Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage

ISSN: 2051-8196 (Print) 2051-820X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ycah20

Assemblages, routines, and social justice research

in community archaeology

Christopher N. Matthews

To cite this article: Christopher N. Matthews (2019): Assemblages, routines, and social justice
research in community archaeology, Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, DOI:
10.1080/20518196.2019.1600234

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2019.1600234

Published online: 02 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ycah20
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY & HERITAGE
https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2019.1600234

Assemblages, routines, and social justice research in community

archaeology
Christopher N. Matthews
Department of Anthropology, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Archaeologists often perceive community archaeology as an inclusive Assemblage theory;
space where the presence of multiple voices drawn into this space community archaeology;
through a shared interest in recovering and understanding the past Native Americans;
broadens the discourse of archaeology and related heritage. While this archaeology; Setauket;
New York
work provides access for diverse stakeholders, certain routines seem
embedded that limit the potential for community archaeology to
produce something new. I suggest that rethinking the point of
engagement, by shifting it from stakeholders to the discursive
assemblages that cohere as stakeholders come together, allows for a
deeper ethnographic reading of the engaging communities and the
possibility that they will learn about others as well as themselves. The
approach I describe draws from Gilles Deleuze’s concept of
transcendental empiricism, such that what we do in becoming engaged,
even in the most routine way, requires consistently analysing how those
we engage with come into view and why they become open to
collaboration.

It is essential to check any sort of excitement instantly, and to insist firmly on quiet routine – Sir Mortimer Wheeler
(1954, 125)

This article is about routines of engagement in community archaeology. It examines and responds to
two questions: What is it we actually engage in community archaeology? And, can engagement lead
to something new, especially something that we need but we cannot quite reach with our current
approaches, and thus requires us to breach our routine practices? I prepared drafts of this paper
for two presentations in the spring of 2018. The first was Brown University’s State of the Field con-
ference on ‘Archaeology and Social Justice.’ 1 The second was in a session at the 2018 SAA
(Society for American Archaeology) annual meeting on ‘Beyond Engagement; Archaeologists at
the Intersections of Power’ that Meredith Reifschneider and Annalisa Bolin organized. These were
challenging and unique opportunities to think through issues that have surfaced in my experience
of doing community archaeology and in discussing these experiences with colleagues. I reflect on
these experiences here in a case study from my work in New York as well as an exploration of the
concepts of ‘transcendental empiricism’ and ‘assemblage’ as developed by Gilles Deleuze (1994;
see also Bryant 2008; Rölli 2016). My goal is to foster more critical thinking among archaeologists
and heritage professionals about who and what we engage in community-based work, especially
when our engagements are with diverse communities.
I began this project when I observed a disconnect between the goals I set for myself in working
with communities and the methods and means I had at my disposal to reach those goals. My

CONTACT Christopher N. Matthews [email protected] Department of Anthropology, Montclair State University, 1

Normal Avenue, Montclair, NJ 07042, USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. N. MATTHEWS

collaborators are of course diverse and include fellow researchers, preservationists, representatives of
government agencies and the media, and members of local and descendant communities connected
to the research. For me, and I think for many who do community archaeology, an important goal is to
build a common understanding about the shared project so that all stakeholders can contribute in
productive and effective ways. In most cases, arguably, successful projects result from successful
communication in which all parties have access to each other and to the way the project is designed
and how it actually works. Community archaeologists know what is involved in this work, and how it
often requires a lot of discussion, meetings, juggling, and negotiation. We tend to think these efforts
are worthwhile, since people who tend not have much exposure to one another in their daily lives
end up sitting at the same table and sharing their interests in a common goal related to archaeology,
heritage, education, among other things. These are great experiences for everyone to learn more
about each other, but what I tend to see is that these situations seldom lead people to learn more
about themselves and how they are related to others at the table. This is the issue that keeps
popping up for me as a shortcoming in my work. In a nutshell, a goal that I think is inherent to com-
munity archaeology – the expansion and transformation a community’s knowledge of itself – remains
elusive, as stakeholders spend more effort reinforcing their positions than considering who and what
they are and how they relate to others at the table. Something seems to come up in these settings
which seems to solidify who people are (and who they represent) in ways that highlight difference
rather than commonality. In this paper, I explore this problem by looking at the way communities
have mis-connected with each other in a recent project I that have been working on in New York
and how, by redirecting our focus from abstracting identities to empirical assemblages, we might
achieve better outcomes.
The focus I selected in this case study is the Native American part of the moniker for some of my
current collaborators, who are at times referred to as the mixed-heritage Native and African American
community of Setauket on Long Island, New York (Figure 1). What does Native American mean here?
The fact is, it means a lot, though I refer to its breadth rather than its depth. First, I cannot tell you how
much confusion or misperception the term ‘Native American’ causes among the mostly white outsi-
ders who have engaged the project, such as preservationists, amateur historians, reporters, regional
scholars, and, especially, Setauket residents and neighbours. ‘Native American’ to these folks is a clear
statement of heritage, cultural otherness, as well as a political status and claim. It represents a distinct
and objective cultural reality that they comprehend and associate with an established sociocultural
being embodied by thousands of people in the USA and elsewhere. Most commonly, it is the Indian

