Indigenous Archaeololgy

The specter of Kennewick Man has loomed large over North American archaeology. In his wake, a wide array of issues relating to tribal sovereignty, reburial, and repatriation have dominated the relationship between archaeologists and Native Americans for much of the last decade and also attracted the attention of the public more than virtually any other discovery. The Kennewick court case has not only challenged existing heritage legislation but also served as an important rallying point for many Indigenous peoples, and even an opportunity for peripheral interest groups, such as the Asatru Folk Assembly, to lay claim to him. Regardless of their personal views, it is safe to say that every archaeologist has been affected in some way by this controversy. Even after the court case has finally been concluded, the relationship archaeologists and Native Americans will remain tinged by unresolved issues. Largely lost in the continuing Kennewick controversy, however, are two important issues. The first is that the influence, and indeed knowledge, of the Kennewick case may be more limited in many Aboriginal communities in Canada (and likely elsewhere) than is commonly thought. While many communities are very concerned about the welfare of found ancestral human remains, this is most often focused on local instances and issues. he second issue is that other approaches to ancient human remains now being employed by some Aboriginal groups in Canada and the United States are significantly under-reported, which skews perceptions about the relationship between Indigenous peoples and archaeology. ...

The Qwu?gwes wet site is located at the very head of Puget Sound in Washington State, USA (fig 1). Puget Sound has been referred to as an inland sea, but is better termed as a large glacially cut fjord that is approximately 145km long, running north to south, where the ocean salt water from the Pacific mixes with fresh water draining from the surrounding watersheds. Puget Sound was formed into the north–south fjord it is today by glaciers that advanced from the north at least four times, scouring and carving it for millions of years (Waitt & Thorson 1983). The Vashon Stade was the last major advance, reaching its maximum about 18,000 years ago, covering everything between the Olympic and the Cascade mountains and spreading as far south as our specific region of study. As the Vashon Stade retreated, its melting ice created a massive fresh water lake that released through the Black Lake spillway at the head of Eld Inlet, our site location, and down the Chehalis River drainage to the Pacific Ocean. Once the glaciers melted far enough north, the Straits of Juan de Fuca were open and salt water from the Pacific Ocean entered Puget Sound, making it the salt water ‘inland sea’ it is today (fig 1).

Our research area encompasses the southern reaches of the traditional territory of the Lushootseed-speaking Coast Salish People and language family, sometimes referred to as Puget [Sound] Salish (Suttles & Lane 1990, 485–502; Thompson & Kinkade 1990, 38; fig 1). Few systematic archaeological investigations have occurred in this region, especially in the southern section of Lushootseed traditional territory, so this paper should be considered a much needed synthesis of a well-preserved waterlogged site. Qwu?gwes forms the main reference point for our synthesized presentations, and this work is based on the original papers presented by the authors at the 11th International Wetland Archaeology Research Project (WARP) conference in Edinburgh (21–24 September 2005). This joint investigation of the Squaxin Island Tribe and South Puget Sound Community College has been ongoing for several years and provides both a scientific and cultural perspective of the many findings. Earlier publications stress the basis of this joint co-operative effort and the need for co-ordinated scientific and Native cultural understandings and explanations (Foster & Croes 2002, 2004).

Four stars in the night sky have been formally recognised by their Australian Aboriginal names. The names include three from the Wardaman people of the Northern Territory and one from the Boorong people of western Victoria. The Wardaman star names are Larawag, Wurren and Ginan in the Western constellations Scorpius, Phoenix and Crux (the Southern Cross). The Boorong star name is Unurgunite in Canis Majoris (the Great Dog). They are among 86 new star names drawn from Chinese, Coptic, Hindu, Mayan, Polynesian, South African, and Aboriginal Australian cultures.

What does being an archaeologist mean to Indigenous persons? How and why do some become archaeologists? What has led them down a path to what some in their communities have labeled a colonialist venture? What were are the challenges they have faced, and the motivations that have allowed them to succeed? How have they managed to balance traditional values and worldview with Western modes of inquiry? And how are their contributions broadening the scope of archaeology? Indigenous archaeologists have the often awkward role of trying to serves as spokespeople both for their home community and for the scientific community of archaeologists. This volume tells the stories—in their own words-- of 36 indigenous archaeologists from six continents, how they became archaeologists, and how their dual role affects their relationships with their community and their professional colleagues.

