Archaeology and decolonization (original) (raw)
Related papers
EXPLORING DECOLONIZATION IN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Review, 2024
This review consolidates insights from various scholars on the decolonization of historical archaeology, examining the approach, its challenges and limitations, while proposing pathways to advance decolonization based on scholarly suggestions.
Decolonizing Archaeological Thought in South America
Decolonizing archaeological thought in South America happens through three paths: (a) a critical approach to the ways archaeology contributes to coloniality, (b) a criticism of the mechanisms by which coloniality informs archaeology, and (c) a varied exposure of archaeology to subaltern (that is, non-hegemonic and counter-hegemonic) knowledge. These three paths are sometimes taken together and sometimes alone, and the diverse pieces of thought reviewed herein provide examples of each. South America as a locus for the enunciation of archaeological theory opens the epistemic range of the discipline to include indigenous and African-descendant communities' theories of history and materiality. Ongoing research prefigures future trends in decolonizing archaeological thought around issues of land, memory, and knowledge.
Decolonizing/Indigenous Archaeology: A Literature Review
decolonizing" yields 425,000 results! Even a search on an "academic" search engine, such as JSTOR, yielded 2,672 articles, reviews, and comments, showing that decolonization is indeed a fast growing area of study. One particular "traditional" field of study that has been in need of decolonization is that of archaeology. For years archaeologists have studied the cultures and material remains of seemingly dead or extinct cultures, disregarding the wishes and thoughts of the descendant communities of these "dead" cultures about how their ancestors, and ancestral sites, should be treated, handled, represented, and studied. This sentiment has been changing in recent years though, and archaeologists trained in the modern era of post-colonial critiques are actively striving in multiple ways to "do" an archaeology that is beneficial and respectful to living descendant communities. Long gone are the days of archaeology, where archaeologists can literally rob graves, just so long as they shout "This should be in a museum" as their justification. In addition to this, the traditional joke among archeologists and anthropologists that "archaeologists become archaeologists, instead of anthropologists, so they do not have to deal with living peoples" is no longer valid, though it certainly has been in the past (personal communication, Garrick Bailey 2012).
Virtual Forum: Archaeology and Decolonization
Archaeologies-journal of The World Archaeological Congress, 2007
In this forum, patiently achieved through months of cyber-work, participants Nayanjot Lahiri (India), Nick Shepherd (South Africa), Joe Watkins (USA) and Larry Zimmerman (USA), plus the two editors of Arqueología Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentina) and Cristóbal Gnecco (Colombia), discuss the topic of archaeology and decolonization. Nayanjot Lahiri teaches archaeology in her capacity as Professor at the Department of History, University of Delhi. Her books include Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization was Discovered (2005) and The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes (1992). She has edited The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization (2000) and an issue of World Archaeology entitled The Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick Shepherd is a senior lecturer in the Center for African Studies at the University of Cape Town, where he convenes the program in public culture in Africa. He sits on the executive committee of the World Archaeological Congress, and is co-editor of the journal Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. In 2004 he was based at Harvard University as a Mandela Fellow. He has published widely on issues of archaeology and society in Africa, and on issues of public history and heritage. Joe Watkins is Choctaw Indian and archaeologist Joe Watkins is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico. He is 1/2 Choctaw Indian by blood, and has been involved in archaeology for more than thirty-five years. He received his Bachelor’s of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of Oklahoma and his Master’s of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Anthropology from Southern Methodist University, where his doctorate examined archaeologists’ responses to questionnaire scenarios concerning their perceptions of American Indian issues. His current study interests include the ethical practice of anthropology and the study of anthropology’s relationships with descendant communities and Aboriginal populations, and he has published numerous articles on these topics. His first book Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice (AltaMira Press, 2000) examined the relationships between American Indians and archaeologists and is in its second printing His latest book, Reclaiming Physical Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites (Chelsea House Publishers 2005) is aimed toward creating an awareness of Native American issues among high school students. Larry J. Zimmerman is Professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies and