I
Indigenous Archaeologies:
Australian Perspective
Christopher Wilson and Kelly D. Wiltshire
College of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences,
Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Introduction
Indigenous archaeologies is a methodological
approach that not only emphasizes collaboration
with Indigenous peoples at every stage of research
but also seeks to privilege Indigenous philoso-
phies and knowledges in order to decolonize
archaeological research and practice. Within the
Australian context, the foundations of Indigenous
archaeologies emerged in response to historical
inequalities and continuing colonial nature of
traditional archaeological research, which were
at the forefront of debates within the discipline
in the 1980s. The resulting emergence of
“community-based archaeologies” in the 1990s
coupled with the influence of postcolonial cri-
tiques of archaeological practice within interna-
tional literature provided the basis for Indigenous
archaeologies in Australian to establish its roots.
Some of the critical issues that have been debated
under the rhetoric of Indigenous archaeologies
within Australia include repatriation of human
remains and cultural objects; culturally appropri-
ate archaeological methods from collecting insti-
tutions and practices; ethical standards and codes
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_1012-3
of ethics; intellectual and cultural property rights;
cultural heritage management and legislative
frameworks; as well as the impact of development
and mining on cultural and archaeological sites of
significance. Today, Indigenous archaeologies
forms a large subfield of Australian archaeology
where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peo-
ples’ knowledge, interests, and concerns are con-
sidered crucial to the broader archaeological
inquiry, despite the still-developing nature of
the theoretical framework within an Australian
context.
Definition
Indigenous archaeologies is not archaeological
practice about Indigenous peoples, but rather
practice that “is informed by Indigenous
values and agendas” (Smith and Wobst 2005,
15). Indigenous archaeologies emphasizes a num-
ber of key objectives that seeks to challenge,
reconceptualize, and transform traditional archae-
ological practices, including archaeological
research that is initiated and controlled by Indig-
enous people while privileging Indigenous
philosophies, interests, aspirations, agendas, and
concerns (see Atalay 2007, 2008; Nicholas 2008,
2010; Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Smith and
Wobst 2005; Watkins 2000). As a result, Indige-
nous archaeologies is considered to be a “change
in mindset” (Smith and Wobst 2005, 7) toward
Western forms of archaeological practices that can
2 Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
only emerge by undertaking collaborative or
community-initiated research. In doing so, Indig-
enous archaeologies is considered a tool for
engaging in the broader “decolonization project”
in Indigenous research that has global significance
for the recognition of Indigenous rights (Nicholas
2010).
Similar to gender, feminist, and queer archae-
ologies, Indigenous archaeologies is distin-
guished from other types of traditional
archaeological practice both in terms of its ideo-
logical and methodological approach, which
continues to broaden both theoretically and prac-
tically as Indigenous peoples progressively
engage and thus transform archaeological theory
and methods. Nicholas (2008, 1660) presents the
broad scope of Indigenous archaeologies in the
following way:
Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archae-
ological theory and practice in which the discipline
intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, prac-
tices, ethics, sensibilities, and through collaborative
and community-originated or-directed projects
related critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeol-
ogy seeks to (1) make archaeology more represen-
tative of, responsible to and relevant for Indigenous
communities; (2) redress real and perceived
inequalities in the practice of archaeology; and,
(3) inform and broaden the understanding and inter-
pretation of the archaeological record through the
incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories,
and science. In its broadest sense, Indigenous
archaeology may be defined as any one or more of
the following: (1) the active participation or consul-
tation of Indigenous peoples in archaeology; (2) a
political statement concerned with issues of Aborig-
inal self-government, sovereignty, land rights, iden-
tity, and heritage; (3) a post-colonial enterprise
designed to decolonise the discipline; (4) a mani-
festation of Indigenous epistemologies; (5) the basis
for alternative models of cultural heritage manage-
ment or stewardship; (6) the product of choices and
actions made by individual archaeologists; (7) a
means of empowerment and cultural revitalisation
or political resistance; and (8) an extension, evalu-
ation, critique, or application of current archaeolog-
ical theory.