For the last six years I engaged in a series of activities with the Wajãpi, a Tupian people living in the extreme North of Brazil, in the Amazon forest. As soon as we started field work, many archaeological sites were registered. It didn´t take me long, though, to realize that there was much more to know about material remains of the past, as seen from a Wajãpi point of view. Following the Wajãpi mode of knowledge regarding the past and its traces, I aimed to unveil processes of engagement and meaning with material past, which are analogous to archaeology.  I argue that we should experiment more with the idea that “we are all archaeologist”, both as means of critique towards disciplinary knowledge production, and as means to perceive other modes of knowledge.

"Croes describes his type of archaeology as 'generationally-linked.'  His collaboratin with Ed Carriere, Suquamish Elder and Master Basketmaker, brings tools of Western science together with Indigenous knowledge and research approaches to gain a deep understanding of the weavings they have recovered.  They are able to see that ancient knowledge has been handed down through hundreds of generations over thousands of years by comparing the ancient baskets to the techniques used by weavers today.

Introduction to Kiva Fall 2021 special issue focused on Diné (Navajo) archaeology. Discusses key themes within the area of study, as well as a short discussion of the five research articles (Weiner & Kelley 2021; Campbell 2021; Lee 2021; Two Bears 2021; and Wero & Martin 2021) that make up the issue. The other articles cover topics ranging from: Navajo insights about Chaco Canyon, reservation-era pastoralism, weaving craft traditions, boarding school ethnohistory, and the historical archaeology of uranium mining.

A study was initiated for the course work of Landscape Urbanism curated by Professor Kelly Shannon for which each participant were asked to analyze one indigenous and one designed case from their home country based on a detailed reading of Landscape Urbanism Reader. This assembles a dilapidated 300 years old settlement called "The Panam Nagar" and a 50 years old Residential University Master plan done by famous Bangali Modernist Architect  Muzharul Islam. The paper aims at manifesting logic of urbanism and landscape for this two cases and tries to relate them based on a literary arguments and imagery discussion.

Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory and practice in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeology seeks to (1) make archaeology more representative 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 interpretation of the archaeological record through the incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories, and science. ...

By the end of the 18th century, the Haudenosaunee had been working and living with multiple European groups for over 250 years. Though they were adept at political negotiation, they were losing their ability to negotiate as an equal power or nation with Europeans and Euro-Americans. The Oneida Nation was an important negotiating unit in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy during this power struggle. The village of Oquaga was on the very southern fringes of Iroquois territory and thus a key town in the borderlands and frontier.  Oquaga was a firmly established Oneida town, but served as a refugee site for numerous Native groups including the Tuscarora, which symbiotically kept the rest of the Oneida communities further north safer within a buffer of refugee settlements. There are numerous primary source documents associated with Oquaga; these sources were analyzed to reconstruct the socio-political and physical landscape of late 18th century Oquaga. The content of each source was considered for what they relate about social and political relationships among Native and non-Native groups. The primary sources were coded using geographical and other place and people-related tags. These attributes were entered into a Microsoft Excel database.  As the attributes were entered into the database for each source, there were several similar themes in both the text and subtext observed between sources; after the attributes were sorted bundles of attributes became apparent (such as numerous mentions of an orchard, a specific house, a specific satellite village, the river, etc.). Those areas mentioned the most were then mapped in a GIS layer for each source, and then layered onto a contemporary map creating a resource for further archaeological research at Oquaga. The resulting map lays out where many of the Oquagan satellite villages were probably located, plus the location of additional potential features such the blockhouse and planting grounds.

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).

The purpose of this chapter is to argue for the end of Indigenous archaeology. The title is intentionally provocative, but it does reflect an important and fundamental set of issues. Here I take what can be termed a bipolar approach. Currently Indigenous archaeology is emerging as a distinct form of the discipline, and some would suggest a very sepa- rate one; certainly, this approach remains at the margins of archaeology. While I strongly encourage the pursuit of community-based, ethnocritical, and reflexive methods and modes of interpretation as much-needed and long-overdue elements in contemporary archaeology, at the same time I suggest that we must also work to eliminate Indigenous archaeology as a creature that resides solely outside of the mainstream. That is, rather than working to develop Indigenous approaches to archaeology separate from others, we should be trying to incorporate them within the discipline. Failing to do so will limit significantly or marginalise the potential contributions of archaeology as a more representative and responsible discipline, and constrain its continued intellectual growth....