Figure 1. Robert Lewis, Helen Sells, and Rev. Gregory Leonard. Social and spiritual leaders from Setauket, New York’s mixed-
heritage Native American and African American community. Photo by the author.
 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY & HERITAGE 3

they learned about in school, and thus they think they ‘get it’ without thinking. Yet, Native Americans
in Setauket (indeed anywhere) are quite worth thinking about given the way they, as actual human
beings, challenge mainstream ideas about Indian identity and status in the contemporary world (e.g.
V. Deloria 1969, 1997; P. Deloria 1998, 2004; Garroutte 2003; Matthews 2007; Watkins 2001).
Despite this, I have had innumerable conversations with people from the professional and local
white communities about the identity of the Native and African Americans that we are researching.
Many are intrigued by their mixed heritage: So, these are people descended from both Native Amer-
ican and African ancestors, right? This fact is unexpected and unusual, but they generally come to
understand. Most know that African-descended people made up part of America’s historic popu-
lation. They acknowledge that Africans were imported as slaves to serve the masters who are credited
with carving out and building America from the wilderness. Some of the enslaved survived this horror
to fight for their freedom and a few even rose to be symbols of the promise of America for those who
strive for it. Yet, it still takes a moment for these folks to put these groups together. It does not seem
too hard for them, since they understand how sexual reproduction works, and with a little prompting
they get that these two ‘groups’ perhaps had more in common with each other than either did with
whites.
Still, the failure by most whites to comprehend is resilient. As one reporter from a regionally impor-
tant newspaper concluded, Setauket is ‘Where Blacks and Native Americans share a community’
(Hanc 2012). This headline, which captures a broad and inaccurate sense of the situation, suggests
that the majority of whites who engage with the project expect the racial and cultural separation
of Natives and Africans to persist even in the face (at times literally) of their ‘mixing’. Mixture just
does not seem to sit with them. My suspicion is that they would be lost without knowing what to
call people in the nonwhite community (even though they all have names, residences, nationalities,
religions, languages, that could be used instead). Furthermore, I sense that they need to reproduce
these racial terms since they are confronted in their engagement with this project with people of
colour, some of whom are their neighbours, who they have spent their lives not thinking about or
trying to understand. In other words, even when confronted with their own racism and neighbourly
neglect, they turn back to race to make sense of what is to them a chaotic mixed-up situation. What I
have come to realize is that this is not just evidence of white racism, but also of a liberal framework
based on the same abstractions that most whites employ when they engage in public discourse
about race. In other words, their persistent racism tells about who they think they are and that
they think this is how all of us should be (e.g. DiAngelo 2018; Feagin 2013; Yancy 2016).
I began to understand this position when I saw how the diversity of ‘Native Americans’ in Setauket
captures what Gilles Deleuze describes in the concept of transcendental empiricism. Deleuzian ‘trans-
cendental empiricism’ holds that the empirical is not composed of discrete [a priori] givens, but of
concrete particulars (individuals, groups) defined by the history of their contingent and actual [a pos-
teriori] relations with other beings (see Baugh 2010). In this instance, these Native Americans and
African Americans, though misconstrued by these whites, are empirical both in the sense that they
are all real people in the community but equally because they inspire the actualization of seemingly
useful abstract categories that (some) people use to know the world. For most whites who have
engaged this project, this method is sufficient and productive since they employ a non-Deleuzean
liberal approach that promotes the utility of abstractions in making sense of their concrete experi-
ence. Liberal philosophy works for whites since they share this standpoint with so many of their
peers, and also because they subscribe to the independence and equivalence of the concrete and
the abstract in knowing the world.
In contrast, Deleuze promotes Alfred North Whitehead’s (1978) dictum that ‘the abstract does not
explain, but needs to be explained’ (also see Baugh 2010). Why do the white people call on – and
count on – their school-age definitions of Native Americans and Africans to engage with the
project I present? What does their misapplication of these abstractions tell us? I have already pro-
posed some answers, but a key point and an answer to one of my questions is becoming further
exposed: that what is really being engaged in this project and with these people is their racism,
4 C. N. MATTHEWS

