear that WAC members fromdifferent parts of the world had vastly different—and sometimes diametri-cally opposing—views on the desirability of partnering with Rio Tinto orany other mining company. From a South American viewpoint, embeddedin strong theoretical critiques of colonialism and national histories of po-litical turmoil, the notion of partnering with a mining company was anath-ema, tantamount to selling out WAC’s ideals (eg., Shepherd and Haber2011). From a West African viewpoint, embedded in dire poverty, massiveunemployment, and national histories of corruption, Rio Tinto’s approachwas met with ‘delight,’ as providing ‘a possible future for archaeology inAfrica’ (Foloruso 2012, p. 192).

At the Melbourne meeting, it became clear that any collaboration be-tween WAC and Rio Tinto could only move forward in small steps. Ac-cordingly, it was decided to hold a workshop on this issue in Vancouver,Canada in March 2008. This workshop discussed WAC’s strengths, weak-nesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) based on information obtainedthrough consultation, a review of WAC’s activities and discussions at theworkshop itself. The information is presented as a SWOT analysis(Table 1).

The position that WAC has reached and its reputation are largely due tothe strength of the organization’s membership. WAC is a large global

30 CLAIRE SMITH

Table 1 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis for WAC

WAC’s strengths—the assets WAC’s weaknesses—the challenges

• Gives a voice to those typically marginalized

and excluded

• Lack of organizational policies

• Strongly representative organization • Lack of institutional procedures and

systems

• The principles and values which guide WAC • Capacity—relies on a few volunteer

members

• Discusses issues not typically prominent • Lack of strategy—reactive more than

proactive

• Challenges the norms in archaeology • Decision-making can be prolonged

• Will take political stances • Weak financial management systems

• Tackles social justice issues • Lacks sufficient reliable funding for

activities

• The experience, expertise. Location and

diversity of membership

• Lack of systems to ensure accountability

tomembers, supporters, and stakeholders

• Responsive to members needs and priorities • Activities planned but not able to be

implemented due to lack of resources

(Archaeologists Without Borders)

• WAC is vehicle which amplifies the experi-

ences and expertise of its global membership

• Activities started but not able to con-

tinue [fully] due to lack of resources and

inadequate planning and costing (Glob-

al Libraries)

• A global forum for information exchange and

learning

• Lack of policies, procedures, and ca-

pacity to meet requests of external

organizations

• Holds international congresses every 4 years • Inefficiencies due to lack of systems

• Respectful in approach • Transparency to members and external

stakeholders limited by lack of capacity

and systems

• Committed volunteers deliver the work and

manage the organization

• Reputation in archaeology

Opportunities—the potential Threats—the risks

• To increase membership further • Burn out of the few members who lead

the organization

• Working reactively to survive rather than

strategically to sustain and grow

• To mobilize more members in support of

WAC’s activities

• To utilize and build on the connections and

experiences the global membership

• Losing supporters because do not fulfill

and deliver on project activities

• To attract external organizations in support of

WAC’s work through funding, collaborative

work, and other support

• Do not attract new supporters and

collaborators

• To form strategic alliances in support and

pursuit of WAC’s aims

• Make poor and risky management

decisions due to lack of capacity, poli-

cies and systems


network, with a diversity of membership that has wide range of experienceand expertise across the spectrum of archaeology. The leadership of WAChas had some success in mobilizing these strengths and using them to furthermembers’ identified needs and aspirations (for example, the Global LibrariesProgram). As a result, WAC has remained committed to, and guided by, itsprinciples and values, and this has ensured that it remains a member-focusedorganization, in particular, creating opportunities and forums whereby thosewho are often excluded can participate and contribute their knowledge andexpertise. WAC has continued to attract and increase its membership. Thisgrowth has meant not only an increase in regular income, but also a greaterdemand and expectation from an wider membership.