In southern Ontario, heritage preservation and protection are mandated under provincial provisions but there has been little involvement of Indigenous nations whose ancestral (i.e., archaeological) sites are the focus of the heritage resource industry. This study investigated and sought solutions to Indigenous concerns about heritage control and
archaeological mitigation practices, and identified various Indigenous roles in the heritage resource management industry. Interviews were conducted with representatives from three Indigenous nations in southern Ontario: 1) the Anishinabek; 2) the Haudenosaunee; and 3) the Huronne-Wendat. Interview analysis was conducted using NVivo analysis software to transcribe and compartmentalize interview data allowing for an in-depth analysis of the semi-structured interviews. The analysis of results allowed for generalizations but also incorporated many participants’ unique perspectives. Participant’s responses contributed to developing a set of recommendations of full Indigenous nation inclusion in archaeological assessments in southern Ontario through the implementation of Indigenous-oriented approaches based on relationship building between archaeologists and Indigenous nations.

The implementation of Indigenous, collaborative, and community-oriented approaches in archaeological research and practice is promoted by many archaeologists as the path to the decolonization of archaeology. Collaborative archaeology, however, may inadvertently cause harm because it can produce certain interpretations of the past that can effectively promote the Indigenous rights of one descendant community over other communities or silence the political voices of certain members within the same community. This paper presents two case studies of attempted community-oriented archaeology with different Indigenous groups in Canada, each of which encountered barriers and complications in the collaborative process. The authors conclude that community-based archaeology, despite its good intentions, has the potential to do harm to Indigenous rights and self-determination. For archaeologists who are intent on decolonizing archaeology in solidarity with Indigenous peoples, there may be situations where archaeologists should refrain from doing archaeology, support archaeology carried out by Indigenous archaeologists in their own communities and, where appropriate, become active politically in advocating for Indigenous rights and the decolonization of Canada.

This thesis contributes to contemporary debates on repatriation and reburial within the discipline of archaeology, as well as providing a valuable resource for the Ngarrindjeri community. Privileging community voice and opinion and recognising the value of Indigenous expertise and knowledge in this research has provided specific insights into the implications of repatriating Old People to Indigenous communities. I argue that the repatriation process operating in the Australian context is still in early stages of development. It is a process that does not adequately support Indigenous communities in their efforts to ensure that their Old People are laid to rest.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This course provides an introduction to the archaeology of North America. We will explore alternative histories and decolonizing practices that promote a more diverse and inclusive archaeology. We will also examine how the practice of archaeology in North America has changed since its early days while exploring how recent social movements have led to a more ethically committed archaeological practice. This course is designed to challenge students to examine the past to better understand the present though socially engaged perspectives, such as: Black Lives Matter, feminism, gender, queer theory, indigenous archaeology, and multivocality. African diaspora, racism, colonialism, NAGPRA, and repatriation will also be discussed. We will cover a large time-frame, from the initial peopling of the Americas to the present day. Furthermore, the topics we will cover include: environmental archaeology, foodways, childhood, fieldwork, dating methods, interpretation, materiality, everyday life, ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, warfare, and the archaeology of California. By the end of the course, students will have a better understanding of the dynamic theories and methods of North American archaeology, and will be capable of critically reflecting upon how to conduct archaeology within a decolonizing framework. One of the greatest values of studying the past is the awareness we gain of ourselves and the present world by assessing our own and others' experiences, and by evaluating how our own background and beliefs may color our interpretations of the past.

This paper examines ongoing challenges facing Indigenous peoples and their heritage, the consequences of inadequate heritage protection, and new initiatives that counter this. Indigenous scholars, tribal leaders, and others have done much to educate outsiders as to their heritage values and ways of life. My goal is to identify areas where governments, industry, the public, and even academic researchers have failed to understand this. I rst examine seven signi cant challenges: 1) heritage site destruction and disturbance; 2) repatriation of ancestral remains; 3) unauthorised study of ancestral remains; 4) restrictions on access to or protection of sacred places; 5) dismissal of oral histories and traditional knowledge; 6) cultural appropriation and commodi cation; and 7) limited consultation or participation in heritage management. I then review six areas where informed and innovative actions are providing e ective, respectful, and responsible heritage protection therein: 1) Indigenous participation, decision making and bene ts ow; 2) Indigenous intellectual property; 3) research ethics; 4) new applications of archaeological methods; 5) policy development and implementation; and 6) corporate responsibility, public outreach and education.

