2014. With Mary Weismantel. In Journal of Material Culture, 19/3:233-251.
In this article, we argue for a multi-dimensional research strategy incorporating material, social
and phenomenological analysis in the study of figurines and other human effigies. We call this
approach ‘following the material’. To illustrate, we examine two case studies: figurines from the
Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük (Turkey) and human effigies from the Formative region of Moche
(Peru). We look first at the material substances from which artifacts are made and the material
contexts in which they were produced, circulated and deposited, before turning to analysis of
the representation of the body. This enables us to see these objects as themselves bodies –
not merely imperfect replicas of actual humans, but material objects made of substances that
afford particular kinds of interactions between fleshly and artifactual bodies. This focus on the
materiality of artifacts reveals tight connections between objects in human form, material culture,
environment, landscape, and political economy.

2014. In Anthropological Quarterly, 87/1: 267-292.
The title, States of Conservation, deliberately references the two “states”
that now occupy critical yet oppositional nodes within UNESCO’s
1972 Convention and its conservation agenda. It recalls the State of
Conservation (SOC) reports commissioned by the World Heritage Center
in conjunction with its Advisory Bodies that relay the condition of World
Heritage properties to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. But more
critically, “states” here also refers to the most powerful, emergent players
in World Heritage Site inscription and protection processes—the States
Parties of the 1972 Convention. Many researchers have debated the merits
and consequences of World Heritage. While this work remains critical,
my own contribution specifically traces the international political pacting,
national economic interests, and voting blocs through which particular
states increasingly set the World Heritage agenda and recast UNESCO as
an agency for global branding rather than global conservation. I contend
that as the rush for World Heritage inscription increases and economic and
geo-political pacting between nations intensifies, the resources, concerns,
and commitments for conservation of sites already inscribed potentially
declines. The politics of inscription has now spilled over into the politics
of conservation and endangerment. But whereas the former seeks international
status and socio-economic benefits through global branding, the latter may jeopardize protection of those same sites through the unhindered
interventions of conflict, mining, exploitation, and other infrastructural
developments. Whether describing World Heritage, the environment,
or manufacturing, denationalized economic life goes hand in hand with
renationalized political life. I draw World Heritage case studies from around
the world, with a particular focus on the Historic District of Panama—one
example of what happens with the cutting of conservation, and concomitantly
communities, from the Convention.

2013. In Current Anthropology, 54/4: 483-494.
The year 2012 marked the fortieth anniversary of UNESCO’s 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It remains the major international instrument for safeguarding the world’s
heritage. The Convention’s most significant feature is its integration of the concepts of nature conservation and
preservation of cultural properties in a single treaty. Recognizing the increasing threats to natural and cultural sites,
coupled with traditional conservation challenges, it was established as a new provision for the collective protection
of heritage with outstanding universal value. This paper identifies three critical challenges that the World Heritage
Convention faces today. Each of these has implications for how the international community chooses to identify,
reify, protect, and promote something called “World Heritage” as a privileged category. These are the mounting
challenges to expert opinions and decision making, the increasing and overt politicization of the World Heritage
Committee, and UNESCO’s fiscal crisis exacerbated by the recent US financial withdrawal.

2013. In the International Journal of Cultural Property, 20/2: 1-19.
In December 2000, aWorld Indigenous Peoples Forum was held in
conjunction with the 24th session of UNESCO’sWorld Heritage Committee in
Cairns, Australia. Representatives from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand harnessed
the momentum of these events and their location to propose the formation
of a new committee, theWorld Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of
Experts (WHIPCOE). The initiative was taken in response to concerns voiced by
indigenous peoples to their lack of involvement in the development and implementation
of laws, policies, and plans for the protection of their knowledge,
traditions, and cultural values, which apply to their ancestral lands, within or
comprising sites now designated asWorld Heritage properties. This article traces
the fate of that proposal and underlines the intransigence of sovereign states
during those short-lived discussions. It goes on to suggest alternate routes for
indigenous representation and recognition within theWorld Heritage system.

2012. In the Journal of Field Archaeology, 37/2: 145-151.
This paper describes new developments and deliberations at the 35th Session of the World Heritage
Committee in Paris in June 2011. One of the most striking aspects of this year’s meetings was the vocal
challenge to the expert status and authority of the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN) by the Committee
in making recommendations for site inscription. By the end of the meetings they had overturned 22 of the
Advisory Body recommendations previously presented in the Draft Decision. Many of those challenges
reflect a broader desire to inscribe properties within nations that have been historically underrepresented
on the World Heritage List. I also suggest, however, that long-standing political allegiances and new
socioeconomic alliances were key factors in voting trends, while heritage sites themselves and their
specific requirements received less substantive discussion. The ramifications of these developments for
States Parties and communities in terms of site conservation and management can only be assessed in
years to come.

2011. With I. Hodder. In Current Anthropology, Vol. 52, pp. 235-263
Comparison of two Turkish Neolithic sites with rich symbolism, C¸ atalho¨yu¨k and Go¨bekli, suggests
widespread and long-lasting themes in the early settled communities of the region. Three major
symbolic themes are identified. The first concerns an overall concern with the penis, human and
animal, that allows us to speak of a phallocentrism in contrast to the widely held assumption that
the early agriculturalists in the Middle East emphasized the female form, fertility, and fecundity. The
second theme concerns wild and dangerous animals, even in sites with domesticated plants and
animals, and particularly the hard and pointed parts of wild animals, such as talons, claws, horns,
and tusks. We interpret this evidence in relation to providing food for large-scale consumption and
the passing down of objects that memorialize such events within specific houses. The third theme
is that piercing and manipulating the flesh were associated with obtaining and passing down human
and animal skulls. The removal of human heads was also associated with symbolism involving raptors.
Overall, we see a set of themes, including maleness, wild and dangerous animals, headlessness, and
birds, all linked by history making and the manipulation of the body.

