In general practice, Indigenous archaeology employs all of the basic elements of archaeological theory, namely those associated with culture historical, processual, and postprocessual approaches. At the same time, its character has been influenced by the broadening discourse in anthropology and, somewhat later, archaeology that began to take shape in the late 1970s. It is thus a logical step in the historical development of archaeological thought and practice. This is especially evident in the shift in emphasis from the etic, empirical, and problem-oriented aspects of cultural historical and processual archaeology to the more emic, reflexive, and agency-oriented aspects of postprocessualism. Nonetheless, individuals in many Indigenous communities believe that they do not need archaeology to tell them what they already know about the past through other means.
Critics have suggested that Indigenous archaeology represents a highly subjective, ‘anything-goes’ approach. Some explanations by Indigenous peoples of
Figure 4 Lunch break during a trip to relocate a dugong hunting magic site inside the scrub in northern Cape York. Pictured are Kaio Ropeuarn, Mickeri Peter, Andrew Peter, Meun (Shorty) Lifu and Christo Lifu. (Photo Susan McIntyre - Tamwoy).
How things were in the past are, in fact, embedded in religious belief and thus do fall outside the realm of Western notions of science and history. However, as defined here, Indigenous archaeology is a relatively coherent body of method and theory contextualized by the needs, values, and critiques of Indigenous peoples. For example, it may operate as an extension of traditional archaeological methods conducted with, for, or by communities in CRM surveys; a pursuit of land claims; or supplementing or validating traditional histories.
Much of Indigenous archaeology is strongly oriented to identifying and hopefully addressing the limitations and biases of Western science, as well as the significant power imbalances faced by minority communities. It attempts to make archaeology more relevant, more responsiBle, and more representative through a strongly postcolonial orientation that runs parallel to, or intersects with Marxist theory, cultural relativism, feminist theory, and other explicitly Indigenous constructs. In turn, decolonization theory developed, in part, to address some of the key issues raised by Indigenous archaeology.
Depending upon its context, Indigenous archaeology may include any of the following theoretical elements in designing and implementing research practices:
• 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;
Figure 5 Dr Innocent Pikirayi supervising University of Pretoria 1st-year students on Bantu-speakers’ farming settlement excavation. Mmakau, Ga-Rankua, South Africa, 2005 (Photo courtesy of Sven Ouzman).
Figure 6 Students in Simon Fraser University’s Indigenous Archaeology Field School, 2004. Excavation of middle Holocene site on Kamloops Indian Reserve, Kamloops, British Columbia (G. Nicholas, Photo).
• 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, re-examination of categories, concepts, standpoints and perspectives; considering other viewpoints or ways of knowing.
Indigenous Methodologies
The principal goals of Indigenous archaeology are to broaden the scope of archaeology and to transform its practice. It seeks to do so primarily through its applications in a number of overlapping spheres in which Aboriginal peoples have a vested interest, especially heritage preservation, education, community history and traditional knowledge, cultural revitalization, and repatriation of knowledge and objects of cultural patrimony. However Indigenous archaeology has a dual and sometimes contradictory nature since it utilizes (indeed adds to) the spectrum of methods employed in archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and related fields, but also challenges them by developing alternative approaches to interpreting past lifeways. The resultant tension between competing Indigenous and Western ideologies has proved to be a productive area of new ideas.
The methodologies of Indigenous archaeology emphasize ethical and culturally appropriate behavior at all stages of research, a shift in the frame of reference (i. e., the postcolonial strategy of ‘de-centering’), reflexive approaches, research ethics, a recognition of the subjectivity of scientific objectivity, a concern with benefit sharing and community participation, and flexibility as to how and when community members will involve themselves. Research projects are designed with community needs and values in mind, which are often prioritized over the recovery of scientific data (which can lead to conflict with government permitting agencies). Archaeologists working with, and especially for, Indigenous peoples may thus be requested to serve as consultants, cultural brokers, facilitators, advocates, policy analysts, needs assessors, or expert witnesses. Given the different ways in which Indigenous peoples construct the world, it is no surprise that the heritage concerns of communities often go well beyond the scope of archaeology.
Research methods are informed by local (internalist) values, coupled with the recognition that not all elements of past lives are reflected in material culture. The four-field approach to anthropology therefore has great relevance since it provides access to and a framework for understanding all aspects of a society, including emic and etic perspectives. Oral histories often have a central role in Indigenous archaeology, for example, especially when different (i. e., customary) definitions of significance are identified, or when linked to archaeology through the congruence of methods and data, as promoted by Indigenous scholars. Eliminating the standard division between ‘historic’ and ‘prehistoric’ periods also removes an unnecessary separation of contemporary Aboriginal peoples from their past. The nature of research is also influenced by local worldviews, which can have significant implications for appropriate CRM strategies, for example, the absence of the familiar Western dichotomies of past/present and real/supernatural realms, plus time being viewed as nonlinear, mean that ancestral spirits are part of the contemporary landscape.
