I am very pleased to address my colleagues in the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (IUPPS) and the World Achaeological Congress to ask you all to participate in the Fifteenth Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences will be held in Lisboa, Portugal from 4th-9th September 2006. I would like to encourage the members of these organizations, and archaeologists globally, to attend this important meeting and to actively participate in its shaping by convening sessions, colloquia, workshops, panels or other presentations, or by presenting papers.
As President of the World Archaeological Congress, and in collaboration with my colleague, Luiz Oosterbeck, the General Secretary of the IUPPS's Fifteenth Congress, I am pleased to consider this meeting as an opportunity for a kind of rapprochement between the IUPPS and WAC. The genesis of WAC is inextricably linked to the IUPPS. The Eleventh IUPPS Congress in 1986 was scheduled to be held in Southampton, England. Controversy erupted when the organising committee, led by the National Secretary of the Congress, Peter Ucko, decided to exclude South African and Namibian delegates, in line with international sanctions against apartheid. Southampton University administrator Paul Crake writes:
The issue was that almost every country, including Britain, had signed a UNESCO convention that South Africans, of whatever colour, would not be invited to participate in international conferences: this was part of the international community's response to apartheid. A couple of other British academic conferences had adhered to this agreement before 1986, but it's true to say that WAC was the conference that made the headlines and that both left and right wing groups decided to use as a test case. Part of the problem for WAC was that if South Africans were allowed to participate in breach of the agreement, then a number of other countries would refuse to issue exit visas for their nationals (I think Nigeria was one of those). The apparently simple issue of 'academic freedom' thus became an issue of 'academic freedom for whom?' and adherence to international agreements. There was in consequence a sharp examination of what academic freedom meant in a global (rather than a comfy western) context, and many academics were forced to confront for the first time their role in the wider world. This might be seen as an early example of the consequences of what we now call 'globalisation' (Crake 2004 [1986]).
Fundamental to this debate, was the question of whether academics could be detached from the social and cultural milieus in which they work. The struggle coalesced around the importance of academic freedom versus the responsibility of archaeologists to engage with the social and political consequences of their work (see Ucko 1987). The latter position challenged the core assumptions embedded in traditional academic values and cut to the heart of traditional power structures in archaeology. In line with its constitution, the IUPPS argued for the primacy of academic freedom, stating that 'the conference had to be open to all bona fide archaeologists and related scientists with no distinction of race, country or philosophical persuasion' (Clark 1989:214, cited in Gero 2004 [1999]). The IUPPS's position was supported by the Society for American Archaeology, which issued a statement to its members that 'the SAA upheld, and will continue to uphold, the principles of freedom of research and the freedom of scholars from all nations to meet and exchange ideas' (cited in Hodder 1986:113-4). In the end, the Southampton conference was renounced by the IUPPS. Committed to their own political stance and determined to promote an archaeology that explicitly recognised the intimate connection between archaeological enquiry and politics, Peter Ucko and his colleagues reorganized the meeting under the title the World Archaeological Congress (see Gero 2004 [1999]).
Thus, the First World Archaeological Congress was held in Southampton, England, in 1986. The new global organization of archaeologists, which came to be known by the acronym of WAC, was based on 'the explicit recognition of the historical and social role, and the political context, of archaeological enquiry, of archaeological organizations, and of archaeological interpretation', as outlined in the second article of the WAC Statutes (see WAC 1990). In following years, this view coalesced with a post-modern critique in the humanities and social sciences concerning the notion of scholarly neutrality (e.g. Shanks and Tilley 1987; Leone and Preucel 1992), though some WAC members (e.g. Renfrew 1989) argued for neutrality and science. One outcome was that archaeologists began to explore the political dimensions of archaeological research, especially in terms of the hegemonic legacy of colonialism (e.g. Hodder 1989; Gathercole and Lowenthal 1990; Kohl 1998; Meskell 1999; Brodie and Tubb 2002) and the empowerment of Indigenous peoples (e.g. Layton 1989a; 1989b; Fforde et al 2002; Smith and Wobst 2005), and to rethink both the theoretical and methodological basis of the discipline.