especially the racism latent in the way the majority of white people in the engaging community know
the world. The problem is that very few whites in Setauket and the region’s preservation community
would recognize this racism, let alone see how it was embedded in the roles they play in this
situation.
Yet, as I said, my discussion here is more about the breadth than the depth of the term ‘Native
American’ in the project. Among members of Setauket’s Native and African American community
(specifically those I collaborate with rather than just engage), I have encountered two additional con-
ceptions of ‘Native American’ that I think we need to think more about. The first is the sense of being
Indian among the members of the Setalcott Nation, a collective run as a nonprofit association serving
the local indigenous community. The Setalcott name is found in early colonial records but the formal
organization of the tribe was not sustained. Rather, tribal identity was unofficial and maintained by
people of colour through the generations without recognition. Then, under the leadership of Ted
Green, a highly respected leading voice in the community in the late twentieth century, the tribe
was revived. Green was born in the region, was a part of a well-known family, and was instrumental
in organizing Setauket’s nonwhite community around its history, genealogy, and indigenous heri-
tage. A semi-annual Setalcott-led corn festival and powwow is the central focus of the tribe’s activi-
ties, a public event that connects them with other indigenous groups on Long Island and elsewhere
in the region. After Green died in 2005, leadership of the Setalcott passed to Helen Sells. Sells con-
tinues to promote the community’s indigenous heritage, and she has been a direct collaborator
with my archaeological project. She has also been open about the question of the Native American
heritage of her community and its role in the project. For her, being Native American is secondary to
being part of the community itself. As she put it, we are ‘researching her families’ not their identities.
This distinction is important because it recognizes that not everyone in the Native and African
American community embraces their indigenous heritage in the same way, or even consistently to
themselves. For most elders, being Indian was not part of their life until Ted Green brought it to
their attention in the 1990s. Previously, they identified (and were identified by others – e.g. some
knew their neighbourhood as ‘Nigger Hollow’) as black or African American. However, some of the
stated and observed benefits of being Native American, such as access to college scholarships and
the chance to earn an income by doing presentations on Indian culture in the local schools, encour-
aged some to embrace the identity that Green awakened. This led some to downplay their non-
Indian African heritage. It is this attitude that Helen Sells was speaking against. Plus, as I noted
earlier, not everyone embraced the indigenous heritage of the community.
One voice from this latter group is Robert Lewis, who is my principle host, and through his organ-
ization, the Higher Ground Intercultural and Heritage Association, has done most of the footwork and
activism related to the historic preservation of his home community. Lewis does not deny local Native
American heritage, he in fact has been quite plain in stating that African Americans in the USA carry
the genes of Indian, African, and European ancestors. Rather, his focus has been on preserving the
neighbourhood as a place where the community of colour in Setauket can continue to live, which
to him is a requirement in order that they exist. Placing attention on their Native American identity
shifts the discourse away from other pressing issues like their relative poverty and a gnawing gentrifi-
cation, which he rightly fears is denying a future for people of colour in Setauket no matter their pre-
ferred cultural heritage. Moreover, he suggests that it moves people away from the powerful and
successful African American civil rights actions that brought a renewed social consciousness to com-
munities like theirs and that truly affected change in their lives. Lewis agrees that there is value in
knowing more about history and heritage, but what he wants is an archaeology that provides new
material that confirms the importance of fighting to save the community.
So, alongside the stereotypical Native Americans that whites who engage the project deploy,
there is a separate and conflicted discourse about the meaning of being Native American within
Setauket’s nonwhite community that also needs to be understood and engaged. This is the
breadth of its meaning to which that I referred, and this breadth is a good example of the other
Deleuzean concept I want to explore. This is the idea of assemblage, which Baugh (2010) describes
 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY & HERITAGE 5

as ‘a conjunction of a number of persons, forces and circumstances, capable of its own collective
experiences and actions.’ Seeing Native Americans in Setauket as a Deleuzian assemblage helps us
to understand the transcendent empirical reality of the concept of ‘Native Americans’ by way of
its agency within the project and as it becomes the subject we actually engage. Put differently, the
breadth of meanings in the project attached to the concept of ‘Native Americans’ is an assemblage
that acts on the project and defines what it can do. The fact that not all of those involved recognize
this diversity of meanings – exemplifying the struggle for recognition, understanding, and survival
that racism causes – puts a finer point on how the assembled concept of Native Americans acts to
perpetuate injustice even as people work to fight against it.
Regarding assemblages as agents means that:
… practices are judged entirely with respect to whether their effects increase or decrease someone’s or some-
thing’s power of acting. Principles emerge as a reflection on how much certain practices increase or decrease
agency, as an a posteriori generalization [i.e. did that work?], rather than an a priori necessary condition.
(Baugh 2010)