"The archaeology of colonialism can destabilize orthodox historical
narratives because of its critical engagement with multiple lines of evidence, revealing ways that different perspectives can complement or contradict what was assumed to be known about the past. In Oceania, archaeology that blends evidence from landscapes, sites, and artifacts with written documents as well as oral traditions reveals the role of indigenous people in shaping colonial encounters across the region over the last five centuries. The challenge lies with how to interpret this material in terms of ongoing struggles over land, resources, and identity in the region today, encapsulated by the tension between global and local."

NOTE: This is the Author's personal copy of this paper. For the authoritative version, please use the link below.""

Il lavoro di Davide Tanasi affronta un momento finora poco studiato delle relazioni tra Sicilia e Malta nella preistoria, quello dell'età del Bronzo Medio siciliano (metà XV – metà XIII secolo a.C.). Attraverso un riesame della documentazione, solo in parte edita, conservata nei musei di Siracusa e Malta, l'autore propone un nuovo catalogo di siti coinvolti nell’interrelazione, ridefinendo i modi e le forme del contatto e, sulla base dello studio comparato delle produzioni ceramiche di Thapsos e Borg in Nadur, evidenzia una trasmissione di know-how tra gli artigiani della ceramica siciliani e maltesi. Inoltre l’analisi comparata delle influenze micenee sulle due culture indigene ha apportato nuovi dati per l’interpretazione della natura dei rapporti che legavano la Sicilia, Malta e l’Egeo.

In British Columbia, Canada, the practice of archaeology has been strongly influenced by issues of First Nations rights and the ways government and industry have chosen to address them. In turn, this situation has affected academic (i.e., research-based) and consulting (i.e., cultural resource management) archaeology, which have had to respond to changes in the provincial Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) and to the implementation of archaeological overview assessments (AOAs) and traditional-use studies (TUSs). Protocols also encourage or require archaeologists to consult with First Nations regarding project design and implementation. However, the regional archaeological site assessment strategies and predictive models that are part of the process of heritage resource management have been viewed by First Nations as having mixed results, often falling short of either achieving a representative view of past land use activities (and a deeper understanding of their meaning) or adequately recognizing and protecting valued sites. While the consultation process has been politically motivated, it does encourage archaeologists to consider new research directions regarding past land use and its meaning. ....

In this paper presented at the Pre-Columbian Society of Washington DC, November 2013, the author proposes answers to questions which have puzzled scholars since the 19th century concerning the enigmatic recumbent Mesoamerican figure known as the "chacmool", so named by French adventurer and photographer Augustus Le Plongeon.  While most scholars are convinced that chacmools were a genuine innovation for a specific type of sacrificial altar for the placement of an offering bowl, several key questions have remained: (1) What was the culture and place of origin of this remarkable sculptural innovation? (2) Who were these male figures?  (3) What is the origin and meaning of the challenging recumbent pose for these human figures with the unblinking, enigmatic gaze? (4) What were they, and what were they called, or described with a phrase, in any Mesoamerican language? Based on recent archaeological discoveries, the author presents a new interpretation of the "chacmool" as the elite "hip ulama" ball game ballplayer stylistically rendered in a serene and formalized ritual “por abajo” stance, well after the game is over, to play the final role as the recipient of the sacrifices. With this new interpretation the author hopes to open the door to finding the indigenous name or description of the "chacmool".

Indigenous archaeology comprises a broad set of ideas, methods, and strategies applied to the discovery and interpretation of the human past that are informed by the values, concerns, and goals of Indigenous peoples. It has been defined, in part, as: “... an expression of archaeological theory and practice in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or - directed projects, and related critical perspectives” (Nicholas 2008: 1660). This multi-faceted approach to heritage has multiple goals in addressing a wide range of topics — from differences between indigenous and Western epistemologies, to inequalities in representation, decision making, and benefits flow, to challenges relating to indigeneity and racialism — and assumes different forms and strategies in a variety of circumstances.

