3/16/20

Archaeological
Theory

Part 2

Indigenous Archaeology:
Broadening the Scope of
Archaeological
Theory, Method, and Practice

Re-defining “Indigenous Archaeology”

Seems simple enough to do …..

1
 3/16/20

Indigenous Archaeology

Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory

and practice in which the discipline intersects with
Indigenous values, needs, and sensibilities.

Through collaborative and community-originated projects, and

through a critique of the discipline, it seeks:

• to make archaeology more representative of, responsible to,

and relevant for descendant communities;
• to redress real and perceived inequalities in the practice of
archaeology; and
• to inform and broaden the understanding and interpretation
of the archaeological record through the incorporation of
non-Western worldviews.
(Nicholas 2008, Encyclopedia of Archaeology)

Indigenous Archaeology:
(a) the active participation or consultation of
indigenous peoples in archaeology;
(b) a political statement concerned with issues of self-government,
sovereignty, and land rights;
(c) a postcolonial enterprise designed to decolonize the discipline;
(d) a manifestation of indigenous epistemologies;
(e) the basis for alternative models of cultural heritage management or
stewardship;
(f) the product of choices and actions made by individual
archaeologists;
(g) a means of empowerment and cultural revitalization; and
(h) an extension, evaluation, and application of current archaeological
theory. (Nicholas 2008, Encyclopedia of Archaeology)

2
 3/16/20

Indigenous Archaeology—Theoretical Foundations

• Indigenous epistemology—local explanations of worldview

(how things came to be);
• Interpretive archaeological theory—reflexivity, multivocality;
recognition of relative and situated nature of knowledge;
• Marxist theory—exposing power relations, inequalities,
motive and means for social change; theoretically informed
action;
• Critical archaeology—recognition of class-based nature of
science and history; exposing the means by which knowledge
is produced and its emancipatory potential; and
• Feminist theory—demarginalization, reconceptualization,
reexamination of categories, concepts, standpoints and
perspectives; considering other viewpoints, ways of knowing.
(Nicholas 2008, Encyclopedia of Archaeology)

Intersections with Feminist Archaeology

in Theory and Practice

Dwelling at the Action at the

Margins? Intersections?

3
 3/16/20

Key Developments in Feminism

Chronology Goals Events/Movements Key Individuals
First-Wave Early 1800s Voting rights U.S. Civil War Susan B. Anthony
–1950s Property rights World War I and II Mary Wollstonecraft
Access to careers Passage of 19th Margaret Sanger
Birth control Amendment (US)

Second-Wave 1960s Economic equity Vietnam War Germaine Greer

–late 1980s Feminist Movement Gloria Steinem
(radical feminism) Kate Millet
Gay Rights Movement
Co-education
National Organization of
Women (NOW)

Third-Wave 1990s— Economic equity (still) Critical theory Donna Haraway

Respect for differences
(vs. seeking equality)
Completing the goals
of the Second Wave
Post-colonialism bell hooks
Transnationalism Rebecca Walker
Critique of gender Trinh T. Minh-ha
definitions/redefining
Post-structuralism

Key Developments in Indigenous Archaeology (6th iteration)

Chronology Goals Events/Movements Key Individuals
Half-Wave late 1800s– Salvage ethnography Recovering from impact of Franz Boas and
(-Antecedents) 1960s Salvage archaeology colonialism, warfare, disease on Arthur C. Parker
Indigenous peoples worldwide

First-Wave 1960s– Self-determination American Indian Movement Bea Medicine

1980s Religious freedom American Indian Religious Hortense
Restoration of rights Freedom Act (1978) Powdermaker
Land claims Zuni Archaeology Program (1977) Vine Deloria, Jr.
National Historic Preservation TJ Ferguson
Act (1966); Rise of CRM Roger Anyon
and many others

