Page 1322

predecessors) have consequences for the peoples whose pasts they investigate.

Outside Europe the “loss of innocence” has been even more dramatic since World War II. Indeed, since the 1960s, much of our modern thinking about matters related to the ownership and control of pasts has developed in North America, Australasia, and, more recently, in Africa. In these regions recognition by governments and by archaeologists of the rights and interests of indigenous peoples has completely transformed the archaeological landscape. The practice of archaeology in these places is now highly regulated by legislation (such as the U.S. legislation Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act), and former collection and excavation practices have been replaced by models of negotiation and consultation. It is also now far more widely accepted that archaeologists cannot consider the scientific importance of their inquiries to be of such significance as to make their interests automatically more valuable than those of any other group. In Australia, as in some other countries, it is explicitly acknowledged that indigenous people “own” their pasts—an acknowledgment that requires that work can only proceed on the basis of informed consent. Archaeologists now spend a good deal of time developing research projects that produce knowledge of interest and value to indigenous communities, not just to nonindigenous institutions such as museums, universities, or academic disciplines. But again, notwithstanding the great changes that have occurred in the practice of archaeology in these contexts, significant challenges remain.

Against this background of transformation in the social, cultural, and political contexts of archaeological knowledge, at least three matters remain unchanged. Foremost is continued looting of archaeological sites and the theft of cultural properties for sale on the illegal antiquities market. Efforts persist to restrict if not stamp out this trade, but its power to destroy the past remains undiminished. Second, the preservation or conservation of archaeological sites and landscapes requires that all members of society (not just archaeologists) acknowledge the many values of such properties—an acknowledgment that accepts that those values can be diverse and that they must be balanced against other rights and interests existing in society. Third, archaeologists in all countries still need to recognize that interpretation must never be completely free from empirical demonstration and that it is up to them to clearly distinguish between interpretation and demonstration in their writings. It is imperative that archaeologists be honest with their readers—honest about the limits of their interpretations and honest about their biases and presuppositions. Some archaeologists have (wrongly) supposed that if archaeological knowledge is a social and cultural product, then this must mean the end of science as a model for the production of knowledge. Indeed, the history of archaeology aptly demonstrates that no science is or ever has been practiced in a vacuum, but this does not mean (and never has meant) that all opinions about archaeology are equally valid.

Tim Murray

Willey, Gordon Randolph

(1913– )

Gordon Randolph Willey, the foremost Americanist among archaeologists, was born in Chariton, Iowa, and grew up in Long Beach, California. He took his undergraduate and masters degrees at the University of Arizona and pursued doctoral work at Columbia University, completing his dissertation in 1942. A year later, he joined the Bureau of American Ethnology at the smithsonian institution. In 1950, he accepted the Bowditch Professorship in Central