So, where do we stand, twenty years on? While apartheid no longer exists in South Africa, the ramifications are on-going (see Sheperd 2002; Hall 2005). And while the heat of the Southampton debate has subsided, the issue of academic freedom versus political engagement is still pertinent to the practice of archaeology throughout the world. However, the gap between WAC and the IUPPS on such matters has lessened somewhat, as is evident in the following words by Vítor Oliveira Jorge, the current President of the IUPPS, concerning the up-coming meeting in Portugal:
In a planet where the conflicts and misunderstandings between cultures are spreading in a worrying way, our scientific, cultural and civic mission is to create moments of pause, of meeting together, of exchanges of points of view, and to help to promote a better future for humankind. This future can not be reached but through the deep understanding of persons and groups, and through an absolute equal respect for all the cultural traditions and for the heritage of all cultures and people (Vitor Oliveira Jorge 2004).
In the last twenty years, WAC has thrived in its own right, even as the IUPPS continued from strength to strength. Secure in our separate, but related, identities, and the specific roles that each organization takes in the global community, the IUPPS and WAC have become freed from their turbulent pasts, and are developing co-operative, mutually beneficial relationships, in which members of both organizations can profit from the strengths of the other.
The IUPPS and WAC had, and have, much in common. Both are learned societies with a mandate to encourage research in, and disseminate information about, archaeology. If disciplines are defined according to the academic journals in which research is published and other outlets for publication, and the learned societies to which their practitioners belong, then both WAC and the IUPPS have important roles in shaping the discipline of archaeology. In particular, they are linked by their common interest in promoting archaeology globally, rather than simply at a state or national level. Moreover, both WAC and the IUPPS have an appreciation of the richness obtainable from global diversity. Similarly, the differences in our positions can be viewed as complementary, rather than combative. In the words of its constitution (see IUPPS 2004), the IUPPS is committed to promoting prehistoric and protohistoric studies by the organization of international congresses and of large-scale excavations of international significance; by sponsoring scholarly publications of international scope as well as conferences and other learned meetings; and in general by advancing research by the co-operation and mutual understanding among scholars from all countries. WAC is also concerned with scholarly matters, most particularly through the WAC Congresses and the One World Archaeology Series, which publishes research presented at these meetings. In June 2005 we will be publishing the first issue of our scholarly journal Archaeologies, the Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. The core strengths of WAC are its diversity and international representativeness, its dedication to redressing global inequality and its commitment to critique in scholarship.
Why do we need global organizations? Certainly, justification for this does not exist in the content of most archaeological research, which normally focuses on a specific time period or place. To my mind, global organizations are warranted by three, inter-related factors. The first of these is the value of global comparative archaeology, the study of the commonalities of human existence in its communities and environment and global comparisons of how those commonalities play out in different cultures and over time. The second factor is the value of obtaining comparative perspectives on the contemporary practice of archaeology, including its methodological and theoretical bases, ethical orientations and views on the representation of the past. The third factor is an ability to bring to bear global power on issues of importance to archaeologists, especially the need for global advocacy for the conservation and preservation of cultural heritage. Since its inception, WAC has been very effective in this area. It has consistently taken a leadership role in supporting local archaeologists in advocacy for conservation and ethics around the globe. Moreover, it has consistently supported the growth and nurturing of archaeological communities and values in areas where economic and political conditions make it hard to sustain.
Our two global organizations have much they can learn from each other. For example, part of the WAC mission is to redress global inequality through making funds held in high-income countries accessible to people in low-income countries. This is a two-way process of educating both funders and fundees. At the recent Fifth World Archaeological Congress (WAC-5), held in Washington DC, in June, 2003, the Wenner Gren Foundation hosted a workshop 'U.S. funding sources for non-U.S. scholars'. This workshop was a first, important step in this direction. It brought together representatives of six U.S. organizations (Earthwatch International Research, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the World Monuments Fund and the Wenner Gren Foundation for the Anthropological Research) who summarised the grant programs in which non U.S. citizens and residents are eligible to compete. This workshop was a practical way of breaking down information barriers and enhancing the ability of people from all parts of the world to obtain the funds that are needed to conduct archaeological research. Such workshops could also be organised at the 15th Congress of the IUPPS. Measures such as this break down global barriers and have the potential to generate great benefits to archaeologists, and archaeology, throughout the world.