Engagement in archaeology is thus not with specific people or generalized groups, but with the
agentive assemblages that create meaning as they define what a project and its engaged people
are actually doing in the world together. In this case, inasmuch as a diverse ‘Native American’ assem-
blage is one important medium through which people find the power to act within and through this
project, it is also a way that the project can change how people know the world empirically. This, I
believe, is what we want when working with diverse communities with the end goal being social
justice.
Deleuzian transcendental empiricism is useful here because its brings an awareness, and through
us, an awareness among those we engage, of the empirical reality of what something like one
person’s sense of being Native American means in the world. As Stagoll (2010) writes: ‘for Deleuze
… philosophy must begin with the immediate given – real conscious awareness – without presup-
posing any categories, concepts or axioms.’ An engaged archaeology thus has to resist abstractions
(such as saying ‘this project is a study of Native Americans’) so it can instead understand ethnogra-
phically what is involved and elicited in a project that gives rise to consciousness of it by those who
engage. So, we need to ask not only what people mean when they refer to some as Native Americans,
but also why people, including heritage professionals, have an interest in learning about Native
Americans. Stagoll (2010) continues, ‘only then should [a project] begin to develop concepts that
might refer to objects and their relations, perceptions and their causes … evident in consciousness.’
This a posteriori observation and evaluation of events is the transcendent moment when a project can
develop into a means for promoting social justice, since, ultimately, it is the process of problematizing
uncritical [and usually violent] abstractions that brings about social change.
So, how do we practice trandscendental empiricism in engaged archaeologies? I think we need
first to see that what we do is a problem and that archaeology is a problem. In my experience, archae-
ology is positioned, intentionally and not, outside of the social and political discourses we need to
engage in order to be relevant. Archaeology, so it appears, is not itself racist or sexist or activist.
Rather, it is treated as a neutral observer and recorder of such acts, or, for example, that the
racism or activism attributed to archaeology is not of the discipline but of those who practice it.
Deleuze would see this as positioning archaeology as an a priori abstraction and point out that differ-
entiating archaeology from archaeologists is a dangerous way to conceive of our agency. For
Deleuze, archaeology is what archaeologists do, nothing more and nothing less. Knowing this,
what needs to happen?
I suggest that we need to consider our archaeological routines. What do we do that establishes
archaeology and ‘the archaeological’ in the settings where we work? How and why do we engage
as archaeologists with those who are not? How do we understand what is actually going on in our
work so that we engage with concrete, transcendent empirical forces rather than abstractions? If
we are not doing this, how can we change our routines so that our engagements are grounded
6 C. N. MATTHEWS