Public Scholar of Native American Representation at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. He is Vice President of the World Archaeological Congress. He also has served WAC as its Executive Secretary and as the organizer of the first WAC Inter-Congress on Archaeological Ethics and the Treatment of the Dead. His research interests include the archaeology of the North American Plains, contemporary American Indian issues, and his current project examining the archaeology of homelessness. Partiellement réalisé grâce à des mois de travail sur Internet, ce forum a impliqué la participation de Nayanjot Lahiri (Inde), Nick Shepherd (Afrique du Sud), Joe Watkins (États-Unis) et Larry Zimmerman (États-Unis), en plus de deux éditeurs de Arqueología Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentine) et Cristóbal Gnecco (Colombie). Dans cette perspective, les discussions et échanges de points de vue étaient amples. Nayanjot Lahiri enseigne à l’Université de Delhi. Parmi les livres qu’elle a publiés, on retrouve Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization was Discovered (2005) et The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes (1992). Elle a édité le livre The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization (2000) et une publication du World Archaeology intitulée The Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick Shepherd est professeur au Centre d’études africaines de l’Université de Cape Town, où il organise un programme public sur la culture africaine. Il est sur le comité exécutif du Congrès mondial de l’archéologie et coéditeur du journal Archaeologies : Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. En 2004, il était basé à l’Université Harvard comme boursier Mandela. Il a largement publié sur les questions de l’archéologie et de la société africaine et sur des questions d’histoire publique et du patrimoine. Joe Watkins est professeur associé en anthropologie à l’Université du Nouveau-Mexique. Métis avec un parent amérindien Choctaw, Watkins a été impliqué en archéologie depuis plus de 35 ans. Il a une maîtrise et un doctorat en anthropologie de l’Université Sud-Méthodiste. Son doctorat était basé sur l’examen de réponses d’archéologues au sujet de scénarios traitant de la perception sur les questions relatives aux amérindiens. Aujourd’hui, son sujet principal de recherche est la pratique étique de l’anthropologie et l’étude des relations anthropologiques avec les populations aborigènes, thème sur lequel il a publié plusieurs articles. Son premier livre, Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice (AltaMira Press, 2000), examine les relations entre les amérindiens et les archéologues et en est à sa seconde réimpression. Son dernier livre, Reclaiming Physical Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites (Chelsea House Publishers 2005), a pour objectif de porter l’attention des étudiants de niveau du secondaire sur les questions concernant les amérindiens. Larry J. Zimmerman est professeur d’anthropologie et attaché au Museum Studies and Public Scholar of Native American à Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis et au Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. Il est vice-président du Congrès mondial de l’archéologie. Il a aussi servit le CMA comme secrétaire exécutif et comme organisateur du premier inter-congrès du CMA qui portait sur l’archéologie éthique et le traitement de la mort. Ses intérêts de recherche incluent l’archéologie des plaines nord-américaines, les questions concernant les amérindiens d’aujourd’hui et son projet actuel concerne l’archéologie du phénomène des sans-abri. En este foro, pacientemente logrado en meses de trabajo cibernético, participan Nayanjot Lahiri (India), Nick Shepherd (Sud Africa), Joe Watkins (USA) y Larry Zimmerman (USA), más los dos editores de Arqueología Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentina) y Cristóbal Gnecco (Colombia). Es, por lo tanto, bastante amplio el espectro de contextos de discusión y puntos de vista. Nayanjot Lahiri enseña arqueología desde su cargo de Profesora del Departamenmto de Historia de la Universidad de Delhi. Sus libros incluyen “Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization was Discovered” (2005) y “The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes” (1992). Ha editado “The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization” (2000) y un número de World Archaeology titulado The Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick Shepherd es profesor titular en el Centro de Estudios Africanos de la Universidad de Cape Town, donde dirije el programa de cultura pública en Africa. Es miembro del comité ejecutivo del Congreso Mundial de Arqueología, y es co-editor de la revista Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. En el año 2004, estuvo en la Universidad de Harvard con la Beca Mandela. Ha publicado extensamente en temas de arqueología y sociedad en Africa, y en cuestiones de historia pública y patrimonio. Joe Watkins es indígena Choctaw y arqueólogo. Joe Watkins es Profesor Asociado de Antropología en la Universidad de New Mexico. Es mitad indígena Choctaw de sangre, y ha estado relacionado con la arqueología por más de treinta y cinco años. recibió su título de Bachelor’s of Arts en Antropología en la Universidad de Oklahoma y sus títulos de Master’s of Arts y Doctor en Filosofía en Antropología en la Universidad