Bailey, D.W. 2023. Beyond archaeology: disarticulation and its consequences. In H. Barnard (ed,) Archaeology Outside the Box, pp. 9-18. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute. 1 BEYOND ARCHAEOLOGY DISARTICULATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES DOUG BAILEY I n a session with the title “Entangling Ancient Art” at the 2019 meetings of the Theoretical Archaeology Group in Syracuse, New York, I placed a painstakingly reconstructed and con- served ancient ceramic amphora into a reinforced plastic shipping bag and pounded the bag (and the amphora inside it) with a 10-pound (4.5 kg.) lump hammer. Seven or eight whacks and the amphora was a pile of newly created sherds and dust (Figure 1.1). Part performance piece, more an illustration of the potentials one can explore by disarticulating an object from its archaeological status, the aim of the destruction was to investigate what an art/archaeology might enable. When they left the session, many members of the audience took one of the newly liberated sherds with them; I asked each sherd adopter to take their fragment on their travels, to work, on holiday, and then to report back with photographs and comments, which could be posted on social media (also discussed by Maite Zubiaurre and Filomena Cruz in Chapter 7 of this volume).1 Figure 1.1. Releasing the amphora project: disarticulation (Theoretical Archaeology Group meetings, 2019, Syracuse, New York). 9 Much of what I had done in my presentation at the Theoretical repurposing of the resulting disarticulated fragmentary piece(s) Archaeology Group troubled several of the attendees of the ses- as raw materials; and the use of those raw materials to make sion: I had intentionally broken an archaeological artifact that creative work that engages (potentially in a disruptive way) a had been carefully and professionally reconstructed; the frag- contemporary social or political issue, debate, or challenge.6 ments thus created, I had distributed to individuals regardless of The amphora-smashing event and the continued wander- whether or not those people had archaeological, conservation, ings of the individual fragments that the breakage enabled, or other relevant skills and experience; and I had stated that I however, only do partial justice to this definition. The artifact (in had no interest in regaining the individual sherds or in reassem- this case the amphora) was disarticulated from its status as an bling the amphora. Worse still, when asked by a sceptic what object of the past to be preserved, conserved, guarded, stored, my intention was in smashing and distributing the material, I studied, and deployed in archaeological analysis and research. replied that I did not know that I had any intention at all, that I Indeed, the distribution of the fragments into the jacket pock- did not have a clear set of aims, objectives, or methods in mind, ets and lap-top bags of those session attendees who opted and that I did not intend to reach any academic conclusion or to participate (and a majority of those present decided to do grand interpretation about a relevant archaeological topic.2 I so), made impossible any future work of that standard type. was not playing by the rules. The performance in Syracuse and The individual sherds, thus, are the fragmentary pieces that its aftermath fit within the loose bounds of what I call an art/ become the raw material with which creative work is made: the archaeology. In this chapter, I explore this concept and practice, latter being the image and texts, relationships and narratives, and I offer a short comment on what art/archaeology entails that adopters have posted on social media. Perhaps the least (as well as what it challenges and makes possible) through a clear connection of the amphora project to art/archaeology, as description and discussion of several recent publications, per- defined above, is whether or not it engaged with a contempo- formances, and exhibitions, specifically the Ineligible exhibition rary social or political issue.7 that ran from March to June 2020 at the International Museum for Contemporary Sculpture in Santo Tirso, Portugal. 3 Here, all that I am in a position to offer is the suggestion that the smashing and distribution of fragments stimulate a discussion of the assumption that objects of the past have a particular status in our world that comes from their connec- ART/ARCHAEOLOGY tion with what came before: that being of the past grants an object special value; that sharing that value are artifacts, but In two recent papers, I argued that there is a fertile territory also antiques and other objects surviving from the past, as well available for archaeologists to explore beyond the boundaries as less tangible concepts that derive their essence and power of archaeology as traditionally practiced. It is an uncharted from historical position (such as descent, lineage, ownership, domain where much of the basic premise of archaeology does occupation, territory, or residence), indeed perhaps even the not