WAC’s weaknesses lie in its aims often outstripping its resources. SinceWAC relies on a relatively few active members, there is a high chance of‘burn out’ because of the time and effort that these few people put intothe organization. All aspects of WAC’s work are implemented using volun-teer time and other resources provided by committed members. This is agreat strength but also creates limitations and a risk for the organization’ssustainability and ability to grow further. This is not unusual for a mem-ber-led and member-managed not-for-profit organization. However, it cre-ates a risk, as the quality, quantity, and sustainability of the organization’sactivities are reliant on the commitment of relatively few individuals. Orga-nizations like WAC tend to be policy and procedurally light and rely onindividual knowledge and approaches to work, rather than on establishedinstitutional systems. Volunteer capacity and time is limited, which meansthat it is very hard to dedicate time to create policies, establish systems,

Table 1 continued

Opportunities—the potential Threats—the risks

• To have a more significant global impact on

approaches to archaeology—standards, train-

ing, understanding

• Poor risk management may lead to

damage/loss of reputation

• To develop into a more professional organi-

zation that is fit for purpose

• Not expanding resources and capacity—

will not sustain activities and WAC will

regress

• To influence government, academic, research,

and private organizations which have an im-

pact on archaeology and cultural heritage

management

• Loss of members if do not meet expec-

tations

• A more professional organization could

change core values, priorities, and ap-

proach

• Growth, and professionalism may make

theorganization cost ineffective tomanage

32 CLAIRE SMITH

and build organizational capacity. This reinforces the cycle of inefficiencyand risk. Activities tend to taking longer and are completed with variablequality. A lack of policies and systems creates a real risk for the organiza-tion and makes the setting of standards, monitoring, and accountability ofwork difficult to manage. It is worth noting, however, that creating toomany systems and layers of accountabilities, particularly for an entirely, orlargely, volunteer-managed organization, can create another environmentof inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

A lack of organizational policies and procedures, particularly in relationto external engagement, led to the Rio Tinto controversy. One way for WACto further its core objectives is to develop its relationships with external or-ganizations. In order to do this, however, in the absence of any frameworkwithin which this could take place, WAC needed to develop policies to allowit the possibility of interfacing with external organizations without compro-mising its own core values. It was decided that WAC would develop an ex-ternal engagement policy development to ensure that external relationshipsare managed in a manner that adheres to WAC’s overall objectives.

The purpose was to enhance WAC’s capacity to respond appropriatelyto approaches from external organizations and to initiate and pursue par-ticular relationships to further WAC’s capacity to protect and promote cul-tural heritage. However, when this issue was brought up at WAC-6 inIreland, a controversy arose around whether WAC should partner with RioTinto, and the general issue became lost (for further analysis, see Hollowelland Herrera 2012). At the time, I was disappointed that WAC missed anopportunity that is unlikely to come again. Rather than WAC being a toolof Rio Tinto, as Shepherd and Haber (2011) feared, I envisaged a partner-ship in which Rio Tinto furthered WAC’s global agenda. While the princi-ples for engagement were endorsed at the Council and Executive inmeetings that followed WAC-6, the will to pursue this was lost. The issuehas not really moved forward within WAC since then and is unlikely toprogress in the near future, despite a call for further discussion (Hollowelland Herrera 2012), while Rio Tinto has developed independently its visionin this area (see Bradshaw 2011).

Freedom of Speech Versus?

What is freedom of speech worth? Would you risk your personal safety forit? Someone else’s safety? Your property? Someone else’s property? Is free-dom of speech worth a person’s life? For WAC, this is not a hypotheticalquestion, but a decision that has had to be made on an intermittent basis.

The question of academic freedom of speech was integral to the forma-tion of WAC. This led archaeologists involved in WAC-1 in Southampton


to be accused of abnegating a commitment to academic freedom (see Hod-der 2004, p. 118). Peter Ucko’s response to this was:

Many of us now face the accusation that we have irreparably divided the ar-chaeological world over the issue of apartheid versus ‘free speech’. In fact, todiscuss the issue of academic free speech is almost an obscenity in the con-text of South Africa, where the majority of the population lack far more fun-damental freedoms than that of discussion. I do not know whyarchaeologists, any more than any group of people who happen to study thesame subject, should be expected to share all the same values, political orethical … To become a humane subject archaeology must itself show that itis not merely the plaything of a particular social class or of a particular stagein industrialized development (Ucko 1987, p. 5).