Second-Wave 1980s– Representation Slack Farm, Kentucky (1987) Larry Zimmerman

early 1990s Land claims Vermillion Accord on Colin Pardoe
Sovereignty Human Remains (1989) and many others
Reburial NAGPRA (1990)
Repatriation Mungo Lady reburial (1992)
Kennewick Man (1996)
Kwaday Dan Ts’inchi (1999)
Second-and-a- 1990s Working Together First use of “Indigenous Numerous
Half-Wave – to date Capacity Building Archaeology” (1997)
Chacmool I.A. conf. (1999)

Third-Wave Late 1990s Decolonization Critical theory Various

– to date Equity—Sovereignty Post-colonialism

4
 3/16/20

Conkey — “Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the

Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies”

By taking a look at not just two different “archaeologies” but in their

histories, possible common grounds, and mutually inflected
positionalities and practices, we might not only learn something we
might not have previously considered, but perhaps intervene into the
implicit and yet still-pervasive structures of power in the production of
archaeological knowledge. Certainly both of these archaeologies would
be considered more marginal than not. But while we might think at and
from the margins, we can truly act at the intersections.

Conkey — “Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the

Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies”

Common Ground?
1) Experience
• material doesn’t “speak for itself ”
• who determines it?
2) Oral traditions and storytelling
• role of language, terminology, and writing
• benefits of considering oral accounts
3) Gender roles
• differently understood; ways unfamiliar to Western patriarchy
• legacy of women in tribal traditions
4) Space
• need to re-conceptualize understanding of space

5
 3/16/20

Conkey — “Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the

Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies”

Value of Collaboration / Integration

• Build common grounds
• Help to reveal a broader view of things
• Encourage relational clarifications
• Better understand how to historicize experience
• Re-conceptualize the research process

Conkey — “Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the

Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies”

I will try to characterize what I think constitutes “indigenous

archaeologies” and “feminist archaeologies,” at least at this point in
their histories. I will try to speak to some of the intersections (and
tensions) already at play between indigenous women’s studies,
indigenous peoples and feminisms.
I want to consider what an intersection today might look like between
these different archaeological approaches, and what might be gained
from the dialogue and mutual re-reflection. What might a conjuncture
look like? Can there be an intersection without necessarily privileging
one approach over the other, sacrificing the goals of one to those of the
other? Are there methods or ways of doing archaeology that can
simultaneously approach feminist goals and provide decolonizing
methodologies and archaeologies?

6
 3/16/20

McNiven — “Theoretical Challenges of Indigenous

Archaeology: Setting an Agenda”

Key Points?

•
•
•
•

Lyons and S. Blair — “Looking Both Ways at Community-

Oriented Archaeologies in Canada.”
Key Points?

•
•
•
•

7
 3/16/20

• Rethinking the process of archaeology

• Challenges to a postcolonial archaeology

• Redressing the power imbalance

Archaeologists as “Dealers”
in the Cultural Capital of Others

8
 3/16/20

The Legacy of Scientific Colonialism

• Controlling flows of information;

• Extracting cultural capital as raw data;
• Excluding people at the source;
• Claiming right of access to data;
• Processing data elsewhere into social and economic capital;
• Claiming property rights over knowledge produced from
data;
• Maintaining distance between source community and data;
• Benefits rarely go back to the source.
Hollowell and Nicholas
“Archaeological Capital as Cultural Knowledge” 2007

Scientific Colonialism and Archaeologists…

9
 3/16/20

Who are the Gatekeepers of Knowledge?

Who legitimates archaeologists as gatekeepers of the past?

• Archaeologists themselves;

• Professional organizations and codes of ethics;

• The public;

• Universities as repositories for knowledge;

• “Authorizing institutions of heritage”;

• The state;

• The courts;

• and others.

Who Controls Archaeological Preservation?

Society for American Archaeology Code of Ethics

Principle No. 1: Stewardship
The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological
material and sites, archaeological collections, records and
reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all
archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and
protection of the archaeological record by practicing and
promoting stewardship of the archaeological record.
Stewards are both caretakers of and advocates for the
archaeological record for the benefit of all people; as they
investigate and interpret the record, they should use the
specialized knowledge they gain to promote public
understanding and support for its long-term preservation.

10
 3/16/20

Who Controls Archaeological Preservation?