Indigenous archaeologies is more than “just” an
investigation of the past by archaeologists. It is a
social, cultural, and political movement that can
be a powerful tool for Indigenous peoples in
redressing wrongs of the past, reclaiming cultural
identity, reaffirmation, cultural revitalization, and
maintaining heritage. As described by Piikani
nation archaeologist Eldon Yellowhorn (2006,
137), internalist archaeology has reconceptualized
archaeological practice from an Indigenous per-
spective which reclaims the archaeological record
and connections to land through oral narratives in
the local archaeological record.
In Australia, archaeological research done
under the auspices of Indigenous archaeologies
may seek to utilize creation knowledge, oral his-
tories, lived experiences, and understandings to
complement the knowledge derived from archae-
ological traces and interpretations of the past.
Indigenous archaeologies in Australia will also
draw upon non-Indigenous written texts from var-
ious disciplines including anthropology, history,
linguistics, politics, sociology, and cultural stud-
ies to form a more comprehensive version about
the past that privileges Indigenous philosophies,
knowledges, and understandings.
Historical Background
While Indigenous peoples have never been pas-
sive bystanders to archaeology, archaeologists,
and the closely related collecting activities of non-
professional amateurs, the formative years of
Australian professional archaeology are charac-
terized by research that was mostly undertaken
“on and about” rather than “with, for and by”
(Nicholas and Andrews 1997, 3) Australian
Aboriginal people; however, some exceptions
exist. During her regional field surveys of the
New England area of northeast New South
Wales during the 1960s, pioneering Australian
archaeologist Isabel McBryde sought out and
interviewed local Aboriginal community mem-
bers, “with the belief that a conversation over a
cup a tea could yield as much historical insight as
a week in the field” (Griffiths 2018, 44). McBryde
would later go on to strongly advocate for Aborig-
inal people’s involvement in site protection as a
means to control their own heritage. McBryde,
however, considers her proudest achievement
is the number of Aboriginal students she helped
who become archaeologists, including Robyn
Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
Bancroft, Mark Dugay-Grist, and Dave Johnson
(Griffiths 2018, 49). In the early 1990s, while
head of the Department of Archaeology at ANU,
McBryde hosted the first major cohort
(approximately 10) of Indigenous students under-
taking archaeology (Kellie Pollard, 2010, per-
sonal communication). Many of these students
completed their undergraduate degrees and
constituted the largest group of Indigenous
Australians to receive academic training as
archaeologists.
During the 1960s when Australian profes-
sional archaeology was still in its infancy, Indig-
enous peoples were strongly advocating for basic
human rights and were officially recognized in the
Australian constitution during the 1967 Referen-
dum (the 1967 Referendum meant that laws could
be made [for the better or detriment] on behalf of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and
that they could be counted in the census).
Although this was a symbolic gesture, ideologies
about the “extinction” of “traditional” Indigenous
people were still prevalent. The following year
Australian geomorphologist Jim Bowler discov-
ered Mungo Lady’s eroding burial at Lake Mungo
in western New South Wales, which triggered
further archaeological investigations in the area
that continue today. In the mid-1970s, radiocar-
bon dates at Lake Mungo pushed the human
occupation of Australian back to 36,000 BP,
receiving international media coverage and gar-
nering great public interest in Australia’s Aborig-
inal heritage. With the changing political
landscape within Australia during the 1960s and
1970s, including increased Aboriginal political
movements to reassert and regain control over
their heritage, culture, and identity, archaeological
investigations at Lake Mungo became a focal
point for debates around “who owns the past.” In
the decades that followed, the fate of Mungo Lady
and Mungo Man’s ancestral remains was also at
the center of repatriation debates, culminating in
their eventual return to the Paakantji, Mutthi
Mutthi, and Ngyiampaa Aboriginal communities
in 1992 and 2017.
In the early 1980s, the Australian archaeolog-
ical profession experienced a watershed moment
in the form of a speech entitled “Our Heritage,
3
Your Playground” delivered by Tasmanian
Aboriginal woman Rosaline Langford (1983) at
the Australian Archaeological Association meet-
ing in Hobart. In delivering this speech, Langford
held archaeologists accountable for their past
practices by arguing:
The issue is control. You seek to say that as scien-
tists you have a right to obtain and study informa-
tion of our culture. You seek to say that because you
are Australians you have a right to study and
explore our heritage because it is a heritage to be
shared by all Australians, white and black. From our
point of view we say you have come as invaders,
you have tried to destroy our culture, you have built
your fortunes upon the lands and bodies of our
people and now, having said sorry, want a share in
picking out the bones of what you regard as a dead
past. We say that it is our past, our culture and
heritage, and forms part of our present life. As
such it is ours to control and it is ours to share on
our terms. That is the Central Issue in this debate.
