PRESENTATIONS

How do we keep “bro-ing” away from open access archaeology?: Open Access, Cultural Appropriation, and Archaeology

William A. White, III

Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley

Abstract

“Bro-ing” is a market research practice pioneered by Nike and reported by Naomi Klein (2000:75) where designers bring prototypes to inner-city neighborhoods to gauge reactions to new styles and products. This practice also creates buzz that can be used to sell those products to the same communities.

Open access archaeology helps make archaeological data available to larger research communities. While this is commendable, much of our work in the United States is generated from research conducted on indigenous, descendant, or non-European American communities, many of which have histories of negative interactions with anthropologists and archaeologists. This paper explores protocols for preventing cultural knowledge from disproportionately benefitting archaeologists and keeping cultural knowledge from being used in ways that do not benefit descendant and indigenous communities. It also addresses ways open access archaeology advocates can keep from contributing to “bro-ing” in archaeological research; that is, capitalizing on research trends to insert themselves into non-European American communities in order to present their own cultural knowledge back to them in a more authoritative format.

Keywords: Open access archaeology; digital archaeology; heritage conservation

Slide 1: Introduction

Slide 2: What do I mean when I say “bro-ing”?

“Just as the history of cool in America is really… a history of African American culture…for many superbrands, cool hunting simply means black-culture hunting (Naomi Klein 2000:74)

  • Nike continued its long systemic exploitation of Black culture to sell products with the recent Kaepernick campaign. Nike earned \$6 billion from the Kaepernick boycott campaign. Kaepernick will earn millions. Products are popular among African American households, including working class and low-income.

  • Nike called the act of bringing prototypes to inner city neighborhoods “bro-ing”—as in ‘Hey, bro, check out the shoes.” Bro-ing trips are both market research and advertising. And, they’re extremely effective. Cooper said; “We go to the playground, and we dump the shoes out. It’s unbelievable. The kids go nuts. That’s when you realize the importance of Nike. Having kids tell you Nike is the number one thing in their life—number two is their girlfriend” (Cooper 1997 in Klein 2000:75).

  • Taboo of non-whiteness piques curiosity and interest from white America. Black resistance originating from American condition has long been commodified, reinterpreted, repackaged, and sold back to Black America.

  • Along with Native Americans, Black people, Asian Americans, European Immigrants, poor whites and any group that doesn’t fit unstated American cultural memes are “othered” in the United States.

  • American Archaeology is increasingly the “Study of Non-White people” by white people.

  • Increase in African American archaeology since 1980s (Agbe-Davies 2002), but most of this isn’t done by African Americans; 0.1% of archaeologists are African American (Zeder 1994)

  • Society of Black Archaeologists—Formed in 2014; incorporated as 501©(3) in 2018 as space for archaeologists of African descent to collaborate and interject African Diasporic perspective in archaeology. Largely a reaction to mainstream American archaeology.

  • Archaeology in 2019 means studying historical populations; sometimes community “involved” but most of our research is not conceived, managed, and executed by descendant communities

  • Rarely disseminated to descendant communities in a way that furthers their heritage conservation efforts; open access has potential to address this shortcoming but not if it is practiced as it has been in the United States for the last 150 years.

Slide 3: Are we appropriating cultures?

“As academics we often think about how our scholarship can enrich the lives of others. Seldom do we consider how our own lives, including our research, could benefit from the knowledge and experiences of non-archaeologists.” (Maria Franklin 1997:44)

  • Not appropriation like wearing blackface or an Indian headdress

  • Using research to further our careers, fulfill interests, without concern of equity, sovereignty or social justice is a version of appropriation. Our work can also be appropriation if it violates cultural or intellectual property of descendant communities.

  • Trendjacking popular themes like resistance, the subaltern, race, environmental justice by archaeologists assures our data will spread but introduces new conundrums.

  • Hot button items get funded; nexus with current events brings even more attention. Open access provides vehicle for data to spread.

  • Where are the protections for cultural knowledge?

  • Who is responsible for making sure our open access data is not used for “Ancient Aliens” or alt-right political campaigns?

  • Lack of collaboration and/or protections for unauthorized or unintended use is how archaeology used to be practiced. With so much data in the public domain and encouragement to do more of this, what obligations do we have to descendant communities?

  • Is this even part of the discussion outside this room?

Slide 4: Its not Bro-ing if…

“We advocate for an archaeology that has dual loyalties to communities of archaeologists and to communities of non-archaeologists who value the past and welcome opportunities to harness archaeology to address contemporary social, economic, and political concerns” (Atalay et al. 2014:13)

Archaeologists are not Nike. We do not need to make money off descendant communities. We can no longer re-sell cultural knowledge back to descendant communities. As open access positions itself as activism, helping descendant communities reclaim heritage is the least we can do.

“Am I bro-ing?” checklist:

  1. Are you collecting information from communities, synthesizing it through your own lenses, uploading it to the internet so it can be retold to the whole world?

  2. Are you simply sharing your knowledge with descendant community by sending them a link to stuff you uploaded to the internet?

  3. Did you do this in true collaboration with a non-white community?

  4. Who did you do this for? Did they ask you? Did you ask them for permission first?

  5. Are you developing safeguards for cultural knowledge in collaboration with descendant communities?

  6. Are you trying to keep other people from appropriating culture?

  • Not all persons should have unfettered access to cultural knowledge. Did you ask the descendant community what sort of protections they would like to see in place? In the 21^st^ century, online data can go viral and damage communities. Existing data does much to show historical Native, Black, Immigrants, as poor, victimized, and/or slaves. This is not how many communities want to be seen.

  • This also reinforces stereotypes of non-whiteness as less than whiteness and whiteness as the silent observer of otherness; the default against which “others” are projected.

  • Collaboration means descendant community can dictate what can and cannot be shared; This should be clearly stated and encouraged by archaeologists who want to open their data to the public

  • Archaeologists are responsible for how their data is used and by whom

  • Work is conducted in collaboration with two-way flow of trust and respect

  • Communities retain ownership, but archaeologists are tasked with protecting cultural knowledge

  • Archaeologists must provide adequate safeguards of open access data; if this cannot be done, the work should not be opened to the public.

  • Archaeologists need to listen more than we tell. Remember, we are the guests. When describing your work, always maintain position of humility and inquiry. Listen first, and then ask when appropriate.

  • I know most of the folks in this session are aware of what I am talking about. You are among those who are most likely to end this continuation of colonialism. When we see other archaeologists are “bro-ing,” do what you can to stop them from doing it.

Slide 5: References

Agbe-Davies, Anna S.

2002 Black Scholars, Black Pasts. SAA Archaeological Record, 2(4):24—28.

Atalay, Sonia

2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research With, By, and For Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Atalay, Sonia, Lee Rains Clauss, Randall H. McGuire, and John R. Welch

2014 Transforming Archaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip and T.J. Ferguson

2008 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson, editors. Pgs. 1—32. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Ferguson, T.J.

2009 Improving the Quality of Archaeology in the United States through Consultation and Collaboration with Native Americans and Descendant Communities. In Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future. Edited by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe. Pgs. 169—193. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Franklin, Maria

1997 “Power to the People”: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology of Black Americans. Historical Archaeology, 31(3):36-50.

Klein, Naomi

2000 No Logo. Picador, New York.