A similar issue arose at WAC-3 in New Delhi, when Jack Golson, thePresident of WAC, was asked to give a commitment to ban delegates fromdiscussing the destruction of a 16th century mosque at Ayodhya in Decem-ber 1992:

The next day, Wednesday [31st November 1994], I was asked, as President ofWAC, to give an immediate undertaking that the Ayodhya issue would notbe raised during the forthcoming Congress and its attendant business meet-ings … The Executive finally agreed to me signing the required statement oncondition that an explanation for its decision was distributed to participantsduring registration on Sunday, 4 December. What weighed most heavily withExecutive members was the understanding that refusal to make the commit-ment could have unpredictable consequences for WAC 3, in particular possi-ble disruption of its meetings. This warning, given in another context inAligarh four months before, was lent added significance by the fact that thesecond anniversary of the demolition at Ayodhya, whose first anniversaryhad been marked by violent demonstrations in New Delhi, fell on the secondday of academic sessions (Golson 1995, p. 52).

This issue also arose at WAC-7 in Jordan. Immediately prior to theCongress, Talal Akasheh informed the WAC Executive of his concern that‘hot debate’ on the WAC list concerning the Israeli occupation of Palestinewould continue at the Congress and that this discussion may endanger thesafety of Congress participants. To place the matter in context, a year or soprior to WAC-7, a workshop at the University of Jordan had been the sub-ject of demonstrations protesting Israeli participation in the workshop. Atthe time that WAC-7 was being held, small demonstrations were beingheld in Amman to protest a rise in fossil fuel prices. The Parliamentaryelections in Jordan were scheduled for the 23rd of January, 5 days after theend of WAC-7, and there was a concern that candidates who heard aboutIsraeli participation in the Congress would take this as an opportunity to

34 CLAIRE SMITH

gain votes. Looming above all of this was the knowledge that Jordan is ad-jacent to Syria, where a major conflict was, and is, taking place.

Dr. Akasheh’s views were supported by other Jordanian people and byother interactions that occurred as part of the organization of WAC-7. Forexample, the manager of one of the Congress hotels instructed us to haveIsraeli people book in with him directly, rather than with the front deskbooking clerk, as their passports would identify their nationality and thismight make them, or the hotel, a target for violence. Other security provi-sions were put in place to ensure the safety of all Congress participantsand of Israeli participants, in particular. Such provisions included not put-ting the nationality of participants on WAC-7 name cards and meeting Is-raeli participants at the border. The major security decision, however, wasthe original decision to locate the Congress at the Dead Sea, far from thepossibility of large-scale demonstrations.

A decision to speak, or not to speak, is a political act. At WAC-7, theover-riding concern was the safety of participants. The cost of ensuring thissafety was freedom to use WAC-7 as a venue to protest the Israeli occupa-tion of Palestine. People in many parts of the world rightly feel stronglyabout freedom of speech. In many Western countries, there is a strong tra-dition of freedom of speech and in some parts of the world, such as SouthAmerica, where freedom of speech was suppressed during military dictator-ships, people are vigilant in protecting the rights they have obtained. Free-dom of speech is critical to the health of these nations.

The question of freedom of speech is contentious for an organizationsuch as WAC, which is truly global and, as such, deeply embedded in awide range of political, social, and ethical realities. The question that hashad to be addressed at various WAC Congresses is what is freedom ofspeech worth? In a world where the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in oneplace can cause a hurricane in another (Lorenz 1969), one person’s free-dom of speech can cost another person their life. In a world in whichsocial media can transmit to millions of people in hundreds of countrieswithin minutes or hours, one person’s actions can cost another persontheir life. While the murders at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris in Jan-uary 2015 can be tied to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad as a dogor with bombs hidden in his turban (Barrabi 2015), there is a more ten-uous link between the individuals who were murdered at a freedom ofspeech event at the Krudttønden cafe in Copenhagen in February 2015(Khomani 2015). The point here is that people who are not tied to anoffending act can be killed. Is the original act worth the cost of thesepeople’s lives?