(Langford 1983, 2)
This speech and the growing sentiment surround-
ing it promoted further debates and discussion
around “who owns the past,” laying the ground-
work for forging relationships between archaeol-
ogists and Indigenous peoples. As pointed out by
anthropologist Gary Jackson and Australian
archaeologist Claire Smith and (2005), significant
changes emerged at this time contributing to the
early stages of Indigenous archaeologies. These
were identified as obtaining permission for field-
work from Indigenous communities, involvement
of Indigenous colleagues, access to sites and
knowledge, control over publications, and dis-
semination of knowledge. Several key organiza-
tions and documents were also produced
including the Australian Archaeological Associa-
tion’s (AAA) Code of Ethics in 1991, following
the adoption of a similar code internationally by
the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) in
1990, which began to shape archaeological
research and “best practice.” In response to the
continuing colonial nature of archaeological prac-
tice, important postcolonial critiques of archaeo-
logical and related practices also emerged. In
association with the emerging cultural heritage
management (CHM) sector, the social, political,
and theoretical movements of this period provided
a platform for the development of “community-
4 Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
based archaeology” (see Greer et al. 2002). As
Australian archaeologist Shelley Greer (2010,
48) points out, “the community-based response
was to turn away from universalist archaeological
concerns to documenting local Indigenous inter-
ests in heritage. Archaeology was put in the ser-
vice of local Indigenous heritage, often engaging
with anthropology in order to better understand
and appreciate Indigenous practice.” While
community-based archaeologies provided the
basis for Indigenous archaeologies to establish
its roots, the influence of emerging international
literature, particularly from the United States (see
Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Watkins 2000),
allowed Indigenous archaeologies within an
Australian context to flourish. Given the similari-
ties that exist between Indigenous archaeologies
and community-based archaeologies, these terms
are often used interchangeably to refer to the same
approach; however, Choctaw nation archaeologist
Dorothy Lippert (2016) maintains Indigenous
archaeologies is distinct from community-based
archaeology due to its efforts to decolonize the
discipline as well as work collaboratively with
Indigenous communities.
Key Issues/Current Debates
While Indigenous archaeologies exist as a sub-
field within Australian archaeology, many would
argue the principles of Indigenous archaeologies
are today integrated as part of standard archaeo-
logical practice; however, the current debates that
emerge from contemporary practice are still
focused on primary issues including “who owns
the past,” demonstrating ongoing engagement
with Indigenous peoples and the approaches of
Indigenous archaeologies is still required to fur-
ther decolonize the discipline. In other words,
simply working collaboratively with Indigenous
peoples does not necessarily result in archaeolog-
ical practice that is decolonized; reflexivity is the
key to ensure archaeological practice is ethically,
politically, and socially engaged with Indigenous
interests, aspirations, and agendas. As Gabrieliño
(Tongva) nation archaeologist Desireé Reneé
Martinez (2014, 3776) points out, “an
archaeologist cannot speak ethically about a
community’s past if they do not engage its present
and understand their role in it.”
Consequently, Greek archaeologist Yannis
Hamilakis (2007, 23–25) argues archaeologists
have ceased to engage in the ethical or political
implications of archaeology, with politically
engaged archaeology now absent from the disci-
pline. Recent critiques regarding the ethical and
political nature of archaeology claim the adoption
of ethical codes and best practice doctrines by the
World Archaeological Congress (WAC), the
Australian Archaeological Association (AAA),
and other organizations have effectively “closed-
off” or sanctioned the politics of archaeological
practice from further consideration (Hamilakis
2007). Hamilakis (2007, 23) refers to ethical
codes as a “decoy” used to avoid the political
nature of archaeology. Furthermore, he interprets
ethical codes:
. . .as a tool, as a purely technical device, that can be
used to achieve something else, most commonly to
continue doing archaeology as normal, to declare
that it is ‘business as usual’, now with the additional
advantage of a clear ethical consciousness.