Society for American Archaeology Code of Ethics

Principle No. 1: Stewardship
The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological
material and sites, archaeological collections, records and
reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all
archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and
protection of the archaeological record by practicing and
promoting stewardship of the archaeological record.
Stewards are both caretakers of and advocates for the
archaeological record for the benefit of all people; as they
investigate and interpret the record, they should use the
specialized knowledge they gain to promote public
understanding and support for its long-term preservation.

Problematic Aspects of Stewardship

1. Lack of Neutrality
- Operates from a privileged, largely Western-centric position
2. Limited Accommodation
- Only limited credence to Aboriginal oral histories and
indigenous knowledge.
3. Concerns over Relinquishing Control
- Archaeology viewed as the preferred means to evaluate the past
and to determine on behalf of the public what is significant and
what is not.
- No restrictions on knowledge sought

Can we be stewards of someone else’s past—especially when that

someone else may not be willing to relinquish that role themselves?

11
 3/16/20

A Power Imbalance

Challenging the Status Quo

Marxism offers:

A way to know the world

– A critique of the world

– A means to change the

world

A – A challenge to the political

SA cs
i
E th
de:
neutrality of archaeology
Co iple 1
in c
Pr
R. McGuire
“Marx, Childe, and Trigger” 2006

12
 3/16/20

Marx 101: The Key Players

The Bourgeoisie
— defined by their monopolization of the
means of production and subsistence.

The Proletariat
— defined by their lack of access to the means of
production.

Unequal Power Relations

The Bourgeoisie
Archaeologists
— defined (still) by their monopolization of
the means of production and subsistence

The Proletariat
Indigenous Peoples
— defined (still) by their lack of access to the means of
production.

Nicholas, 2006
“The Day Karl Marx Joined the SAA”

13
 3/16/20

Working Together = Collaboration

Participation [“Working Together”] Collaboration

_________________________________________________________________
Goals develop independently Goals develop jointly
Information is disclosed Information flows freely
Limited stakeholder involvement Full stakeholder involvement
Some voice for stakeholder Full voice for stakeholders
Needs of most parties mostly met Needs of all parties met
Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson
“The Collaborative Continuum,” 2007

14
 3/16/20

The Realities of Collaboration

Collaboration is difficult;
Collaboration requires building
trust and respect;
Collaboration is messy;
Collaboration is time- and
resource-intensive.

Nicholas, Welch, and Yellowhorn,

“Collaborative Encounters” 2007

John Welch

The Realities of Collaboration

Community Comes First

Gary Jackson and Claire

Smith working with the
Barunga community, northern
Australia

15
 3/16/20

Assessing Success
in Collaborations

• A sense of personal
satisfaction by those engaged;

• The project has recognized value to community;

• The project facilitates subsequent interactions with community

by others;

• The collaboration benefits participants and larger community;

• There is a commitment to a long-term relationship

Nicholas, Welch, and Yellowhorn,

“Collaborative Encounters” 2007

Approaches to Achieve these Goals

1) Community Archaeology;

2) Participatory Archaeology;

3) Indigenous Archaeologies;

4) Feminist Epistemology;

5) Marxist Archaeology

6) Virtue Ethics

16
 3/16/20

Challenges: Worldview May Be Fundamentally Different

Ancestors are part of this existence

No separation between tangible and intangible cultural heritage

Challenges: Common Interests May Be Less Than Common

Little real or meaningful consultation

Scientific colonialism
Archaeology’s emphasis on process vs. people

17
 3/16/20

Challenges: Points of Intersection with People’s Lives

from Nicholas, Jules, and Dan, 2008

“Moving Beyond Kennewick: Alternative Native American Perspectives on
Bioarchaeological Data and Intellectual Property Rights”

A More Representative and Equitable Archaeology Requires ….

Negotiating with Descendant Communities:

• Significance based on community values

• Alternative, non-Western values

• Management strategies based on larger cultural landscape

• Indigenous peoples having legitimate concerns about

archaeological governance and threats to their cultural and
intellectual property.