Discussion

In this paper, I have used the example of the World Archaeological Con-gress to explore how scholarly organizations address the major challenge ofour generation, that of breaking down global divides, particularly as theserelate to inequities of wealth, power, and access to knowledge. I have dis-cussed this in relation to the impact of globalization on cultural diversity. Ihave identified measures that WAC has implemented to narrow the gapbetween richer and poorer and to enhance global diversity, and I haveidentified measures that act in a converse direction. I have shown that anappreciation of the richness that can be obtained from global diversity wasfundamental to both the birth and development of WAC. In the final sec-tion of this paper, I identify the challenges for archaeology that arise fromthese issues in terms of the lessons that I have learnt as President of WAC.

Firstly, I found that people have a clear understanding of the issues andchallenges in their own countries and that the solutions are specific to aparticular situation. In some countries, the support people need may be fi-nancial support for regional meetings, such as a WAC Inter-Congresses, orsupport for education and training, as with the Archaeologists WithoutBorders program that ran in Nigeria and in Colombia. Sometimes, it willnot be possible to provide the support needed, particularly in areas of con-flict or where there are deep and longstanding ideological divides. I amthinking here particularly of the need to strengthen heritage training andpublic education programs in northern Iraq, so as to minimize looting bylocal people (Smith 2003) which, in my view, segued into a failure to pre-vent the destruction of statues and other artifacts at the central museum inMosul in 2015 (Shaheen 2015). The overall point, however, is that peopleknow what they need for their own region, even given that there will be arange of views on the specifics. In addition, it is important to recognizethat everyone does not know what other people need for their regions. Theissues in South or Central America are very different to the issues in Westor Central Africa.

Secondly, I have identified the emergence of a ‘class’ divide in archae-ology globally—a kind of South–South colonialism—in which those whoare theoretically adept use jargon to diminish the ideas of others. We needto guard against an intellectual colonialism in which theoretically informedviews are supposed to be superior to those that are more practically orient-ed. Intellectual colonialism only replaces one form of ‘them’ and ‘us’ withanother. Moreover, just because ideas are theoretically informed, it doesnot mean that those ideas are right. This tendency to intellectual colonial-ism emerged in the controversy around WAC’s engagement with externalpartners and is also apparent in some of WAC’s publications. In particular,

36 CLAIRE SMITH

WAC’s journal, Archaeologies, needs to reflect the diverse interests andneeds of archaeology globally. A vision of Archaeologies as purely reflexivepolitical critique is too narrow for a global archaeology that seeks to re-dress inequities across many contexts, celebrate cultural diversity, and ac-cess the intellectual richness of global multivocality.

Thirdly, I have found that one of the greatest challenges to redressingglobal divides in archaeology is respecting other people’s values. This iseasily said but not easily done. I found that WAC is much more frag-ile—and in some ways more resilient—than I imagined when I took onthe presidency. WAC’s fragility rests of the fact that it is the result of thehard work, vision, and commitment of its members, that its achievementsare the results of the commitment of individuals. When these individualsare damaged, as with the controversy over whether WAC should partnerwith Rio Tinto, they become less willing to commit their time, energy, andwill to WAC.

Fourthly, a strong tendency toward being judgmental is one of thegreatest challenges to respecting cultural diversity and redressing globalinequities. Of course, being critical was foundational to the establishmentof WAC—critical of structures that disempower, frameworks that disad-vantage, systems that disenfranchise. However, this tendency can inhibitour capacity to understand, and assist, each other across cultures. As I havenoted elsewhere (Smith 2012), passionate commitment to a position canresult in demonization of the views of others, turning these people into an‘Other’ and fueling dissent, rather than productive discussion. This was ap-parent in the discussions concerning Rio Tinto. Passionate discourse canimpinge upon a scholarly commitment to factual accuracy (see Smith2011) and, while inaccuracies are unfortunate, the greater damage is thatthey may undermine an otherwise compelling argument. As Johnson(2010, p. 218) points out, our mental alarm bells should ring whenever adifferent view is instantly dismissed, rather than engaged with. We need tobe a little kinder, a little more respectful, and a little more willing to learn.In order for WAC, and for world archaeology, to thrive, people have to re-spect the right of other people to have different values to their own. Differ-ences in systems of value are crystalized in decisions such as the venue forhosting a WAC Congress, a decision to speak (or not) on a particular issuein a particular context, or whether to partner with external organizations.The West does not hold all the answers, that is certain. However, people ineconomically disadvantaged countries do not hold all the answers, either,particularly in relation to the situation of other economically disadvantagedcountries in different regions of the world.