(Hamilakis 2007, 24)
In many respects the same argument could be
made in regard to the adoption of the collaborative
approach of Indigenous archaeologies, which also
allows archaeology to carry on “business as
usual” under the assumption that archaeological
practice is universally beneficial to those with
whom one is collaborating (cf. Hamilakis 2007,
24). In-line with this argument, adopting a collab-
orative approach does not necessarily guarantee
research is ethically, politically, and socially
engaged with the concerns of collaborative
partners.
Others argue a reflexive approach is essential
to consider the ways in which positivist assump-
tions influence archaeological practice, in order to
address the marginalization of Indigenous philos-
ophies and interests (Giddings 2006, 200).
A reflexive approach also allows for consideration
of the asymmetrical power structures and
unethical tendencies that are maintained by posi-
tivism, including the privileged position of a
researcher to produce knowledges that may
Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
marginalize Indigenous philosophies and interests
despite a collaborative approach (cf. Smith 1999,
176). Without such, positivism can remain
the dominant paradigm through which the results
of collaborative archaeological practice are
interpreted. In doing so, the collaborative
approach of Indigenous archaeologies is no more
than “positivism dressed in drag,” where positiv-
ism is simply given a “new guise” in order for
research to proceed (Giddings 2006, 198, 200).
That being said, researchers occupy a unique posi-
tion in knowledge production with the capacity to
engage with the ethical and political nature of
their research, to undertake research that is ethi-
cally and politically responsible in order to chal-
lenge this marginalization (Hemming et al. 2010,
101). According to Hemming et al. (2010, 96–97),
research that seeks to challenge the marginaliza-
tion of Indigenous rights, responsibilities, and
interests is the basis for research that is ethically,
politically, and socially engaged. The combina-
tion of collaborative and reflexive approaches is
essential in order to undertake ethical and politi-
cally engaged research. Without a reflexive
approach, we pat ourselves on the back for being
progressive and fail to engage with ongoing ethi-
cal and political nature of our research. Therefore,
collaborative and reflexive approaches go hand
in hand to ensure an ethically, politically, and
socially engaged archaeology is ethically, politi-
cally, and socially responsible archaeology.
In addition to this, the politics of representation
and the relationships between archaeologists and
Indigenous peoples have been explored (see
Davidson et al. 1995). This relationship began as
early as the 1930s with Indigenous peoples as
“informants” and slowly progressed to involving
Indigenous peoples throughout all aspects of the
research process including the research design,
consultation, ethics, fieldwork, and dissemination
of information. It is this relationship and its devel-
opment that continues to be a topical issue. Smith
et al. (1994, 13) suggest that the traditional
strength of Australian archaeology has been the
analysis of sociopolitical issues including the rela-
tionships between archaeologists and Indigenous
peoples and the change in power and control
Indigenous communities have reclaimed over
5
their cultural heritage. This type of Indigenous
archaeologies which has also been termed
“community-based archaeology” (Greer et al.
2002) began to shape much of the standard of
archaeological research within Australia.
During the 1980s and 1990s, debates related to
ethics and the repatriation of “Old People’s”
remains placed pressure on disciplines such as
anthropology and archaeology to become more
culturally inclusive with research practices and
ethics which included the deconstruction of past
processual practices and decolonizing archaeol-
ogy itself (see Smith 1999; Smith and Wobst
2005). Some of the key issues that continue to
be debated include:
• The repatriation of human remains and cultural
objects from collecting institutions
• The process of archaeological research, prac-
tices, and ethical standards
• Intellectual and cultural property rights
• Cultural heritage management and legislative
frameworks
• The impact of mining, industrial waste and
natural resource management, and housing
development on cultural and archaeological
sites of significance
International Perspectives
Internationally Indigenous archaeologies was first
defined by American and Canadian archaeologists
George Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews (1997,
3) as archaeological practice undertaken “archae-
ology with, for and by Indigenous peoples.”
Indigenous archaeologies was later popularized
by the publication of Indigenous Archaeology:
American Indian Values and Scientific Practice
(2000) by Choctaw nation archaeologist Joe
Watkins. The World Archaeological Congress
(WAC) has also played a significant role in the
development of Indigenous archaeologies, with
WAC conferences providing an international
forum to discuss ideas and opportunities for Indig-
enous archaeologists (i.e., archaeologists who
identify as Indigenous) to share their experiences.
