Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:06:34.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why archaeology's relevance to global challenges has not been recognised

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2021

Michael E. Smith Open the ORCID record for Michael E. Smith [Opens in a new window]
Michael E. Smith*
Affiliation:
School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, USA (✉ [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archaeologists are increasingly publishing articles proclaiming the relevance of our field for contemporary global challenges, yet our research has little impact on other disciplines or on policy-making. Here, the author discusses three reasons for this impasse in relevance: archaeologists do not understand how relevance is constructed between fields; too little of our work follows a rigorous scientific epistemology; and we are confused about the target audiences for our messages concerning our discipline's relevance. The author suggests two strategies for moving forward: transdisciplinary collaborative research and the production of quantitative scientific results that will be useful to scientists in disciplines more closely involved in today's global challenges.

Keywords

archaeologyrelevancepolicy-makinginterdisciplinarytransdisciplinarity
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 95 , Issue 382 , August 2021 , pp. 1061 - 1069
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barthel, S. & Isendahl, C.. 2013. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics 86: 224–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1983. In pursuit of the past: decoding the archaeological record. New York: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Black, N. 2001. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. British Medical Journal 323: 275–78. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7307.275CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, N. & Crowther, A.. 2021. Mobilizing the past to shape a better Anthropocene. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5: 273–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01361-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J. & Mitchell, R.B.. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100: 8086–91. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, A.F. & Scarborough, V.L. (ed.). 2014. The resilience and vulnerability of ancient landscapes: transforming Maya archaeology through iHOPE. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Clark, W.C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L. & Gallopin, G.C.. 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113: 4570–78. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, C.L. 1998. Applied archaeology and rural development: archaeology's potential contribution to the future, in Whiteford, M. & Whiteform, S. (ed.) Crossing currents: continuity and change in Latin America: 34–45. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. 2013. The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 110: 14033–39. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerring, J. 2012. Social science methodology: a unified framework. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022224Google Scholar
Guldi, J. & Armitage, D.. 2014. The history manifesto. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139923880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakenbeck, S.E. 2019. Genetics, archaeology and the far right: an unholy trinity. World Archaeology 51: 517–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2019.1617189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isendahl, C. & Stump, D. (ed.). 2019. The Oxford handbook of historical ecology and applied archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R.C., Dugmore, A.J. & Riede, F.. 2018. Rediscovering lessons of adaptation from the past. Global Environmental Change 52: 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantsch, E. 1972. Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation, in Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A. & Michaud, G. (ed.) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities: 970121. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. 2020. The future of archaeology, interdisciplinarity and global challenges. Antiquity 94: 1337–48. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kieser, A. & Leiner, L.. 2011. On the social construction of relevance: a rejoinder. Journal of Management Studies 48: 891–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00886.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintigh, K.W. et al. 2014. Grand challenges for archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 122: 879–80. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1324000111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M. Carmen & Dessai, S.. 2013. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision-making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38: 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-022112-112828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, T.A. & Rockman, M.. 2020. The IPCC: a primer for archaeologists. American Antiquity 85: 627–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyama, M. 2015. Review of The history manifesto, by Jo Guldi and David Armitage. Journal of Economic History 75: 584–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050715000741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Langenhove, L. 2011. Social sciences and policy impact: the case for a participatory approach, in Papanagnou, G. (ed.) Social science and policy challenges: democracy, values and capacities: 95–111. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Little, B.J. & Shackel, P.A. (ed.). 2007. Archaeology as a tool of civic engagement. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.Google Scholar
Lobo, J., Bettencourt, L.M.A., Ortman, S.G. & Smith, M.E.. 2020. Settlement scaling theory: bridging the study of ancient and contemporary urban systems. Urban Studies 57: 731–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019873796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, K.J. et al. 2020. Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R.K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, M.C. et al. 2012. Long-term vulnerability and resilience: three examples from archaeological study in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, in Cooper, J. & Sheets, P. (ed.) Surviving sudden environmental change: 197–221. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1wn0rbs.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortman, S.G. 2019. A new kind of relevance for archaeology. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 6: 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, C., Krütli, P. & Stauffacher, M.. 2017. Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 26: 43–51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polimeni, J.M. 2006. Transdisciplinary research: moving forward. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 1: 1–3.Google Scholar
Richer, S., Stump, D. & Marchant, R.. 2019. Archaeology has no relevance. Internet Archaeology 53. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.53.2Google Scholar
Riede, F., Barnes, G.L., Elson, M.D., Oetelaar, G.A., Holmberg, K.G. & Sheets, P.. 2020. Prospects and pitfalls in integrating volcanology and archaeology: a review. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 401: 106977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2020.106977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockman, M. & Hritz, C.. 2020. Expanding use of archaeology in climate change response by changing its social environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 117: 8295–302. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914213117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabloff, J.A. 2008. Archaeology matters: action archaeology in the modern world. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Sampson, R.J. 2010. Eliding the theory/research and basic/applied divides: implications of Merton's ‘Middle Range’, in Calhoun, C. (ed.) Robert K. Merton: sociology of science and sociology as science: 63–78. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/calh15112-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, V.L. & Isendahl, C.. 2020. Distributed urban network systems in the tropical archaeological record: toward a model for urban sustainability in the era of climate change. The Anthropocene Review 7: 208–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019620919242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.E. 2010a. Sprawl, squatters, and sustainable cities: can archaeological data shed light on modern urban issues? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20: 229–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774310000259 TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.E. 2010b. The archaeological study of neighborhoods and districts in ancient cities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29: 137–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.E. 2017. Social science and archaeological inquiry. Antiquity 91: 520–28. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, G. & Evans, M. (ed.). 2016. Evidence-based policy-making in the social sciences: methods that matter. London: Policy. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447329367.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, D. 2010. Ancient and backward or long-lived and sustainable: the role of the past in debates concerning rural livelihoods and resource conservation in eastern Africa. World Development 38: 1251–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, D. 2013. On applied archaeology, Indigenous knowledge, and the usable past. Current Anthropology 54: 268–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/670330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, V. 2012. The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report 26: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00071.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. 2005. Through wary eyes: Indigenous perspectives on archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 429–49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, G.B., Brown, J.H. & Enquist, B.J.. 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276: 122–26. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5309.122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
York, A.M., Smith, M.E., Stanley, B., Stark, B.L., Novic, J., Harlan, S.L., Cowgill, G.L. & Boone, C.. 2011. Ethnic and class clustering through the ages: a transdisciplinary approach to urban social patterns. Urban Studies 48: 2399–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010384517CrossRefGoogle Scholar