Metodista del Sur, su tesis doctoral indagó sobre las respuestas de los arqueólogos/as a cuestionarios sobre escenarios acerca de sus percepciones de las problemáticas de los aborígenes norteamericanos. Sus intereses de estudio actuales incluyen las prácticas éticas de la antropología y el estudio de las relaciones de ésta con las comunidades descendientes y las poblaciones aborígenes, ha publicado numerosos artículos sobre esos temas. Su primer libro “Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice” (AltaMira Press, 2000) examinó las relaciones entre los Aborígenes norteamericanos y los arqueólogos y está en su segunda impresión. Su libro más reciente, “Reclaiming Physical Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites” (Chelsea House Publishers 2005) está dirigido a crear conciencia de las problemáticas de los indígenas de norteamérica en los estudiantes de bachillerato. Larry J. Zimmerman es Profesor de Antropología y Estudios sobre Museos e intelectual público de representación de nativos norteamericanos en la Universidad de Indiana, en la Universidad de Purdue, Indianapolis y en el Museo Eiteljorg de Indígenas norteamericanos y Arte Occidental. Es Vice-Presidente del WAC. También ha servido como su Secretario Ejecutivo y fue organizador del Inter Congreso del WAC sobre Etica Arqueológica y Tratamiento de los muertos. Sus intereses de investigación incluyen la arqueología de las llanuras de Norteamérica y asuntos sobre los indígenas norteamericanos contemporáneos. Su proyecto de investigación actual examina la arqueología de las personas sin hogar.
Upon being awarded the Peter Ucko Memorial Award: Honourable President Mizoguchi of WAC, the distinguished committee for the Peter Ucko Memorial Award and Lecture, honoured guests and fellow archaeologists: It is a great pleasure to be able to share with you some thoughts and concerns about decolonizing archaeological practice. I will start with a short review of some engrained colonial assumptions in archaeological practice at a global level along with recognition of how change is transforming archaeological practice. I then turn to how Africanists are struggling to decolonize archaeological practice in a part of the world where colonial ways of doing and thinking are deeply entrenched. I will conclude by sharing several case studies from research in Africa that capture what a group of scholars are now calling Archaeologies of Listening—a rubric that privileges knowledge held by people in communities in which we work. The greater majority of you practice archaeology in other parts of the world and may not be familiar with the concerns that have arisen in Africa over issues of inclusion of indigenous communities as well as interpretative stances taken in representing the African past. Given these circumstances, I will focus my discussion on practical examples that illustrate how we are attempting to decolonize archaeological practice and heritage studies in Africa.
Anthropological Journal of European Cultures , 2021
In 2020, Europe was the setting for several events that sparked off a broad debate on the need for the decolonisation of thought, practices, spaces, monuments and museums. Historically, several European countries have had a direct or indirect relationship with colonialism and its practices, as well as with the authoritarian ways of managing and exercising power (Cahen and Matos 2018; Cooper and Stoler 1997; Matos 2019). The need to reflect on imperial ruins (Stoler 2013) and to decolonise thought today is therefore understandable. This was not always considered urgent, however. Additionally, there was not always an opportunity for it. In the postcolonial period, debates were limited mainly to academia and, more recently, to the world of museums, where the hot issue of repatriation of artefacts and human remains that were pillaged, stolen, or abusively gathered in the Third World was initiated by the 1970 UNESCO Convention against Illicit Export under the Act to implement the Convention (the Cultural Property Implementation Act) and boosted by the successive UNESCO resolutions on repatriation (Sansone 2017; 2019).
Archaeology and Applied Anthropology as a Collaborative Approach to Decolonization
North American Archaeologist, 2024
Mid-Atlantic Native archaeology has focused primarily on cultural horizons that predate the arrival of Europeans, culture contact phenomena, or the frontier dynamic of post-contact. In recent decades, the discipline has made important strides toward civic engagement with Native peoples. However, the focus on pre-contact/contact archaeology and settler history has inhibited the work of decolonization by unconsciously reaffirming colonialist narratives of Native disappearance. From the vantage of the public and present-day communities, several "middle centuries" of Indigenous experiences remain unexplained, and thus, an era of significant culture change is obscured. My call-to-action urges archaeologists to expand the lens of "deep history" across the prehistory/history divide into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, using historical anthropology to engage an understudied period of Indigenous cultural adaptation and persistence. In this article, I overview four examples of recent applied anthropological research that address these silenced spaces and consider decolonizing practices that align with the needs of Native communities.