During the 2016 WAC conference in Kyoto,
6 Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
Japan, Choctaw nation archaeologist Dorothy
Lippert expressed the importance of WAC in
her personal and professional development due
to these international networking opportunities
(Lippert 2016).
As the pluralized nature of Indigenous archae-
ologies suggests, there are varying ways to under-
take Indigenous archaeologies that reflect the
dynamic experiences, knowledges, and cultures
of Indigenous peoples globally this approach
seeks to privilege (Atalay 2008, 30). Despite
this, the experiences within Australia are similar
to those internationally, and the approaches uti-
lized in Indigenous archaeologies are often devel-
oped using models from Indigenous researchers,
such as Decolonizing Methodologies: Research
and Indigenous Peoples by Maori academic
Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999), as well as Indige-
nous archaeologists themselves (i.e., Indigenous
peoples who are formally trained in archaeology).
Specifically, the Indigenous research agenda
described by Maori academic Linda Tuhiwai
Smith (1999, 116–117) has helped inform the
way in which many Indigenous peoples are
approaching archaeology in Australia. Smith’s
(1999) “Indigenous Research Agenda” privileges
Indigenous epistemologies and acknowledges
that Indigenous researchers also have a responsi-
bility to ensure that research is conducted in cul-
turally appropriate ways. Such an agenda ensures
that elders or senior leaders are not simply enter-
ing into a process of “negotiation,” but rather have
complete control over the research process includ-
ing proposals, development, methodology, inter-
pretations, and the dissemination of information
back to the community in a culturally appropriate
and comprehensive manner. This approach con-
siders complex issues relating to power imbal-
ances and thus draws upon critical theory,
postcolonial theory, standpoint theory, and a
decolonization of research practice (Atalay 2007,
2008; Smith 1999; Smith and Wobst 2005;
Watkins 2000). Therefore, it is an Indigenist
framework developed for and by Indigenous
peoples that is theoretically situated within post-
processual and interpretative archaeologies –
which ultimately reject a positivist view of science
in search of new meanings and interpretations of
the past. The issues that “Indigenous archaeolo-
gists” encounter in the research process are expe-
riences discussed by many North American
archaeologists (i.e., Nicholas 2010; Watkins
2000) and are critical for understanding relation-
ships between the researcher and the “subject”
in any research project involving Indigenous
peoples.
Furthermore, Anishinaabe kwe nation archae-
ologist Sonya Atalay (2007) has discussed the use
of Indigenous archaeologies for broader contexts.
She highlighted the importance of “community-
based participatory research” in Turkey, which
involved archaeologists working closely with
local people in understanding their cultural heri-
tage. Atalay (2007, 253) argues that “Indigenous
archaeology” is on the periphery of mainstream
archaeological practices and is essentially a
“practice that foregrounds knowledge and experi-
ences of Indigenous peoples to inform and influ-
ence Western archaeologies as part of the
decolonisation of the discipline.” It is an approach
that has global implications and can extend
beyond Indigenous communities (i.e., local
communities) – such as how it was applied by
Atalay at Catalhoyuk, Turkey. It is evident
through her research that some key components
of this approach include identifying her privileged
position, foregrounding local knowledge and
experiences, the practicing of socially just
research that has positive effects on contemporary
communities, collaborative archaeology and the
incorporation of worldviews, positive processes
of decolonization, long-term goals and programs,
working with communities to develop research
questions based on community needs, using
local knowledge about the best way to conduct
research, and a flexible research plan and strategy.
All these components are key to any research
project regardless of ethnicity and therefore chal-
lenge the concept of “Indigenous archaeologies.”
Future Directions
While Indigenous archaeologies as a methodolog-
ical approach has progressed since it developed in
the 1990s, some maintain Indigenous
Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
archaeologies is still developing. Choctaw nation
archaeologist Dorothy Lippert (2016) argues
Indigenous archaeologies “is not widespread. . .