The scale of investigation may vary substantially, from landscape-centered to artifact-focused, from tangible to intangible cultural heritage. Concerns arise over biases or limitations associated with traditional survey and site sampling methods, as well as with the adequacy of site significance evaluations and predictive models (especially when the latter are seen or believed to contradict community knowledge of traditional or precontact land-use practices).
Field methods include standard data observational and collection strategies from archaeology, such as site survey, testing, and excavation techniques. In general, however, there is less reliance on empirical approaches and more standing given to nonempirical sources, including oral histories, folklore, traditional knowledge, and religious beliefs. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological methods include walking the land to identify traditional cultural properties, and use of focus groups, interviewing, and participant observation (all with informed consent), which may be used to discuss customary law or to identify local concerns about, or perceptions of what constitutes heritage sites.
At the request of the community, projects may be designed to use non-destructive, non-invasive field methods either entirely or to the degree possible. Artifacts and other materials may be reburied on site after analysis. Other methods of note include the occasional use of non-Cartesian site grids to locate circular subsurface test units; the use of topo-nomic information to direct fieldwork; alternative classification systems; and alternative curation methods (e. g., smudging artifacts). Customary or hybrid ceremonial activities are sometimes conducted prior to, during, or at the close of fieldwork, and may include storytelling, drumming, singing, and offerings by elders or community members to honor the ancestors, as well as smudging and ocher face paint to cleanse or protect crew members. Care is taken to use appropriate terminology, recognize the problematic nature of some terms by archaeologists (e. g., ‘prehistory’) and to show respect, especially to elders, the traditional custodians of Indigenous knowledge.
There have been major changes in the manner that human remains are treated, both in response to federal legislation and community consultation (Figure 7). Although there have been well-publicized examples of Native Americans employing NAGPRA to repatriate and rebury human remains without scientific study, there are as many cases where tribes have allowed or even requested such study, including aDNA testing and radiocarbon dating. Some Indigenous archaeologists work in this realm, or as mediators between archaeologists and communities.
Figure 7 Carrie Dan, Kamloops Indian Band, British Columbia, Canada, preparing birchbark baskets to hold human remains prior to reburial. Ms. Dan has a degree in Archaeology and has been involved in several studies of human skeletal remains. She has also served as an intermediary between Aboriginal communities, tribal governments, and archaeological consulting firms.
The broad operating framework of Indigenous archaeology is defined by a series of incentives that range from federal legislation to local community needs and initiatives, filtered through the continuing discourse between (and within) the Aboriginal and archaeological communities. Foremost are meeting the needs of the community, in terms of capacity building or resolving conflicts between developers. Much of the efforts of Indigenous archaeology deal with enabling communities to manage their own cultural heritage or to evaluate the work done by others on their territory. In Australia, North America, and elsewhere, the Indigenous people employed full or part time in archaeology today numbers at least in the hundreds, facilitated in many cases by new opportunities for academic, field-school, or work experience-based training. In some countries, however, Indigenous minorities are suppressed and part of the suppression involves distancing them from their archaeological heritage.
Contemporary tribal politics affecting archaeology include drafting heritage policies and the development of tribal permitting systems, research protocols, and guidelines. Involvement in archaeology by descendant communities can also be viewed as expressions of both resistance and cultural sovereignty. Increasingly, consultation with communities is a requirement of federal, state, or provincial legislation. Indigenous communities and organizations in some countries are creating their own archaeology or cultural heritage departments, as well as consulting companies. These mechanisms help provide access to and at least some control over the process and products of archaeology on tribal lands, as well as offer an alternative to the type of stewardship model endorsed by the Society for American Archaeology and other organizations. The introduction and integration of new large-scale resource management strategies by federal agencies has developed in direct response to concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. In North America, these initiatives include ‘traditional cultural properties’ (under Section 106, NHPA), and ‘Aboriginal cultural properties’ (Parks Canada), which are similar to some Indigenous stewardship programs that integrate cultural and natural resources.
Community-based protocols identifying who has rights to use and publish data and photographs are beginning to address long-standing concerns about cultural and intellectual property. Access to research results by the community, in appropriate formats (from public talks to DVDs, and from lay-oriented, jargon-free publications to technical reports), is important. There is growing use of film, digital recordings, and web-based media to record or present Aboriginal interpretations of cultural landscapes or other aspects of their culture, such as the Nganampa Anwernekenhe film series made by Indigenous Australians for both their own needs and public television. Tribal and public museums are also developing new ways to effectively present Indigenous and ‘scientific’ interpretations of the past, but also working to prevent the loss of intellectual property (e. g., the Hoodia biopiracy case in southern Africa).
In sum, Indigenous archaeology requires developing respect and trust through meaningful community interaction, consultation, negotiation, and collaboration; culturally appropriate behavior; a relatively informal, personal approach, and a long-term commitment to the community.
World History