2010. In Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 839-860
This paper discusses the efficacy of applying a framework of universal human
rights to resolve heritage conflicts. It considers the pitfalls and potentials in
particular heritage settings for both archaeologists and the constituencies we
seek to represent. A distinction is made throughout the paper between invoking
universal human rights, as opposed to other rights or claims more broadly.
Specifically, I ask what does the mantle of universal human rights bring to
heritage? What additional work might it perform, and who wins and loses
when archaeologists elevate cultural heritage to this arena of urgency? If
archaeologists want to pursue this route, what steps might they take to be conversant
with human rights and, more importantly, effective in practically
implementing that knowledge? I then describe the situation in post-apartheid
South Africa—a nation that has arguably crafted the world’s most liberal constitution,
yet in reality faces numerous challenges to instrumentalizing human
rights. In terms of South African heritage rights, the archaeological site of Thulamela is offered as an example of conflict resolution at the local level by
briefly examining the role of archaeologists and several connected communities
each vying for access and ownership of the site. Following Amartya Sen
and Martha Nussbaum I suggest that heritage practitioners might be more
effective and ethically responsible by being attendant to pragmatic approaches
that enhance human capabilities and human flourishing.

2009. With C. Nackamura. In Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 16: 206-230.
This paper examines the materializing practices of bodies at the Neolithic
site of Çatalhöyük. We focus on the clay and stone figurine corpus (over 1,800 total,
with over 1,000 of those being diagnostic), but also consider other media such as
wall paintings and sculptured features, as well as the skeletal evidence. This paper is
the first attempt to analyze particular bodily characteristics in the Çatalhöyük
figurine repertoire from a perspective that investigates, rather than assumes, a priori
the representational priorities of their makers. Within a wide range of anthropomorphic
and abbreviated figurines, we find that specific areas such as the stomach and
buttocks were often clearly delineated and emphasized, whereas demarcation of
primary sexual characteristics was typically downplayed. These traits and their
material “prominence” might underscore specific bodily areas that have generally
been overlooked as potential sites of articulation and attention. Our work challenges
older assumptions that figurines were always engaged in projects of either
deification or self-making. Instead, we suggest that these body types might mediate
other kinds of social concerns and practices.

2009. L.S Masuku Van Damme. In Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 1, 69-69.
This paper was largely written by the General Manager for People and Conservation
in South African National Parks (SANParks), with a contribution by an anthropologist studying
the post-apartheid transition of Kruger National Park. Our purpose is to engage in an ongoing
discussion aimed at equitable best practice and community empowerment in social research
and protected areas by bringing together context informed, insider (Masuku Van Damme) and
outsider (Meskell) perspectives. It is not intended to offer a conclusive account of people and
park dynamics in SANParks. The paper begins with an overview of the establishment of protected
areas in South Africa. It then traces conservation philosophies and management principles
from 1900 to the present. We then examine the move towards community involvement with
conservation areas, outlining the impacts of the World Conservation Strategy and the Brundtland
Report. This leads into a discussion of the development of Social Ecology within SANParks,
evaluating the successes and failures of consultative efforts with indigenous communities. Lastly,
we describe recent moves to include cultural heritage and indigenous knowledge into the
programmatics of park management.

2008. With C. Nakamura, R. King, and S. Farid. In Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol 18, Issue 2, pp. 132-161
The corpus of figurines from Çatalhöyük has attracted the attention of diverse audiences
but there has been an overwhelming focus on a selection of female figurines, many of which
lack exact provenience. Excavation from 1961 to 1965 yielded more mundane examples
classifiable as anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and abbreviated forms. New work attempts to
balance the picture through various methods and strategies. The research presented here
collates the artefacts from these early seasons with those retrieved from 1993 to 2006 to
gain a fuller understanding of figurine practice. The figurines almost exclusively represent
secondary deposition. We can now assess the number and type of figurines deposited in
buildings, middens, burials and elsewhere. Reassessment of the entire corpus has prompted
interrogation of the category of ‘figurine’ and reconsideration of the taxonomies along
with other artefacts and image production at Çatalhöyük. Depositional practices at the site
suggest processes of mobility and circulation that have rarely been considered in studies
of figurines. Typical ‘representational’ or aesthetic approaches imply that the figurines
were a special category with particular values of religiosity and gender; but attention to
the archaeological context can imply meaning from the material practices within which
‘figurines’ were enmeshed.

2008. In World Archaeology, Vol. 40(3): 373–389
Taking ‘tradition’ as the process of ‘handing down’, which encompasses the ideas of duration,
continuity, practice and ritual, this paper examines the Neolithic lifeworld at C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k with
particular attention to the figurine corpus and plastered installations. Specifically, I focus on two
material preoccupations that have intense signification across various media, are repeated in
different scales and occur over many generations at C¸ atalho¨ yu¨ k. The first is termed headedness or a
particular tension surrounding heads, head removal and circulation, and the post-cranial body, that
applies both to humans and animals. The second is the desire for embedding and re-fleshing the
remains of animals and ancestors. I argue that both themes are connected to desires about
permanence, restoration and ultimately improving upon the fragilities of fleshed matter through a
focused curation of the skeletal elements. Both of these material concerns had salience across
domains from living bodies to aesthetic renderings, traversed both animal and human worlds,
connected generations together, occurred at different scales and had resonance beyond the site to
wider Neolithic traditions.