[and] we need to think about how Indigenous
archaeology draws in and addresses colonial leg-
acies and seeks to dismantle power structures that
prevent Indigenous people from fully participat-
ing in sciences.” In the article “Theoretical chal-
lenges of Indigenous archaeology: setting the
agenda,” Australian archaeologist Ian McNiven
(2016) points out that Indigenous archaeologies
has focused on collaborative aspects of archaeo-
logical practice and the move toward decoloniza-
tion. As a result, the theoretical framework for
Indigenous archaeologies is still yet to be defined
and remain mostly aspiration (also see Atalay
2008, 29). In addition to this, the contribution of
Indigenous archaeologies to archaeological inter-
pretation also remains underdeveloped, with
Western archaeological knowledges maintaining
an overall privileged position in the interpretation
of archaeological materials. In order to address
this lack of theorization as well as the privileged
position archaeological knowledges maintain,
McNiven (2016) argues addressing the dichoto-
mies that lie at the heart of Western archaeological
practice is key for producing understandings that
privilege Indigenous philosophies and
understandings.
Despite this, the exact constituents forming
Indigenous Australian archaeologies are still in a
process of discussion, debate, and transformation
as more Indigenous peoples became actively
involved in education, training, and research in
archaeology and cultural heritage. With these
arguments in mind, the full potential of Indige-
nous archaeologies in Australia has yet to be
realized, partly due to the underrepresentation of
Indigenous people within the discipline. For the
most part, Indigenous archaeologies within an
Australian context mostly refers to collaboration
between non-Indigenous archaeologists and
Indigenous community, rather than Indigenous
archaeologists working for Indigenous communi-
ties (McNiven 2016, 28). This observation is
supported by a decade-long survey undertaken
by the Australian Archaeological Association
(AAA), which reports the participation of
7
Indigenous Australians in professional archaeol-
ogy is low with Indigenous archaeologists (i.e.,
archaeologists who identify as Indigenous) com-
prising 2.3% of respondents in 2005 compared to
2.8% of respondents in 2015 (Mate and Ulm
2016, 171); however, this low percentage seems
to reflect the low participation rates in the survey
rather than being an accurate reflection of the
archaeological profession, where it is estimated
more than 20 archaeologists who identify as
Indigenous are active in Australia (Mate and
Ulm 2016, 172). Overall the survey concludes
“the continued low participation rates of profes-
sionally qualified Indigenous archaeologists
remain a challenge for the discipline” (Mate and
Ulm 2016, 181).
In order to support and increase the number of
Indigenous people participating in the archaeo-
logical profession, the Australian Archaeological
Association (AAA) funds an Indigenous subsidy
scheme for attendance to its annual conference,
includes Indigenous Liaison Officer positions on
its national executive committee, and is currently
drafting a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP);
however, the AAA does not offer study scholar-
ships equivalent to the Society for American
Archaeology’s (SAA) Native American Scholar-
ships Fund, which was established in 1998 to
support Indigenous peoples of America, Alaska,
and Hawaii in their undergraduate and graduate
archaeology education. In 2010 the Australian
Indigenous Archaeologists’ Association (AIAA)
was established with the support from the
Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) in
hopes of promoting the active engagement of
Indigenous people in archaeology and increasing
the number working as professional archaeolo-
gists; however, the impact this organization has
had on increasing participation rates of Indige-
nous people within the archaeological profession
is hard to measure. Despite this, the AIAA has
organized a number of sessions at the AAA’s
annual conference specifically to showcase
archaeological practice and research undertaken
by Indigenous peoples across Australia.
In recent years, a small number of Indigenous
Australians have either embarked upon and com-
pleted PhDs in archaeology; however, comparing
8 Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective

this to US situation where at least 20 Indigenous importance of Indigenous people, culture, and
people have PhDs in archaeology (Lippert 2016), knowledge in Australia, mining exploration and
the small number of Indigenous peoples who have urban development continue to impact on Indige-
completed formal degrees in archaeology con- nous cultural heritage and archaeological places
tinues to be evident. Although the reasons for of importance to our shared history. The complex-
this have not been clearly identified and there ities of these issues continue to be discussed and
have been no studies to address the issues to debated, and what becomes apparent is the con-
date, there are several reasons including the tinuous struggle for Indigenous recognition in a
immediate employment of Indigenous graduates period of great political uncertainty for Indige-
in government agencies and other organizations, nous communities who continue to feel the impact
the attractiveness of private consulting, and the of colonialism. There will continue to be chal-
commitment that Indigenous people already have lenges for Indigenous archaeologies in Australia
in regard to caring for country as well as the fact until issues of nationalism and representation of
that there may be few opportunities to leave cur- Indigenous peoples as a First Nation are negoti-
rent cultural and family obligations to undertake ated. In short, it would seem that Australia is yet to
full-time studies. What is evident is that Indige- realize the full potential of undertaking archaeol-
nous people engaging in the research, manage- ogy “with, for, and by” Indigenous peoples.
ment, and protection of cultural heritage within
their communities do not have the time or
resources to leave the community to pursue aca-
Cross-References
demic scholarship – particularly the sustained
study that is required for a doctoral thesis.