18
 3/16/20

What’s Needed

• The amount of time required to build trust and respect and to

understand community needs and dynamics;
• The issue of informed consent;
• Confidentiality, secret knowledge, and intellectual property concerns;
• Need for funders to incorporate community needs and participation
into their agendas;
• The importance of language: whose terms are we using and where do
they come from; and
• The ethical and political consequences of the different
interpretations of empirical observations.

Nicholas and Hollowell

“Ethical Challenges to a Post-Colonial Archaeology,”2007

Making Kashaya Pomo Archaeology Meaningful

“Being able to use Kashaya institutions, such as ritual and ceremony, in

collaborations with archaeologists gives Kashaya people protection while
crossing cultural, social and scientific boundaries. We are able to go out
into the larger society yet retain the ability to pull back into our own
culture still intact.”
Katherine Dowdall and Otis Parrish
“A Meaningful Disturbance of the Earth,”
Journal of Social Archaeology 2002

19
 3/16/20

What’s happened since At a Crossroads?

What’s Happened? A Lot!

20
 3/16/20

What’s Happened? A Lot!

• Capacity building
• Greater participation in protecting and managing own heritage
• Increased participation in political processes

• More and more meaningful involvement in CRM

But also the Dark Side

• Double standards for heritage protection

• Tokenism in hiring field crew

• Individuals with archaeological training pushed beyond their

capacity

• Limited human and other resources to deal with referrals.

21
 3/16/20

Developmental Stages in the Relationship between

Archaeologists and Descendent Communities

1. Antecedents (early interactions)

2. Dissatisfaction/Reaction of
Descendent Communities
3. Seeking Greater Representation

4. Emergence of “Indigenous Archaeology”

• “Working Together”/Capacity Building
• Collaboration
• Critique/Reflexive Discourse/Decolonization

SAA’s Arthur C. Parker Scholarships and More

But…

22
 3/16/20

The Day
Karl Marx
Joins
the SAA:

Indigenous E D
Archaeology
remains
JE CT
marginalized
RE

Robert McGhee
“Aboriginalism and the Problem of Indigenous Archaeology”
(2009)

“The past two decades have seen a significant amount of academic energy
invested in professing the urgent need for developing an Indigenous
archaeology in North America and indeed throughout the world…. Very
little effort has been expended, however, in examining the intellectual
viability or the social and cultural desirability of this project.”

23
 3/16/20

“The Gang of Seven”

—Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Ferguson, Lippert, McGuire, Nicholas,
Watkins, and Zimmerman)

“The Premise and Promise of Indigenous Archaeology”

(2010)

“In this reply, we correct McGhee’s description of Indigenous archaeology

and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist
imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, socio-political context of
scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong
foundation for collaborative and community-based archaeology projects
that include Indigenous peoples.”

The New SAA?

Charting A New Course to a More

Responsible, Representative Archaeology

24
 3/16/20

The WAC
Alternative

The WAC Alternative

E D
T
C EP
AC

25
 3/16/20

Far Beyond At a Crossroads

You can download chapters or the entire

volume through the SFU Library

26
 3/16/20

Being and Becoming….. in Australia

Ken Isaacson

Chris Wilson

Being and Becoming….. in New Zealand

Margaret Reka-Heke

27
 3/16/20

Being and Becoming….. in Africa

Irene Mafune
Chap Kusimba

Being and Becoming….. in Navajo Land

Davina Two Bears

28
 3/16/20

Being and Becoming….. in Mexico

Antonio Cuxil

Nelly Robles Garcia

and Guatemala

Being and Becoming….. in New Guinea

Tautala Silauleleioamoa Asaua

Vincent Kewibu

and Samoa

29
 3/16/20

and Being and Becoming….. in Canada

Nola Markey

Kevin Brownlee

Rudy Reimer
Myrna Pokiak

A More Representative and Equitable Archaeology Requires ….

Different forms of interaction:

• “working together” / participation

• collaboration (full and equal decision making)

• partnership (varying types/degrees)

• community-developed and run projects

30