and useful? My proposal is straightforward: start now, in the present, as an archaeologist working and
enmeshed in the complex empirical world Deleuze helps us to see. Situating ourselves knowledge-
ably as archaeologists, as such in the present and in our own work, allows us to dovetail what we do
for work with our hopes for critiquing the world. Doing this, we are able to see how the abstractions
we engage (such as Native Americans) often perpetuate faulty reasoning about the people and cul-
tures that populate our empirical space. This is the faulty reasoning that often supports forms of
exclusion, dehumanization, and violence.
Thus, the failure of the majority white outsider community in Setauket to know about their neigh-
bours as Native Americans is fueled by not only their misapprehension of what being Native Amer-
ican entails in 2019 in Setauket, but also by what they believe they know about what archaeology in
their community is doing. Like the school-age Indian, archaeologists are also abstracted, to the
school-age Indiana Jones, if you will. Yet, this disconnect is also an opportunity, since, when we
are aware of it, we can, in the moment, correct it. Simultaneously, by showing that archaeologists
and Native Americans are right in front of them – as their neighbours and the people they are
talking to – and that neither is any more or less than what they see, we cut off access to their
well-trod path towards abstraction and open the project to engagement in new and profoundly
empirical ways. What is new, the second question I opened with, is the possibility of understanding
across difficult divides that results from the actual recognition of the coeval presence of the concrete
humanity of archaeologists and neighbours, despite the too common tendency of the majority to
prefer living in a world of abstractions.
What about the conflict within the descendant community about being Native American? First,
Helen Sells has already in one way resolved this. Her primary interest in knowing about her family
removes the abstraction of their Native American heritage. It is a recognition that ‘being Indian’ is
a history better understood through kinship than identity, since the former is what we can actually
know about people when researching their past or excavating a site. The latter, their Indian identity,
can only ever be imposed as an abstraction, since the meaning of being Native American is always
contingent on the historical context and is thus quite variable. Second, if we take Robert Lewis’
concern for the future of the community to heart, we are also empowered by knowing more
about these ongoing internal debates over being Indian since these show us how people, especially
a minority mixed-heritage community, struggle for recognition. Lewis actually employs a very empiri-
cal understanding of his community that carries us back to an earlier thought in this paper. Indeed, he
demonstrates that what we are actually engaging in this project is racism. Yet, this is not only the
racism of neighbours who cannot see beyond skin colour and a deduced cultural difference, but
also the empirical material results of what racism does to its victims. At stake now is whether
there will be a community of people at all to support Lewis’s fight to save them. Facing climbing
costs of living, and seeing little interest among their neighbours to support their desire to stay,
people of colour in Setauket are moving out. This presents an empirical reality that changes the
very substance of this community, one that we might describe as a community becoming
archaeological.
To do something new, or perhaps to engage in a new way, means that using the findings of eth-
nographic archaeology to bring awareness of the impact of racist policy, practice, and neighbourly
neglect to the larger community and to establish that the current struggles and possible futures
of the minority community are issues that belong to everyone in the town. It is also potentially to
engage with the world in a new way as an archaeologist, by showing that the making of archaeolo-
gical sites and cultures is an ongoing and conflicted social process often tied to moving marginal
people out of the way. In this manner, the archaeology we do is based on observations of how empiri-
cal archaeological things get created in the present whether they refer to people in the past, present,
or future.
 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY & HERITAGE 7

Note
1. For more on the conference at Brown go here: http://blogs.brown.edu/archaeology/workshops/sotf2018/.

Acknowledgements
I extend my full gratitude to the very many people who have supported my work in Setauket as collaborators and friends,
especially Robert Lewis and Helen Sells. I want to thank Andrea Roberts, Suzie Thomas, and Carol McDavid for their extre-
mely helpful editorial advice. I also thank Yannis Hamilakis, Meredith Reifschneider, and Annalisa Bolin for the invitation
to present drafts of this article in their symposia. Any errors of reasoning or fact are my own responsibility.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Christopher N. Matthews is a historical archaeologist with research interests in the archaeology of capitalism, race and
racism, and cultural heritage in the United States. He has extensive experience working with community-based organ-
izations to enhance and interpret historical and material culture resources. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from Colum-
bia University. He is co-director of the ‘A Long Time Coming’ project in Setauket, NY. His publications include An
Archaeology of History and Tradition, The Archaeology of American Capitalism, Ethnographic Archaeologies, and The Archae-
ology of Race in the Northeast.

References
Baugh, Bruce. 2010. “Transcendental Empiricism+Politics.” In The Deleuze Dictionary, edited by Adrian Parr, Revised
Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. http://deleuze.enacademic.com/176/transcendental_empiricism_%
2B_politics, last accessed 1 February 2019.
Bryant, Levi R. 2008. Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1994. Difference and Repetition, Paul R. Patton, Trans. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deloria, Vine. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York: Scribner.
Deloria, Vine. 1997. Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
Deloria, Philip J. 1998. Playing Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Deloria, Philip J. 2004. Indians in Unexpected Places. Manhattan: University Press of Kansas.
DiAngelo, Robin. 2018. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Feagin, Joe R. 2013. The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing. New York: Routledge.
Garroutte, Eva. 2003. Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hanc, John. 2012. Where blacks, Native Americans share community. Newsday. January 27, 2012. https://www.newsday.
com/long-island/suffolk/where-blacks-native-americans-share-community-1.3484968, last accessed 1 February 2019.
Matthews, Christopher N. 2007. “History to Prehistory: An Archaeology of Being Indian in New Orleans.” Archaeologies:
The Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 3 (3): 271–295.
Rölli, Marc. 2016. Gilles Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism: From Tradition to Difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Stagoll, Cliff. 2010. “Transcendental Empiricism.” In The Deleuze Dictionary, edited by Adrian Parr, Revised Edition.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. http://deleuze.enacademic.com/175/transcendental_empiricism, last
accessed 1 February 2019.
Watkins, Joe. 2001. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Wheeler, Mortimer. 1954. Archaeology From the Earth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Whitehead, Alfred North. 1978. Process and Reality. Corrected Edition. New York: The Free Press.
Yancy, George. 2016. Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race in America. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.