apply. It is a place where we can “let go beyond” and travel principle of precedence as practiced in law and philosophy; out of the reach of the existing, standard, traditional, widely and, that the ontological basis of each of these objects and practiced (and without question, excellent and professional) senses is secure because of these connections to the past. 4 archaeologies of art and of artistic collaborations with archae- Put more bluntly, the question that the amphora disarticula- ologists. While those recent articles provide more detailed tion posed is this: what is the basis of our shared belief that the characterizations of art/archaeology, a working definition for past matters, and thus that it should be preserved? Whether or use in this chapter runs as follows: the disarticulation of an not that is a political or social issue of the contemporary world object from its prehistoric, ancient, or historic context; the that would benefit from our engagement (though, on a personal 5 8 DOUG BAILEY note, I suggest that it is), I would argue that the amphora-smashing project is perhaps truest to the more general element of art/ archaeology (the more amorphous letting-go-beyond part) that asks us to explore new territory and untraditional practice and to make new work in ways through which we are not certain what the output, result, or end product will be (a project involving destruction in archaeological research is briefly discussed by Annelou van Gijn in Chapter 29 of this volume). EXPLORING ART/ARCHAEOLOGY Other examples of experiments and explorations of the shape that an art/archaeology might take are available and I have addressed them in print elsewhere. One example is my destruction through chemical dissolving of images from a set Figure 1.2. Breaking the Surface: drilling and cutting the book. of research slides formally held in the archaeological and ethnographic archive of the university where I work.8 Another is a series of five unconnected, multi-page-montage, arti- component of our standard expectations of the role that should cle-length, publications in which I juxtaposed text and image be played in academia by book writing (and by publishing, sell- in efforts to insert open-ended provocations about academic ing, reviewing, and reading) and a similarly charged challenge narrative into the table of contents of what were otherwise tra- to the expected coherence of the monograph author’s narra- ditionally edited academic books, and in which I wanted to ask tive. I made manifest that art/archaeological performance on a range of questions about how and why we do what we do the paper, ink, and binding of that book about art/archaeology when we study the past archaeologically: about why we value when I perforated the book with a ¾-inch (19 mm.) drill bit differentially the surface of the human body and the surface of driven by a machine-shop drill press, and in a separate set of the earth and when that difference in perception might have actions, in the creation of fifty artists’ copies of the book, into emerged; about how we value select categories of data (such each of which I cut holes through the series of pages in which as subsistence, or technology) as preferentially important in I had published otherwise standard renderings of archaeologi- archaeological and historic analysis;10 about why we promote cal data and interpretation (Figure 1.2).14 9 the human-centric understanding of the passage of time; and 11 about how we justify the mismatch that separates the coarse scale of archaeological data and our analyses of it from the inti- THE INELIGIBLE PROJECT mate scale of the interpretations that we offer, about agency and emotion for example.12 The aim of this chapter is not to relive those performances or A recent monograph works through a more detailed and repeat the arguments in those publications and, to be frank, in lengthy argument for alternative engagements with prehistoric their non-narrative art/archaeologicability it would be difficult architecture,13 as did subsequent intentional performative dis- to repeat, here in words and printed text, the arguments origi- ruptions of that book (itself taken to be material artifact) as a nally made in image and action. In the remainder of this chapter, CHAPTER 1: BEYOND ARCHAEOLOGY 7 therefore, I report on a current project that has voyaged more all of the ineligible materials. This process followed an art/ deeply into the unusual terrain of an art/archaeology. From archaeological methodology: we removed objects from the March to June 2020, the International Museum of Contemporary plastic and paper bags into which they had been placed on Sculpture in Santo Tirso Portugal hosted the exhibition “Creative site; we discarded all labelling that provided contextual, spa- (un)makings: Disruptions in Art/Archaeology.” A central part of tial, stratigraphic, historic, or other information (this included this was Ineligible, an installation of twenty-three works created paper labels placed in bags and Sharpie-written information on by