In a similar way, WAC can gain much from the IUPPS. For example, the latter has particular strengths in certain academic domains (e.g. human evolution, hunter-gatherers, first farmers, computer applications) and WAC members should draw on these strengths. The IUPPS is the body for archaeology within the International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences, member of UNESCO. It has appointed representatives in over 100 countries, and its main aim is to promote the co-operation of scholars across the world and the dissemination of archaeological knowledge. It holds a world congress every five years and, in between, it has over 30 scientific specialised commissions that organize interim congresses and publications. These commissions vary from wide scope ones, such as on the origins of humankind) to more specialist concerns (e.g. Palaeolithic habitats); they may have a chronological accent (e.g. Neolithic of Europe and the Mediterranean), or a methodological approach (e.g. mathematical models and computers). A number of well-known international bodies are affiliated to IUPPS, such as the Pan-African Congress of Prehistory and Related Studies, the Society for American Archaeology and the International Union for Quaternary Research.
The Congresses that are held by the IUPPS and by WAC provide important opportunities for scholars from around the globe to discuss new research, obtain a deeper understanding of the views of others and reflect on how we might advance our discipline. So, finally, I would like to reiterate my appeal to WAC members, and to archaeologists generally, to actively participate in the 15th Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Portugal is a wonderful country with a turbulent, contested and fascinating history-much like the joint history of the IUPPS and WAC. Lisbon in the fall has to be a perfect location for members of WAC and the IUPPS to come together to reflect on the issues and links that inform our respective organisations. After that, we should extend our discussions in May 2007, at the Sixth World Archaeological Congress, in Kingston, Jamaica.
References
Brodie, N. and K. Walker Tubb (eds) 2002 Illicit Antiquities: the theft of culture and the extinction of archaeology. London: Routledge.
Clark, J. D. 1989 Review of Peter Ucko's 'Academic Freedom and Apartheid'. American Antiquity 54:213-216.
Crake, Paul [1986] 2004 Freedom of Speech. On line. Available at: http://www.soton.ac.uk/AbouttheUniversity/OurHistory/1980s/1986/ (7th December, 2004)
Fforde, C., J. Hubert and P. Turnbull (eds) 2002 The Dead and their Possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice. London: Routledge.
Gero, J. 1999 The History of the World Archaeological Congress. On line. Available at: http://www.worldarchaeololgicalcongress.org (12th December, 2004).
Gathercole, P. and D. Lowenthal 1990 The Politics of the Past. London: Unwin Hyman.
Jorge, Vitor 2004 XVth Congress - Lisbon (Portugal), 2006. Message from the UISPP's President concerning the XV Congress. On line. Available at: http://www.uispp.ipt.pt/en/entxt.html (7th December, 2004)
Hall, M. 2005 Situational Ethics and Engaged Practice: the case of archaeology in Africa. In L.M. Meskell and P. Pels (eds) Embedding Ethics: Shifting the Boundaries of the Anthropological Profession, pp. 169 - 194. Oxford: Berg.
Hodder, I. 1986 Politics and Ideology in the World Archaeological Congress Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5:113-119.
Hodder, I. 1989 The Meanings of Things. London: Unwin Hyman.
IUPPS 2004 International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Constitution. On line. Available at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7152/stateng.html (12th December, 2004)
Kohl, P. 1998 Nationalism and Archaeology: on the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:223-46.
Layton, R. (ed.) 1989a Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London: Unwin Hyman.
Layton, R. (ed.) 1989b Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.
Leone, M., and R. Preucel 1992 Archaeology in a democratic society: a critical theory perspective. In L. Wandsneider (Ed.) Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archeology's Future, pp.115-35. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Meskell, L. 1999 Archaeologies of Social Life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Renfrew, C. 1989 Comments on 'Archaeology into the 1990s'. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22:33-41.
Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Blackwell Polity.
Shepherd, N. 2002 The Politics of Archaeology in Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:189-209.
Smith, C. and H.M. Wobst (eds) 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonising theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Ucko, Peter 1987 Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of the World Archaeological Congress. London: Duckworth.
World Archaeological Congress 1990 Statutes. On line. Available at: http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org (7th December 2004).