Stephen Silliman

Bringing together 25 case studies from archaeological projects worldwide, Engaging Archaeology candidly explores personal experiences, successes, challenges, and even frustrations from established and senior archaeologists who share invaluable practical advice for students and early-career professionals engaged in planning and carrying out their own archaeological research. With engaging chapters, such as 'How Not to Write a PhD Thesis: Some Real-Life Lessons from 1990s Michigan and Prehistoric Italy" and "Accidentally Digging Central America's Earliest Village", aspiring and established archaeologist readers are transported to the desks, digs, and data-labs of the authors, learning the skills, tricks of the trade, and potential pit-falls. Case studies collectively span many regions, time periods, issues, methods, and materials. From the pre-Columbian Andes to Viking Age Iceland, North America to the Middle East, Medieval Ireland to remote North Australia, and Europe to Africa and India, Engaging Archaeology is packed with rich, first-hand source material. Unique and thoughtful, Stephen W. Silliman's guide is an essential course book for early-stage researchers, advanced undergraduates, and new graduate students, as well as those teaching and mentoring. It will also be insightful and enjoyable reading for veteran archaeologists.

Arqueólogos que estudam culturas Indígenas no contexto do colonialismo Europeu estão frequentemente presos em um enigma de escala temporal. Como representar, traduzir e interpretar práticas e pessoas Indígenas de forma a não só respeitar as complexidades do mundo colonial e suas ações neste, mas também situar suas vidas no contexto de suas próprias histórias culturais únicas de curto e longo prazo? Capturar essa dualidade não tem sido fácil. Parte desse problema é que os arqueólogos não têm atendido completamente à chamada de Lightfoot (1995) a fim de conduzir verdadeiros estudos multiescala e diacrônicos sobre colonialismo e respostas Indígenas para as suas várias formas. Parte disso se relaciona às maneiras como conceitos arqueológicos, termos e métodos ainda não estão descolonizados e ainda não estão sintonizados às formas que pessoas, passado e presente se relacionam com suas próprias histórias.

________________________________________________________________ As collaborative indigenous archaeology continues to mature in North America, more attention is needed on the role of authoring and authority by descendent community members in the heritage practices of archaeology. We discuss the role of contemporary collaborative practice and address the ways these have materialized in the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation context in south-eastern Connecticut (USA). As a way to accentuate Eastern Pequot authoring and authority, we use examples of a commemorative volume published as a community rather than an academic product, the return of all archaeological collections to Pequot homelands from their curatorial storage at a university, and the actual content of this article itself with 80% Eastern Pequot authorship. ________________________________________________________________ Résumé: Alors que l’archéologie indigène collaborative continue de prendre forme en Amérique du Nord, il est nécessaire d’être plus attentif au rôle de la création et de l’autorité par les membres descendants de la communauté quant aux pratiques d’héritage de l’archéologie. Nous proposons une discussion sur le rôle de la pratique collaborative contemporaine et exposons les manières dont elle s’est matérialisée dans le contexte de la Nation tribale d’Eastern Pequot dans le sud-est du Connecticut (USA). Afin de mettre l’accent sur la création et l’autorité de la tribu Eastern Pequot, nous utilisons des exemples tirés d’un ouvrage commémoratif publié en tant que communauté plutôt qu’au titre d’une production universitaire, ainsi que le retour de toutes les collections archéologiques vers les terres R E S E A R C H A R C H A E O LO G IE S V o lu m e 15 N u m b er 3 D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 9 352 2019 World Archaeological Congress Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09377-4

Hybridity as an interpretive construct in the archaeology of colonialism has encountered many pitfalls, due largely to the way it has been set adrift from clear theoretical anchors and has been applied inconsistently to things, practices, processes, and even people. One of the telltale signs of its problematic nature is the ease with which archaeologists claim to identify the origin and existence of hybridity but the difficulty faced if asked when and how such hybridity actually ends, if it does. In that context, this paper offers a potential requiem for hybridity. If we need not go that far, archaeologists at least need to rein in the ‘‘Frankenstein’’ version of hybridity that permeates archaeology and occludes its variable and problematic origins, acknowledge the dangers of accentuating or even celebrating ‘‘pure´es,’’ and beware of the creation of cultural ‘‘mules’’ in analytical classifications and interpretations.

In this article, I examine the role of the “Indian Country” heritage metaphor in U.S. military activities in the Middle East from a critical anthropological perspective. Research has revealed the proliferation of such discourse among soldiers, military strategists, reporters, and World Wide Web users to refer to hostile, unsecured, and dangerous territory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The salience of this symbol in 21st-century U.S. armed conflicts attests to its staying power in national narratives of colonialism at home and abroad. Summoning the “Indian wars” of the 19th century in the U.S. West as malleable symbolic parallels to the current war in Iraq serves to offer combat lessons in guerrilla warfare while reinscribing epic stories of U.S. military imperialism and renarrating uncritically the struggles and conflicts of Native Americans, past and present, through the lens of contemporary perspectives on terrorism.