artists and archaeologists using as raw materials the artifacts the exterior of the bags); we examined the material of manu- recovered during excavations that preceded the construction of facture (or of natural origin) for each object; we created simple the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco, California.16 new classificatory categories (such as glass bottle, metal, 15 In San Francisco, the archaeological assessment that had taken place in advance of the building of the Transbay Center leather, or plastic); and finally, using those categories, we allocated each object to its new, anti-contextual, assemblage. unearthed many thousands of artifacts and produced impor- While this lab work was underway, I sent out an email request tant insight into a vital period of the history of San Francisco: to eighty-two artists, archaeologists, makers, designers, and the mid- to late nineteenth century. William Self Associates in others who I had met, heard of, or long wanted to work with.19 combination with PaleoWest of Phoenix, Arizona (the latter My request was simple and the terms of engagement brief: having acquired William Self Associates since the excavations took place) carried out the preconstruction historical assess- In accepting the invitation to participate, contributors ment and digging, and had completed post-excavation analysis commit to repurpose (disassemble, take apart, grind up) and produced the requisite formal reports before I took legal the artifacts they receive, and then to use the resulting possession of the material. Currently, a small exhibition of some substance(s) as the raw material base(s) for making new artifacts recovered is in place at the TransBay Center, and the creative work. There are no other limitations or guidelines, Transbay Joint Powers Authority maintains a website providing beyond the instruction that the work made should engage an overview of the archaeological remains. As on many archae- contemporary social or political issues and debates. 17 ological projects, in their analysis of the material excavated, the PaleoWest team made standard determinations of which I worried that nobody would respond, let alone that some- objects were worthy of further study, and which were surplus one would do so with a positive request for an assemblage to requirements: the latter being objects either that had little to work with. My concerns were short-lived; positive replies historic or scientific value or of which multiple examples already arrived by return email within hours of my clicking ‘send.’ In the existed in museums and archives. Those objects deemed sur- end, the response was overwhelming, and the cost of shipping plus were termed ‘ineligible,’ in the sense that they did not fit the materials was the main constraint that limited the number of criteria for further analysis or public presentation. As it turned creators I could involve.20 out, in an unplanned conversation with one of the PaleoWest archaeologists, I asked if I could take possession of (and legal responsibility for) the ineligible objects. Their answer was one EXAMPLES of relief: relief from their ongoing (and ethically complicated) custodial care for these historic materials, which, though they 6 In the space that remains here, I describe two of the works could not formally discard, were of no scientific or cultural value. created for Ineligible and offer comments from their mak- With the help of San Francisco State University undergrad- ers. The first is the work of Spanish archaeologist Alfredo uate students, with a major in anthropology,18 I sorted through Gonzáles-Ruibal of the Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio del DOUG BAILEY Figure 1.4. Ineligible project: untitled work by Alfredo Gonzáles-Ruibal and Álvaro Minguito Palomares. Figure 1.3. Ineligible project: Kit number 11. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, and his colleague Álvaro Minguito Many never returned. Their broken bodies lay in unknown Palomares; the second is work created by Portuguese pho- graves throughout Spain. For many years, we have excavated tographer Valter Ventura.21 battlefields and exhumed victims of war and political violence. Gonzáles-Ruibal and Palomares received Kit number 11, an But this time we set out to inhume, to ‘incavate’ . . . . In con- assortment of unidentified, corroded, rusted metal artifacts temporary war, people and things are broken into pieces, then (Figure 1.3), and produced a short video (2 minutes and 9 sec- mixed up, then swallowed by the earth.” onds long) and a set of eighteen color photographs (Figure In their performative and visual work Gonzáles-Ruibal and 1.4), all of which the authors made during a July 2019 visit to Palomares make a powerful statement: in contemporary war, Cerro del Pingarrón, a small, nondescript hill 40 kilometers people and things are broken into pieces, then mixed up, then (25 miles) south of Madrid. In the commentary they write of swallowed by the earth. Into that, Alfredo and Álvaro mix their visit, Gonzáles-Ruibal