I take a pragmatic approach to discussing indigenous heritage, which constitutes the focus of most of the archaeology we do. If descendant groups are denied direct and meaningful means of engaging in decision making concerning their heritage, then heritage management policies are ineffective at best and harmful at worst. My position is based on three points: 1) that access to and control over one’s own heritage is a basic human right essential to their survival; 2) that Indigenous peoples in “settler countries” have historically been separated from their heritage, experienced little benefit from heritage-related research and suffered cultural and spiritual harms and economic loss as a result; and 3) that community-based heritage initiatives are capable of challenging colonial structures in the research process without compromising the integrity of archaeology. My goal here is to discuss the need for a theoretically, ethically and politically viable approach to heritage research with, for and by descendant communities. What follows is a discussion of heritage values and human rights relating to those three premises. I begin by discussing the nature of heritage, and particularly indigenous heritage. I then shift to community-based initiatives that challenge existing power structures in archaeology and heritage research: first through Indigenous archaeology and then through the IPinCH Project. I conclude with an example of an intervention made to change heritage policy to illustrate the relevance of and urgency in addressing issues and concerns relating to colliding cultural values, inequities in heritage preservation, and the responsibilities that we have, individually and collectively.

Archaeological practice is undergoing a dramatic shift in the North American Arctic. As elsewhere, factors both internal and external to the discipline are working to expand and transform the structure, demographics, and objectives of professional practice. A major part of this shift hinges on the relationships between indigenous peoples and the archaeological establishment. Over the past forty years, Inuit, Dene, Alaskan Native, and other northern indigenous communities have increasingly demanded a stake in their archaeological heritage; archaeological practitioners have responded in varying ways, from resistance and naïveté to both tentative and concerted moves towards more inclusive practices. This chapter describes the evolving relationship between northern native communities and archaeologists, characterizes the elements of community-based practices, and examines some of the forms, approaches and applications of this emergent paradigm in Arctic archaeology.

During the summer of 2017 there was a cultural heritage project in the Fulufjället national park, in Dalarna Sweden. This was part of a bigger interreg-project called Gränsöverskridande besöksförvaltning för Fulufjällets nationalparker. the purpose of the work was to identify and document cultural heritage sites that could be interesting to develop as visitor attractions, make them accessible and add further values to the national park. And also to increase the knowledge of the cultural heritage sites of the national park.
Before the field work 6 sites were known and registered. After the field work, 240 sites/objects are now known in the national park. Only about 2% of the national park was part of the field work.
The report is in Swedish.

Nos primeiros contatos que eu tive com os Wajãpi, um povo tupi que vive na região entre os rios Jari e Oiapoque (Amapá e Guiana Francesa), durante oficinas de formação de pesquisadores indígenas, eu percebi que na Terra Indígena Wajãpi – como em outras áreas do Amapá e da Amazônia em geral – havia muitos sítios arqueológicos. Mas eu também percebi que além dos sítios arqueológicos havia muito para se conhecer sobre o que os Wajãpi pensam a respeito dos sítios. Sem falar no tanto que os Wajãpi conhecem sobre outras coisas que nós arqueólogos não consideramos sítios, mas que podem funcionar como sítios nos seus próprios termos. Nesta pesquisa, eu busquei conhecer a maneira como os Wajãpi constroem explicações sobre o passado utilizando vestígios de outros tempos, os traços materiais que seguem disponíveis hoje na sua terra. A partir da ideia de que todos são arqueólogos (a transposição para a arqueologia de uma sugestão do antropólogo Roy Wagner), entendo a arqueologia como um modo de conhecer que pode ser praticado em diferentes grupos. Meu exercício, ao acompanhar e participar do encontro dos Wajãpi com a arqueologia, foi investigar que arqueologia era esta praticada por eles. Os resultados apontam para uma arqueologia fortemente embasada nas percepções sensoriais, em um entrelaçamento entre coisas e pessoas que – diferentemente do conhecimento científico – tem na subjetivação o seu valor intrínseco.

Palavras-chave: arqueologia indígena – modos de conhecer – diálogos interculturais - Wajãpi