Analyze

In my experience working with archaeologists, I have observed numerous instances where these experts show exceptional dedication to address epistemic injustices that have persisted within the field since its inception. Archaeology has its origins in colonialism and has developed based on what archaeologists considered "impartial" investigations of marginalized communities. In practice, this meant that archaeologists, who were often seen as authorities on the past, crafted narratives based on their own interpretations, emphasizing objects they deemed relevant to their chosen stories. This way of doing archaeology created epistemic injustices that have perpetuated misconceptions and inaccurate narratives about the lives of communities, both in contemporary times and throughout history. Recognizing this problematic historical legacy, archaeologists have recently made significant efforts to integrate the voices and practices of marginalized communities into their work, often through participatory approaches in scientific research. While these endeavors have yielded positive outcomes, challenges persist because the way communities perceive and understand the world (ontologies and epistemologies) is significantly distinct from the way archaeologists, using their scientific methods and theories, perceive and understand the world. Even with the most robust collaborative efforts in place, this distinction persists and may result in the continuation of various epistemic injustices. One notable example is the practice of elevating scientific evidence, affording it greater importance, credibility, and authority, sometimes at the expense of lived experiences and oral histories. Procedural injustices also persist, partly due to the legal framework governing archaeological practices, which primarily aligns with scientific perspectives rather than community perspectives, benefiting the scientific community. For instance, current regulations in certain states in the US permit landowners to have unrestricted control over the archaeological materials excavated on their properties, irrespective of their historical or cultural connection to the original communities to whom these materials belong. Archaeologists have displayed determined efforts to address historical injustices, but there is still a substantial amount of work ahead. As they navigate challenges, some ask themselves a crucial question: Can the practice of archaeology as we know it withstand the profound transformation necessary to emerge as a truly equitable and inclusive discipline? 

Image Description: "My hand and some of the materials I encountered in the field."

Domingues, Amanda. 2023. "Archaelogy and "impartial" investigations of marginalized communities." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

The Weldon Spring Interpretive Center was a discursive jamboree for those of us curious about how anthropocenics are narrated. This particular display at the center stood out to me becuase of its resemblance to other interpretive center or science museum displays representing the "life cycle" of an organism or of cycles of ecosystem conditions (e.g. forest succession). One of the first displays visitors see upon entering the center, the display's format and captions read to me as a clear attempt to control the discourse about nuclear contamination and remediation in the area. The image--or its creator--wants to do the work of suggesting that the clean up process has brought the place "back to how it was," cycling back to a good beginning. The text used in this display is exclusively neutral or positive. The arrows moving from each circle to the next purports to display how "this area has served many purposes over the years." It states "these exhibits are designed to educate you on the history, science, and efforts of many to bring the Weldon Spring site full circle." In this cycle, Weldon Spring is not a hazardouse waste site or contaminated site but rather "a site for remedial action." Thus we are to see the space as a "home to many people," then "a TNT and DNT plant," then "a uranium feed and matierals plant," then "a site for remedial action," "an extensive cleanup effort," "a successful solution," and, finally, "a place to enjoy and learn." In this emphasis on a "return" to good conditions, the displacement of residents, health issues plant workers and others' faced, and the uncertainties or messiness of what adequate clean up is are omitted. In this image, and in much of the interpretive center, the discourse around nuclear materials, its effects and cleanup, is neatened, simplified, into a narrative that de-emphasizes the actual health impacts of these processes and of the political wherewithall that was required to make that remediation happen.

The notion of cycling back to something is a particularly intriguing move