and Palomares remind us that in implicit references to depositional offerings of premodern February 1937 (during the Spanish Civil War), Republican sol- (perhaps Iron Age) cultures of objects and bodies, of funerals, diers repeatedly tried (and failed) to take Pingarrón during and of disabled weapons and personal belongings. Unstable the Battle of Jarama; tremendous casualties resulted. With connections float ghost-like among long-dead American them during their 2019 visit to Pingarrón, Gonzáles-Ruibal and volunteers, mid-twentieth-century Spanish battlefields, late Palomares took two metal keys from Kit number 11, and once at nineteenth-century (ever anonymous) San Franciscan key hold- the hill, Alfredo and Álvaro smashed the keys, dug a hole in the ers, and contemporary Iberian archaeologists. The (untitled) ground, and buried the fragments. As they write, “Eighty-two work that results is both intellectual and aesthetic, archaeolog- years ago, American volunteers closed the door of their homes ical and artistic, historic and contemporary. Provocatively, it is with similar keys and began a long journey to fight fascism. none of those things and yet much more. 22 CHAPTER 1: BEYOND ARCHAEOLOGY 5 Figure 1.5. Ineligible project: Kit number 7. aging, and gentrification in San Francisco; and, a final piece of work, ten original photographs in which Ventura reprinted tightly cropped and blurred images (from the archives of 4 When Valter Ventura opened Kit number 7, he found the the Oakland Museum of California) of the lower legs and fragments of a leather shoe (Figure 1.5). Ventura produced a boots of police officers from the 1934 Bloody Thursday riots series of differing works, all graphic: a poster that combines (Figure 1.6). six hundred prints from the Cross-Domain Forensic Shoeprint In his commentary, Ventura (2019) writes that images have Matching index with texts about the Sit-Lie Ordinance of characters both scientific and judiciary, and of how, in the San Francisco (a 2010 ballot measure allowing police to fine works he made for Ineligible, he had dissected elements of the or jail people lying on sidewalks during the day); a poster history of San Francisco “like pieces of a puzzle, and found that that combines circular cut-outs from a historic map of San the city has a long tradition of counter-power, rebellion and Francisco with a list of three dozen chronologically ordered struggle; but simultaneously [it] contains drastic asymmetries events (including the 1867 street begging ban, the 1967 between the wealth and poverty of its inhabitants.” Ventura Summer of Love, and the first issuance of marriage licenses defines what is ineligible in terms of a human footprint (foot- in the city to same-sex couples in 2004), each of which ref- print as archaeological, political, and social document), and erences important San Francisco political or social moments; he offers that his purpose is to create a tension between the a poster that collages newspaper clippings (with carefully notions of law and justice, between equality and solidarity, selected lines of blacked out redaction) about homelessness, between protection and force. DOUG BAILEY San Francisco; ocean pollution and plastics; and migration crises on the border between Mexico and the United States. Media and formats of works created and presented at the Santo Tirso exhibition range from still photography to video, from performance to mixed-media construction, from acoustic composition to vinyl window appliqué. Some works wander off on their own, seemingly without compass or consistent velocity; others follow individual, unplanned trajectories into expanses that broaden into an unbroken distance. Without doubt, we may never see or hear from some work that has been made, that is now being made, and that will be made in the next month or next year. I can report that some of the kits I sent out have disappeared, perhaps having found other lives in some other places. From the Ineligible work created, therefore, emerge unpredicted senses of released freedoms in thought and in action, and in many ways, my attempts in this chapter (through the rhetoric of standard academic written and logical presentation) to describe the project and the work produced have failed completely to match the languages spoken by individual works or to provide any of the stimulation that face-to-face encounters provide. None of the words I offer here have the capacity or essence to represent the sequences of action and musing that swirled around the minds, hands, and materials of individual creators as they made their work. My conclusion, thus, finds its own shape from these realizations: art/archaeology is not a call for more texts and reviews, or for more written treatises about what could happen, or how new work might resonate Figure 1.6. Ineligible project: untitled work by Valter Ventura. with what has come before. Art/archaeology is the call to do, to make, to create, to explore, to experiment. Ineligible is one of the vibrant experiments that takes up that