What went wrong with WAC 3 and an attempt to understand why

23rd January 2014

Jack Golson

Introduction*

The tribulations of the 3rd World Archaeological Congress, held in New Delhi from Sunday 4 December to Sunday 11 December 1994, have become the subject of wide comment. Far members of the Congress (as a continuing organisation, WAC, not simply the New Delhi conference, WAC 3) there is a WAC 3 supplement to the latest issue of the WAC Newsletter (WAC News 1995). Beyond this, I know of reports in Archaeology Ireland (Anonymous 1995), which I have not seen, in Ethnographisch-Archiologische Zeitschriji (Bernbeck and Sommer 1994), which I have not yet worked my way through, in Anthropology Today, the Newsletter of the Royal Anthropological Institute, London (Merriman 1995), in Antiquity (Colley 1995a) and, locally, in the ACCA Newsletter (Colley 1995b). In addition, the Times Higher Education Supplement has run an article by a non-archaeological participant (Sawday 1995), while the editor of Antiquity, an archaeological non-participant, has taken the opportunity to make some ex-cathedra statements about the WAC enterprise in general (Chippindale 1995:7–8).

*Note that an abstract was not included with this paper, and so the introductory paragraph has been included here instead of the abstract.

Golson, J.
What went wrong with WAC 3 and an attempt to understand why
December 1995
41
with WAC 3 and an attempt to understand why. Australian Archaeology 41:
Backfill
You must be a member to download the attachment ( Login / Sign up )