The issues discussed in this paper are set against a background of thevast economic disparities that exist around the globe. Over the years of itsexistence, WAC, in its own way, has sought to address some of these


inequities. Most importantly, the impetus for doing this has come fromWAC’s membership. Many of the goals of WAC members are achievedfrom the bottom-up, and WAC’s capacity here needs to be strengthened.In a sense, the members of WAC have to create a situation in which ‘we’become ‘ourselves.’ What constitutes ‘ourselves’ will vary enormously ac-cording to the parts of the world in which we live and work. WAC in theCaribbean, for example, has different needs and a different shape to WACin China, Chile, or Cameroon. This diversity is something to celebrate, butalso something to be worked through carefully and clearly in a multitudeof contexts.

Without question, WAC is the boldest of archaeological organizations.The members of WAC do not accept global inequities. They do not acceptthat global divides are eternal, immovable, or natural. They do somethingabout them. For some, it is paying a high conference fee so that someonefrom another part of the world can attend a Congress. For others, it in-volves months, years, or decades of their lives. Taken together, this is sig-nificant commitment. WAC’s dedication to facilitating knowledge sharingin all directions (north/south, east/west, north/west, south/east, and soforth) is apparent in the WAC statutes, the volumes in the WAC book ser-ies, and in the support structure that underwrites WAC conferences. Be-cause it is a global organization, WAC’s expertise takes into accountregional differences in approach and on the ground knowledge of specificsituations through a (fundamentally) democratic decision-making process.WAC offers both opportunity and responsibility. By working together,members of WAC are committed to redressing global divides in—andsometimes through—archaeology. Informed by our differences, many facetsof WAC are models for the decolonization of other disciplines.

Finally, I am aware that this paper will become a subject of critique.This is a good thing. In spite of core values, governing bodies and Statutes,WAC remains different things to different people, imagined into variousforms in various parts of the world, fulfilling the needs of a diverse globalcommunity. Ultimately, this is WAC’s triumph.

Acknowledgments

I thank all the people who worked with me in WAC, mentors, peers, stu-dents, and critics. I thank my colleagues at Flinders University who sup-ported my participation in WAC over a period of 10 years, at times totheir own detriment. Photos for this article were kindly provided by MarıaFlorencia Becerra, Gabriel Cooney, Joan Gero, Eleanor Jenkins, StephenLoring, Caroline Phillips, Gustavo Politis, and Peter Stone. While a rangeof people commented on the sections of this paper that were pertinent to

38 CLAIRE SMITH

them, only Gary Jackson and Heather Burke provided comments on thefull draft. I thank them both. Any mistakes—error, judgement, or omis-sion—are solely my own.

References

Barrabi, T.2015. Read Charlie Hebdo’s New Issue Online, Right Now (in French). Interna-

tional Business Times. http://www.ibtimes.com/read-charlie-hebdos-new-issue-online-right-now-french-1783426. Accessed 24 February 2015.

Bradshaw, E., K. Bryant, T. Cohen, D. Brereton, J. Kim, K. Gillespie, and I. Lilley2011. Why Cultural Heritage Matters. A Resource Guide for Integrating Cultural

Heritage Management into Communities Work at Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto,Melbourne.

Foloruso, C. A.2012. Putting the Records Straight: What is up with WAC?. Archaeologies

8(2):188–195.

Golson, J.1995. What Went Wrong with WAC-3 and an Attempt to Understand Why.