▶ Atalay, Sonya
Increasing participation and retention of Indige-
▶ Australian Archaeological Association
nous peoples in archaeology, cultural heritage
Inc. (AAA)
management, and environmental sciences is
▶ Australian Archaeology: Pioneers and
therefore of critical importance. The representa-
Traditions
tion of Indigenous archaeologists across all year
▶ Indigenous Archaeologies
levels (undergraduate through to research higher
▶ Indigenous Archaeologies in Archaeological
degree) must occur, as well as in all sectors that
Theory
involve care, management, protection of Indige-
▶ Indigenous Archaeologies: North American
nous cultural heritage, as well as intellectual
Perspective
engagement through academic- and community-
▶ Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional
driven research projects. What is required is a
Knowledge
stronger commitment to training cultural heritage
▶ Indigenous Peoples, Working with and for
“caretakers” through the implementation of
▶ Lippert, Dorothy T.
archaeology and cultural heritage scholarships,
▶ McBryde, Isabel
cadetships, and research awards that plan for suc-
▶ Nicholas, George P.
cess across all degree programs from undergrad-
▶ Postcolonial Archaeologies
uate to doctorate level.
▶ Smith, Claire
In summary, Indigenous archaeologies within
▶ Watkins, Joe
Australia have undergone significant change,
▶ World Archaeological Congress (WAC)
transformation, since the initial development of
Australian archaeology as a discipline in the
1950s; however, there is still a gross underrepre-
sentation of Indigenous peoples participating in References
the discipline despite archaeology being profes-
sionally practiced in Australia for over 50 years. Atalay, S. 2007. Global application of Indigenous archae-
ology: Community based participatory research in
Although there is greater public awareness of the
Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
Turkey. Archaeologies – Journal of the World Archae-
ological Congress 3: 249–270.
Atalay, S. 2008. Multivocality and Indigenous archaeol-
ogies. In Evaluating multiple narratives, ed. J. Habu,
C. Fawcett, and J.M. Matsunaga, 29–44. New York:
Springer.
Davidson, I., C. Lovell-Jones, and R. Bancroft. 1995.
Archaeologists and aborigines working together.
Armidale: University of New England Press.
Giddings, L.S. 2006. Mixed-methods research: positivism
dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing 11 (3):
195–203.
Greer, S. 2010. Heritage and empowerment: Community-
based Indigenous cultural heritage in northern
Australia. International Journal of Heritage Studies
16 (1–2): 45–58.
Greer, S., R. Harrison, and S. Mcintyre-Tamwoy. 2002.
Community-based archaeology in Australia. World
Archaeology 34: 265–287.
Griffiths, B. 2018. Deep time dreaming: Uncovering
ancient Australia. Carlton: Black Inc.
Hamilakis, Y. 2007. From ethics to politics. In Archaeology
and capitalism: From ethics to politics, ed.
Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke, 15–40. Walnut Creek: Left
Coast Press.
Hemming, S., D. Rigney, and S. Berg. 2010. Researching
on Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar: Methodologies for pos-
itive transformation. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:
92–106.
Jackson, G., and C. Smith. 2005. Living and learning on
aboriginal lands: Decolonizing archaeology in practice.
In Indigenous archaeologies: Decolonizing theory and
practice, ed. C. Smith and H.M. Wobst, 328–351.
London/New York: Routledge.
Langford, R. 1983. Our heritage, your playground.
Australian Archaeology 16: 1–6.
Lippert, D. 2016. Indigenous archaeologies and the World
Archaeological Congress: The past, the present and
the future. Paper presented at World Archaeological
Congress, Kyoto.
Martinez, D.M. 2014. Indigenous archaeologies. In Ency-
clopedia of global archaeology, ed. C. Smith,
3772–3777. London: Routledge.
Mate, G., and S. Ulm. 2016. Another snapshot for the
album: a decade of Australian archaeology in profile
survey data. Australian Archaeology 82 (2): 168–183.
