Spying by American Archaeologists in World War I

Abstract

<p>I am interested in detailing two aspects linked to the issue of several archaeologists working for the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) during the First World War. These spying activities were part of the controversy surrounding the censure of Franz Boas by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) for his published letter of October 1919, in which Boas claimed that four unnamed researchers were involved in espionage activities using archaeological research as a front. As they were unnamed, who were these four archaeologists?</p

Tracing the structural consequences of colonialism in rural Yucatán, Mexico

“…At this early time (the 1820s and 1830s), which coincided with Mexico's independence from Spain, European and North American antiquarians wrote travelogues and built archaeological collections that were enthusiastically received by popular audiences in their home countries (Evans, 2004, 10–11). Research and exploration took place alongside espionage, especially during World War I (Browman, 2011). Archaeologist Sylvanus Morley conducted research in Yucatán and Central America while engaging in extensive intelligence gathering throughout the region.…”

“…Archaeologist Sylvanus Morley conducted research in Yucatán and Central America while engaging in extensive intelligence gathering throughout the region. Morley may have recruited more than two dozen colleagues to join him as part of an espionage network (Browman, 2011, 11). An influential archaeologist, Morley furthered the problematic notion that “the ancient Maya … [were] the most brilliant aboriginal people on this planet” (Morley, 1946, 455, Table XI).…”

“…In the realm of study called Maya archaeology, there has been limited acknowledgment of or reckoning with the processes of colonialism and their contributions to disciplinary roots and research methods (for notable exceptions, see the work of Indigenous scholars, including A. Cojtí Ren, 2006; I. Cojtí Ren, 2010; Cuxil, 2010; see also Clark and Anderson, 2015; Henderson and Hudson, 2015; Joyce, 2008; Pezzarossi, 2020). More frequently, researchers working in adjacent regions and subfields have drawn attention to problematic disciplinary histories and their continuing influence on archaeological and heritage discourses and practice (e.g., Armstrong‐Fumero, 2018; Breglia, 2006; Browman, 2011; Castañeda, 1996; Castillo Cocom, 2004; Euraque, 1998; Evans, 2004; Montejo, 2005; Palacios, 2012; Wainwright, 2008). Accounts of the past generated by archaeologists include discourses that assume incommensurability or static continuity between ancient and contemporary Indigenous peoples of the region (McAnany and Gallareta Negrón, 2010; Pezzarossi, 2020; Pyburn, 2006; Zimmermann et al., 2020, 664).…”