Neal followed the research interest: Archaeology of ethnicity
Neal started following the work of Karine Taché, University of York, Archaeology.
Neal started following the work of Mary Elizabeth (Beth) Compton, The University of Western Ontario, Anthropology.
Papers
"From Crap to Archaeology": The CRM Shaping of Nineteenth Century Domestic Site Archaeology
published in Ontario Archaeology 83/84 2007 (released in 2009)
This paper reviews the history of CRM investigations into 19th century Euro-Canadian domestic sites in southern Ontario, and considers how that history has shaped the current state of the practice. This history is not a lengthy one: prior to the late 1980s CRM archaeologists could and did regularly ignore nineteenth century materials. Instrumental in changing attitudes was the research and publications of Ian and Thomas Kenyon, which went a long way towards finding a broader acceptance for this kind of site. But while many nineteenth century domestic sites are now documented and excavated every year, methods of excavation and analysis can often be by rote, a sort of mimicking of what “Ian would have done,” without considering whys and why nots. In effect, the potential and value of this important archaeological and social historical site type has been slow to advance beyond the initial acceptance of the site type in the 1980s.
Download (.pdf) Telling Tales: Interpretive Trends in Southern Ontario Late Woodland Archaeology
published in Ontario Archaeology No 68 2001 (backdated to 1999 for serial purposes)
The publication in 1966 of Jim Wright’s The Ontario Iroquois Tradition and his construction of the Late Woodland culture history for southern Ontario has had a tremendous impact on how this part of the archaeological record has been thought about since. Yet a critical component of this construct, often referred to as the Conquest Hypothesis or Theory, has always proven problematic and contentious, and generally has been rejected by Wright’s colleagues. This seeming paradox in rejecting a critical interpretative construct while embracing the model serves as the starting point here for examining the ways in which archaeologists have come to think about and interpret, and re-interpret the Late Woodland history of southern Ontario. In moving away from the normative assumptions inherent in the Ontario Iroquois Tradition model, and actively engaging broader theoretical discussion, Ontario archaeologists are beginning to ask different questions of – and apply new perspectives to – the archaeological record. What I offer here is an example of the kind of story that can be told based on such changing interpretive approaches to the Late Woodland period. Through application of a long-term, historical perspective to the archaeological record, and recognition of the role of agency, the period of the supposed Pickering Conquest is seen as representing both a range of variable local responses to on-going change, and strategies of response based on over a millennium of cultural development, rather than a sudden, militaristic “hiccup” in between long periods of cultural equilibrium. I also intentionally offer here fictive vignettes, an informal voice, and play, all of which are intended to underscore the point that archaeology, ultimately, is about telling stories about the past. In the end, it is up to you, the audience, to decide whether this story “works,” and if so, where it will go next.
Between Colonial and Indigenous Archaeologies: Legal and Extra-legal Ownership of the Archaeological Past in North America
published in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology 27: 154-190 2003
For over a century and a half, archaeologists have fought to protect the archaeological record from impacts caused by looting, antiquities trafficking, development, and other threats to the preservation of, in effect, the raw material of the archaeological enterprise. But as post-colonial sensibilities slowly permeate North American society, descendant communities have challenged the basis for both archaeologists to assert an exclusive stewardship of the archaeological record, and the state’s authority to endow this exclusivity to archaeologists. This paper reviews the historical context from which archaeologists have obtained in legislation a privileged trust from the state to manage and protect the archaeological record in North America, and the challenges First Nations have made to being excluded from their ancestor’s past. While the changing balance in the politics of archaeology in North America is undermining archaeologists’ exclusivity, it also offers opportunities for archaeology to become more inclusive and relevant in society.
