This issue has been inspired by two sessions entitled: Imagined Authority: Archaeologists and the Myth of Power and Archaeological Uncertainty, a Journey Through the Ruins of a Discipline held at EAA in Maastricht (2017) and Barcelona (2018), respectively. These sessions were conceptualised and organised by Małgorzata Trelka, Sarah Howard and Kiara Beaulieu. Our interest in policy research drew our group together, and the sessions grew organically from conversations reflected in our scholastic lives as PhD candidates at the University of Birmingham. Our interests in the theme of authority (who is in charge) in heritage practice and archaeological anxieties (why are we doing this) are rooted in our professional backgrounds. Trelka's research is inspired by her experience working with heritage policy, state bureaucracy and UNESCO Conventions. Her research focuses on the role of (local) communities in the World Heritage process. Howard's research took a critical discourse approach to heritage managemnt literature and planning policy in England. Beaulieu explores the potential for the development of policies and volunteer reporting schemes regulating metal detection globally but with a focus in Canada. These two parallel themes quickly manifested themselves as interconnected during the discussions questioning the authority of heritage experts and allowed the editors to explore the power relations in various facets of heritage work and archaeology. Power, both perceived and real, helps define relationships and codes of conduct in both our social and professional lives. There has been a longheld belief that archaeologists hold authority and power as they are often seen as the representatives of government administration and cultural heritage institutions and more generally as guardians of archaeological sites and collections. As a reaction to what Laurajane Smith later characterised as the 'Authorized Heritage Discourse' (Smith 2006), archaeologists in the 1980s started to take a more democratic and interactive approach to cultural heritage. The identification and critique of the AHD were pivotal in accelerating changes to the ways in which professionals made archaeology and cultural heritage more representative and, in a sense, 'user-friendly.' This created a tidal wave of interest in a discipline that was once thought GUEST EDITORIAL
In 1823, the Ontario House, a hotel and tavern, was built near Niagara Falls, Canada. In addition to providing a location for travelers and tourists to drink and lodge, Ontario House, like many other establishments, billeted soldiers when the need arose. The 2012 excavation of the midden and features of the Ontario House produced a large assemblage of artifacts including ceramics, buttons, numismatics, and military accoutrements. Of particular interest is an East Indian coin, found in the natural topsoil, which can be associated with the 67th Regiment of Foot's brief occupation of Ontario House in 1841. This paper addresses the significance of this coin and associated finds in regards to the global movement of the regiment and the socio-political context of Ontario House within regional history.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.