Archaeology of Liberation vs. Political Archaeology: Rethinking the Past for a Just Future
Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies, 2024
Political archaeology and archaeology of liberation are two of several different aspects of the relationship between archaeology and politics. In this note, I will examine political archaeology from the aspect of its negative effects, and I will examine archaeology of liberation from the aspect of its positive effects, although each may have other benefits and harms. This means I do not intend to praise one and blame the other. Rather, I will express the most common methods that can strengthen the negative and positive aspects. For example, just as political archaeology has a negative aspect, it is possible that liberating archaeology may also show negative aspects in case of inaccuracy. Political archaeology, the intersection of politics and archaeological research, reveals how political motives can shape historical interpretations. By examining the subjective nature of historical understanding and how human perception influences our understanding of the past, we can recognize how archaeology can be manipulated by various individuals, including politicians, for political gain. Archaeology of liberation, a related field, offers a potential solution to the challenges posed by political archaeology. By centreing the voices and experiences of marginalized communities, archaeology of liberation can help to counter the biased narratives often perpetuated by political agendas. By working collaboratively with these communities, archaeologists can develop more inclusive and equitable interpretations of the past. By understanding both political archaeology and archaeology of liberation, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of how archaeology can be used to both uphold and challenge power structures. Through a critical examination of political archaeology and a commitment to the principles of liberation archaeology, we can work towards a more just and equitable future.
Hamilakis, Y. 2018. Decolonial archaeology as social justice. Antiquity 92: 518-520.
And now what? This anxious question torments many of us in the current socio-political moment: that of Trumpism and Brexit; of resurgent xenophobia and racism expressed through election results and policies around Europe; and of the return of fascism and Nazism. It is this moment that has prompted González-Ruibal et al. (above) to call for a new, politicised archaeology. In so doing, they urge archaeologists to abandon the soothing liberal but ineffective embrace of communities and the public. They also argue against identitarian politics and the discourse of apolitical and abstract multiculturalism. I am in broad agreement with them, and called some years ago for a shift from ethics to politics, and for an explicit, public political stance (Hamilakis 2007). If the politicisation of archaeology was important 10 years ago, it is much more urgent now. My slight unease with the authors' manifesto, however, is that its prose is too universalising, while simultaneously betraying its specific origin in a southern European context. Their dismissal of identity discourses tout court obscures the fact that phenomena such as race, for example, do not simply denote identitarian concerns. Such discourses are instead fundamental to the understanding of the production of whiteness and blackness (cf. Mbembe 2017); to colonialist, nationalist and capitalist modernity, to the class system; and to the emancipatory aspirations of all humans—not just those classified as 'coloured'. In another example, gender is not simply about certain identities. It primarily concerns the patriarchal and hetero-normative constitution of the current neoliberal order. Neither race nor gender can be disentangled from class or the genealogy of capitalist modernity. Another point of disagreement with the authors concerns their statement that " predatory capitalism does not need archaeologists, simply because it does not need legitimising " (González-Ruibal et al. above). Yet, colonialist and capitalist modernity is continually reproduced, partly through the genealogical and material narratives perpetuated by many scholars, including archaeologists. To heed the call for a politically effective archaeology in the service of social justice, we must decolonise the discipline that emerged at the intersection of colonial, racial and national modernity. What does this entail specifically? First, in undoing colonial archaeology and anthropology, we must decolonise time. This can be achieved, for example, by arguing against teleology, rejecting cultural evolutionist narratives based on hierarchical thinking, and on time as closure, destiny and causation. A decolonised, non-teleological time works against the dominant neoliberal dogma that asserts there is no alternative. For example, engagement with the deep past and with global cultural and biological diversity could contribute to greater awareness of the cohabitation of plants, animals and humans