What We Learned from Coding Oral History

For one of our final classes, we circled back to an oral history interview we had conducted the previous week. This time, we brought a different kind of attention. Instead of listening for understanding, we were there to code, to analyze, and to see what kinds of insights might emerge from the transcript. We looked for patterns in themes and exemplars that reflected the broader questions we’ve been sitting with all semester: What does community-centered archaeology look like? How can ethnographic methods contribute to archaeological knowledge? How do we carry responsibility in this work?

Transcription and Coding

After the oral history interview, the process began with transcription. We listened to the full interview, then worked through the transcript, noting patterns and ideas that challenged or shifted our thinking about archaeology. Several themes emerged, including Identity, Colonial Legacy, and Site-Specific Knowledge.

Colonial Legacy

One moment that stood out during our coding session was when the speaker recalled a conversation with another archaeologist who dismissed the idea of excavating a large, complex structure because it was “too big to dig.” That comment sparked class discussion about how scale, effort, and value are measured differently depending on where and for whom the archaeology is being done. We talked about how sites in places like Egypt are treated one way, while equally significant Indigenous sites in California are often undervalued or written off.

This moment helped us see how colonial assumptions still shape what archaeologists decide is worth investigating or preserving. It also showed how these frameworks can limit imagination and reinforce inequality in whose histories are taken seriously.

Seeing Meaning in Place

Another theme that emerged was site-specific knowledge. This was about how archaeology and ecology overlap, and how certain places hold evidence not just in the ground but in what still grows there. The speaker described plants used for food and fuel that continue to grow in the same area today. Careful observation, they suggested, can lead to insight without disturbing the land.

This way of thinking offered a clear alternative to extractive approaches. It reminded us that knowledge does not always require excavation, and that meaning can live in what is still visible, growing, or remembered. That perspective challenged us to reconsider what a “site” even is, and what kinds of evidence we are trained to value.

Activism

The final thread surfaced in our analysis was activism, not as a separate topic, but as something deeply embedded in the speaker’s life and work. Through stories of working with the American Indian Movement (AIM) and pushing back against destructive development, the speaker revealed how archaeological practice can be a tool for resistance. Activism showed up in efforts to protect burial grounds, to use findings to halt construction, and to challenge the dismissive attitudes of archaeologists toward Indigenous sites. These moments reminded us that research is never neutral. Archaeology can either reinforce colonial violence or work against it. The speaker’s conviction that “all sites are sacred” and that “the whole earth is sacred” reframed our understanding of what it means to do ethical work in the field. Activism, in this light, is not an add-on—it’s a responsibility.

What We Learned from the Process

Coding this oral history as a class helped us think more critically about the practice of listening and analyzing. It also reminded us that analysis can be relational. It asks us to pay attention to both content and context. Many of the themes we identified did not emerge from direct questions. They came from stories, tangents, and reflections that might initially seem off-topic, but actually revealed deeper truths.

We left that session with a list of themes and a clearer sense of how to approach oral history with care, and how to build interpretation from the ground up. These stories are certainly helping us rethink archaeology in ways that not only break from how we have known the past, but also show how methods like ethnography can shape a different kind of future.