call. CONCLUSION The two examples of work in the Ineligible project briefly pre- NOTES sented above provide a quick glimpse into the territories opened up by art/archaeology. Other works from the 2020 Santo Tirso 1 A video of the smashing is available on Vimeo, https:// exhibition move in similarly unregulated directions, to a variety vimeo.com/334554728/; the Facebook page associated with of distances, and grapple with other social and political issues: this project is https://www.facebook.com/Releasing-the- for example, nineteenth-century displacements of native com- Amphora-347052559341222/ (accessed 29 February 2020). munities in North America; homelessness in twenty-first-century CHAPTER 1: BEYOND ARCHAEOLOGY 3 2 The reader may wonder if my writing of this chapter shows that I did have an academic intention: to publish within the established career and employment standards of my work. With full honesty, I Cetina-Antonio, Valerie Contreras, Lexi Hamilton, John Karr, Jessica Salgado, and Dana Yong. 19 I shipped an additional twenty-five assemblages (later this term was did not intend to publish any academic article, book chapter, or other abandoned; ‘kits’ took its place) to Dr Sara Navarro, a post-doctoral traditional report about what I gradually started to call ‘the amphora art/archaeologist at the Centro de Investigação e de Estudos em Belas- project.’ At the time of the amphora destruction, I had not been artes at the University of Lisbon in Portugal. Dr Navarro presented invited to contribute to this book, and I am writing about the amphora those assemblages to students in her sculpture class and invited them in my contribution only because I thought that it would be a good hook to pull the reader into a text that the editors invited me to write. to make work if they desired. Many students decided to do so. 20 Important support for shipping came from the award of a Marcus 3 Bailey et al. 2020a, 2020b. Research Grant from the College of Liberal and Creative Arts at 4 Bailey 2017a, 2017b. San Francisco State University; all of the members of the Ineligible 5 Bailey 2014a. team are grateful to this grant program and to the support that they 6 A more free-ranging attempt to define art/archaeology is available through https://www.artarchaeologies.com/about (accessed provide to San Francisco State University. 21 Fuller details about Alfredo and Álvaro’s, as well as of Valter’s work, 29 February 2020). and of all the other work that was installed in the Ineligible exhibition 7 See Bailey (2023) for one attempt to explore a political issue. in Santo Tirso are available in the catalog for the Portuguese 8 Bailey 2020a, 2020b. exhibition, published by the International Museum for Contemporary 9 Bailey 2013. Sculpture (Bailey et al. 2020a). Descriptions of and discussions about 10 Bailey 2014b. other work made, though not exhibited in Santo Tirso, are accessible 11 at http://www.artarchaeologies.com. Bailey 2018b. 12 Bailey and Simpkin 2015. 22 Gonzáles-Ruibal and Palomares 2019. 13 Bailey 2018a. 14 Interested readers will find online videos of both the drilling, https://vimeo.com/318865363/, and the cutting, https://vimeo. BIBLIOGRAPHY com/315603527/ (accessed 29 February 2020). A separate conversation could review the strong objections (in the end, refusal) Alfredo Gonzáles-Ruibal, ed., Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond cuts. In reality, it would only have been presentations of cuts— the Tropes of Modernity, pp. 337–45, London (Routledge). provided by laying out several chapters of the book with white discs of emptiness on specially selected pages. 15 Bailey et al. 2020a, 2020b. I am indebted to Dr Sara Navarro, Dr Tania Pereira, Dr Álvaro Moreira, and the rest of the team at the museum for their willingness to experiment with art and archaeology in an openminded and creative way. ——— (2014a), “Art // Archaeology // Art: Letting-Go Beyond,” in: Ian A. Russell and Andrew Cochrane, eds., Art and Archaeology: Collaborations, Conversations, Criticisms, pp. 231–50, New York (Springer-Kluwer). ——— (2014b), “Which Ruins Do We Valorize? A New Visual Calibration for the Balkan Past,” in: Bjørnar Olsen and Þóra 16 Bailey 2020c. Pétursdóttir, eds., Ruin Memories: Materiality, Aesthetics and the 17 https://tjpa.org/project/archaeology (accessed 29 February 2020). Archaeology of the Recent Past, pp. 215–29, London (Routledge). 18 Many thanks to students in Anthropology 699 who were the engine for Ineligible: Kimberly Aleman, Haley Amoroso, Miriam 2 Bailey, Doug (2013), “Cutting the Earth / Cutting the Body,” in: of the publisher of the book (Oxford University Press) to introduce DOUG BAILEY ——— (2017a), Art/Archaeology: What Value Artistic-Archaeological Collaboration? Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 4(2): 246–56. ——— (2017b), Disarticulate—Repurpose—Disrupt: Art/Archaeology, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(4): 691–701. ——— (2018a), Breaking the Surface: An Art/Archaeology of Prehistoric Architecture, Oxford (Oxford University Press). ——— (2018b), “The Uexküll Calibration: Chronology and Critical ——— (2023), “The Syracuse Amphora Project: On Violence Against Artifacts,” in: Christopher Watts and Carl Knappett, eds. Ancient Art Revisited: Global Perspectives from Archaeology and Art History, pp. 112-24, New York (Routledge). Bailey, Doug, Sara Navarro, and Álvaro Moreira, eds. (2020a), Flicker Fusion Frequency,” in: Stella Souvatzi, Adnan Baysal, and Creative (un)makings: Disruptions in Art/Archaeology, Santo Tirso Emma L. Baysal, eds., Time and History in Prehistory, pp. 31–41, (International Museum of Contemporary Sculpture). London (Routledge). ——— (2020a), “Releasing the Visual Archive: On the Ethics of Destruction,” in: Þóra Pétursdóttir, Bjørnar Olsen, Mats Burström, and Caitlin DeSilvey, eds., After Discourse: Things, Affects, Ethics, London (Routledge), pp. 232–56. ——— (2020b), “Releasing the Archive,” in: Doug Bailey, Sara Navarro, ——— (2020b), Ineligible: A Disruption of Artefacts and Artistic Practice, Santo Tirso (International Museum of Contemporary Sculpture). Bailey, Doug and Melanie Simpkin (2015), “Eleven Minutes and Forty Seconds in the Neolithic: Underneath Archaeological Time,” in: Ruth M. Van Dyke and Reinhard Bernbeck, eds., Subjects and and Álvaro Moreira, eds., Creative (un)makings: Disruptions in Art/ Narratives in Archaeology, pp. 187–213, Boulder (University Press Archaeology, Santo Tirso (International Museum of Contemporary of Colorado). Sculpture), pp. 80–91. ——— (2020c), “Art/archaeology: The Ineligible project,” in: Doug Bailey, Sara Navarro, and Álvaro Moreira, eds., Ineligible: A Disruption of Artefacts and Artistic Practice of Art, Santo Tirso (International Museum of Contemporary Sculpture), pp. 13–28. Gonzáles-Ruibal, Alfredo and Álvaro M. Palomares (2019), Unpublished Correspondence with Doug Bailey and Sara Navarro, Ineligible project archive. Ventura, Valter (2019), Unpublished correspondence with Doug Bailey and Sara Navarro, Ineligible project archive. CHAPTER 1: BEYOND ARCHAEOLOGY 1 ARCHAEOLOGY OUTSIDE THE BOX EDITED BY HANS BARNARD COTSEN INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY PRESS The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press is the publishing unit of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, a premier research organization dedicated to the creation, dissemination, and conservation of archaeological knowledge and heritage. It is home to both the Interdepartmental Archaeology Graduate Program and the UCLA/Getty Program in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. The Cotsen Institute provides a forum for innovative faculty research, graduate education, and public programs at UCLA in an effort to positively impact the academic, local and global communities. Established in 1973, the Cotsen Institute is at the forefront of archaeological research, education, conservation and publication, and is an active contributor to interdisciplinary research at UCLA. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press specializes in producing high-quality academic volumes in nine different series, including Monumenta Archaeologica, Monographs, World Heritage and Monuments, Cotsen Advanced Seminars, and Ideas, Debates, and Perspectives. Through a generous endowment by Lloyd E. Cotsen, longtime Institute volunteer and benefactor, the Press makes the fruits of archaeological research accessible to scholars, professionals, students, and the general public. Our archaeological publications receive critical acclaim in both academic communities and the public at large. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Willeke Wendrich, Director Aaron A. Burke, Editor-in-Chief Randi Danforth, Publications Director Deidre Brin, Digital Publications Director Editorial Board Willeke Wendrich Li Min John K. Papadopoulos Gregson Schachner Ellen J. Pearlstein Sharon E. J. Gerstel Richard G. Lesure Aaron A. Burke Randi Danforth Africa (Ex officio member) East Asia Mediterranean Basin North America–Southwest Conservation of Indigenous and Archaeological Materials Medieval and Early Modern Mediterranean Archaeology North America–Mesoamerica West Asia–Near East Ex officio member Copyeditor: R. Neil Hewison Designer: Fatiha Bouzidi Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Society for American Archaeology. Annual Meeting (84th : 2019 : Albuquerque, N.M.) | Barnard, H., editor. Title: Archaeology outside the box / edited by Hans Barnard. Description: [Los Angeles, California] : Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, [2023] | Partial collection of papers presented during the Eighty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology held in Albuquerque, New Mexico in April 2019. Identifiers: LCCN 2022056273 | ISBN 9781950446292 (hardback) | ISBN 9781950446322 (ebook) Classification: LCC CC72.4 .S66 2023 | DDC 930.101--dc23/eng/20221129 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022056273 Copyright ©2023 Regents of the University of California All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America