Mcniven, I. 2016. Theoretical challenges of Indigenous
archaeology: Setting the agenda. American Antiquity
8 (11): 27–41.
Nicholas, G.P. 2008. Native peoples and archaeology. In
Encyclopaedia of archaeology, ed. D. Pearsall, vol. 3,
1660–1669. New York: Academic.
Nicholas, G.P. 2010. Being and becoming Indigenous
archaeologists. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Nicholas, G.P., and T.D. Andrews, eds. 1997. At a cross-
roads: Archaeology and first peoples in Canada.
Burnaby: Archaeology Press.
Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research
and Indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books.
9
Smith, C., and M. Wobst. 2005. Decolonizing archaeolog-
ical theory and practice. In Indigenous archaeologies:
Decolonizing theory and practice, ed. C. Smith and
H.M. Wobst, 4–14. London/New York: Routledge.
Smith, C., H. Burke, and C. Lovell-Jones. 1994. Beyond
the looking glass: Some thoughts on sociopolitics
and reflexivity in Australian archaeology. Australian
Archaeology 38: 13–22.
Watkins, J. 2000. Indigenous archaeology: American
Indian values and scientific practice. Lanham:
AltaMira Press.
Yellowhorn, E. 2006. Understanding antiquity. Journal of
Social Archaeology 6: 307–327.
Further Reading
Atalay, S. 2006. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing
practice. American Indian Quarterly 30 (3): 280–310.
Atalay, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology: Research
with, by and for Indigenous and local communities.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Byrne, D. 1998. Deep nation: Australia’s acquisition of an
Indigenous past. Aboriginal History 20: 82–107.
Colwell-Chant Haphonh, C., and T.J. Ferguson. 2008.
Collaboration in archaeological practice: Engaging
descendant communities. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Hamilakis, Y. 2005. Whose world and whose archaeology?
The colonial present and the return of the political.
Archaeologies: The Journal of the World Archaeolog-
ical Congress 1: 94–101.
Hemming, S., and T. Trevorrow. 2005. Kungan
Ngarrindjeri Yunnan: Archaeology, colonialism and
reclaiming the future. In Indigenous archaeologies:
Decolonising theory and practice, ed. C. Smith and
M. Wobst, 243–261. London: Routledge.
Lippert, D. 1997. In front of the mirror: Native Americans
and academic archaeology. In Native Americans and
archaeologists: Stepping stones to common
ground, ed. N. Swidler and S.F.A. Archaeology,
120–127. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Million, T. 2005. Developing an aboriginal archaeology:
Receiving gifts from White Buffalo Calf woman. In
Indigenous archaeologies: Decolonizing theory and
practice, ed. C. Smith and H.M. Wobst, 43–55.
London: Routledge.
Nicholas, G. 1997. Education and empowerment: Archae-
ology with, for, and by the Shuswap Nation. In At a
crossroads: Archaeology and first peoples in
Canada, ed. G. Nicholas and T. Andrews, 85–104.
Burnaby: Archaeology Press.
Nicholas, G. 2001. The past and future of Indigenous
archaeology: Global challenges, north American
perspectives, Australian prospects. Australian Archae-
ology 52: 29–40.
Nicholas, G., and J. Hollowell. 2007. Ethical challenges to
a postcolonial archaeology: The legacy of scientific
colonialism. In Archaeology and capitalism: From
ethics to politics, ed. Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke,
59–82. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
10
Riches, L., ed. 2004. Exploring encounter: A new relation-
ship between archaeologists and indigenous people?
Archaeology from Australia. Melbourne: Australian
Scholarly Press.
Silliman, S. 2008. Collaborative Indigenous archaeology:
Trowelling at the edges, eyeing the centre. In Collabo-
rating at the Trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in
Indigenous archaeology, ed. S. Silliman, 1–24. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
Silliman, S. 2010. The value and diversity of Indigenous
archaeology: A response to McGhee. American Antiq-
uity 75 (2): 217–220.
Wilson, C. 2007. Indigenous research and archaeology:
Transformative practices in/with/for the Ngarrindjeri
Community. Archaeologies 3: 320–334.
Wiltshire, K.D. 2011. Changes in mindset: The develop-
ment of a collaborative research methodology. Archae-
ological Review from Cambridge 26 (2): 31–43.