Australian Archaeology 41:48–54.

Haber, A., and H. Burke2004. Worlds of Archaeology. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org.

Accessed 15 March 2015.

Hodder, I.2004. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Hollowell, J., and A. Herrera2012. ‘‘Terms of Engagement’’, A WAC Drama in Multiple Acts and Scenes:

Acts Three Through Five and a Call for Public Discussion. Archaeologies8(1):18–40.

Ireland, T., and C. Gnecco2014. Ethical Archaeologies. The Politics of Social Justice. Springer, New York.

Johnson, M.2010. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.

Khomani, N., and L. Erikson2015. Copenhagen Attacks: What we Know so Far. http://www.theguardian.

com/world/2015/feb/15/copenhagen-shootings-timeline-of-events. Accessed24 February 2015.

Lorenz, E. N.1969. Three Approaches to Atmospheric Predictability. Bulletin of the American

Meteorological Society 50:345–349.


http://www.ibtimes.com/read-charlie-hebdos-new-issue-online-right-now-french-1783426

http://www.ibtimes.com/read-charlie-hebdos-new-issue-online-right-now-french-1783426

http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/15/copenhagen-shootings-timeline-of-events

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/15/copenhagen-shootings-timeline-of-events

Ollman, B.2014. Historical Studies, Dialectical Marxism and ‘‘C.F.U.G Studies’’. Interna-

tional Journal of Historical Archaeology 18(2):361–373.

Rooney, A., C. Smith, and J. Ralph2013. Getting WAC-7 Online. http://www.pozible.com/project/12860/88609.

Accessed 15 March 2015.

Sands, A.2012. Scholarly Publication and WAC: The Need for a Critical Response.

Archaeologies 8(1):12–17.

Shaheen K.2015. ISIS Fighters Destroy Ancient Artefacts at Mosul Museum. The Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq. Accessed 23 March 2015.

Shepherd, N., and A. Haber2011. What’s up with WAC? Archaeology and Engagement in a Globalised

World. Public Archaeology 11(3):96–115.

2012. Counter-Practices of Global Life: A Response to Claire Smith. PublicArchaeology 10(2):144–150.

Smith, C.2003. Outlook for the World Archaeological Congress. Antiquity. http://www.

antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/wac5297/smith.html. Accessed 15 March 2015.

2006. Executive News. World Archaeological Congress E-Newsletter. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/publications/e-newsletters. Accessed 15March 2015.

2011. Errors of Fact and Errors of Representation: Response to Shepherd andHaber’s Critique of the World Archaeological Congress. Public Archae-ology 10(4):224–235.

2012. Von Nutzen und Risiken einer Kritischen Archaologie (The Benefits andRisks of Critical Archaeology). Electronic Journal Forum Kritische Archaolo-gie. http://www.kritischearchaeologie.de/fka/article/view/13. Accessed 22March 2015.

Stone, P.2006. ‘All Smoke and Mirrors’: The World Archaeological Congress, 1986–2004.

In A Future for Archaeology: The Past in the Present, edited by R. Layton,S. Shennan, and P. Stone, pp. 53–64. UCL Press, London.

Ucko, P.1987. Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of the World Archaeological

Congress. Duckworth, London.

40 CLAIRE SMITH

http://www.pozible.com/project/12860/88609

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq

http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/wac5297/smith.html

http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/wac5297/smith.html

http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/publications/e-newsletters

http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/publications/e-newsletters

http://www.kritischearchaeologie.de/fka/article/view/13

World Archaeological Congress1989. Vermillion Accord on Human Remains. http://www.worldarchaeological

congress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015.

1990. Statutes. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March2015.

1991. First Code of Ethics. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed15 March 2015.

2009. Guidelines for Preparing a Proposal for a World Archaeological Congress In-ter-Congress. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15March 2015.

2012. Guidelines for a Bid to Host WAC Congresses. http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org. Accessed 15 March 2015.









Global divides and cultural diversity: Challenges for the World Archaeological Congress.

Documents

Transcript of Global divides and cultural diversity: Challenges for the World Archaeological Congress.