Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
References
All Topics
Anthropology
Archaeology

How can archaeology help shape decolonial futures

Profile image of Natasha J RaiNatasha J RaiProfile image of Linda MbekiLinda Mbeki

2025, Antiquity

Abstract

Between 23 and 25 October 2024, about 80 scholars from five continents gathered at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge in the UK for the ‘Envisioning Decolonial Futures Through Archaeology’ conference (Figure 1). The conference facilitated interaction between a great variety of perspectives on what it means to decolonise archaeology and how our discipline can help shape decolonial futures. Based on our experience organising this conference, in this Guest Editorial we discuss what we think decolonising archaeology entails, some of its many challenges and the necessity to create spaces for interaction to take place so that guidance on ‘decolonial thinking’ can emerge. Here, we reflect on the critical themes of disambiguation, interaction, indigeneity, memory, practice and imagination for envisioning decolonial futures through archaeology.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What unique challenges does archaeology pose in decolonizing practices today?add

The practice of archaeology is deeply entrenched in colonial discourses, as seen in the legacy of figures like Flinders Petrie, who supported eugenics through archaeological methods. Such historical precedents indicate the necessity for addressing epistemic power imbalances in knowledge production.

How does Indigenous involvement reshape archaeological collaborations?add

Collaborative projects with Indigenous communities, like those with the Wajãpi people, redefine archaeology by valuing local cosmological narratives as archaeological knowledge. This approach fosters mutual respect and reimagines the discipline beyond traditional Eurocentric frameworks.

What role does repatriation play in achieving decoloniality within archaeology?add

Repatriation, such as the 2021 return of a Benin Bronze by Jesus College, is crucial for establishing meaningful interactions between Indigenous communities and archaeological institutions. This process also emphasizes mutual respect and the ethical caretaking of ancestral remains.

What significance do collective memories have in contemporary archaeological practice?add

Investigations of sites like the New York African Burial Ground underscore how public memory can be political and contested, shaping narratives of identity. Engaging local communities in these efforts amplifies diverse voices and confronts historical injustices.

How can archaeology address the complexities of colonial legacies?add

Decolonial efforts in archaeology involve recognizing coloniality as an ongoing structure, necessitating the integration of diverse Indigenous knowledge systems. This reframing allows for a multidimensional understanding of history, promoting justice and representation in archaeological narratives.

Related papers

A Critical Examination of Decolonial and Indigenized Archaeology
Andres A Tuccillo

2024

Indigenous American archaeology has, from its inception, been fraught with unbalanced ethics, biased settler-colonial interpretations, and a lack of critical theorizing. This paper explores the complex questions and novel epistemological and ontological schemes that arose in the last century of archaeological scholarship to produce a set of questions that can guide future research.

View PDFchevron_right
Decolonizing/Indigenous Archaeology: A Literature Review
Timothy Lambert-Law de Lauriston

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).

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeological Encounters: The Role of the Speculative in Decolonial Archaeology
Uzma Z. Rizvi

Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2019

This article reorients archaeology's approach to things by acknowledging the moment of the encounter with the past as one of speculation. Years of scientific claim, research design and methodology place the agentive nature of research in the hands of the archaeologist: we go to the site to find the past. However, if we acquiesce to the possibility that antiquity approaches the archaeologist (rather than vice versa), then that forces us to contend with the contemporary nature of the encounter. This article considers the efficacy, urgency, and poetics of decolonization. Prologue Not all soil/miti is the same. 1

View PDFchevron_right
Hamilakis, Y. 2018. Decolonial archaeology as social justice. Antiquity 92: 518-520.
Yannis Hamilakis

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

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeology of Liberation vs. Political Archaeology: Rethinking the Past for a Just Future
Iranian Journal Archaeological Studies

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.

View PDFchevron_right
(2020) Confronting the Present: Archaeology in 2019
Melissa S. Rosenzweig

American Anthropologist 122(2), 2020

Post-modernity has a distinctly pre-apocalyptic feel to it, and this feeling has seeped into archaeology. A review of the scholarship from 2019 attests that archaeologists are having to reckon with present-day conditions and phenomena as they structure their research, delineate the material world, and affirm archaeology's relevance. Furthermore, these concerns have moved from the realm of the rarely spoken and come to constitute a critical conversation in the field. In a number of respects, the contours of archaeology now hinge upon the discipline's responses to developments in real time, including: How can archaeological knowledge production escape the logistical and epistemological bounds of late capitalism and its failures? Can archaeology contribute to future-building, and what would that look like? Does archaeology have to be scholar-activism to achieve the goal of making the past matter (to whom) (for what)? [archaeology, contemporary archaeology, future archaeology, current issues]

View PDFchevron_right
Is Archaeology Political? Transformative Praxis within and against the Boundaries of Archaeology. The Public Historian 31(2): 79-89, 2009.
Christopher Matthews
View PDFchevron_right
Archaeology for the Seventh Generation
Sara Gonzalez

The American Indian Quarterly, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Trailing Behind or Taking Strides? An Investigation into the Decolonisation of Archaeological Material in the Museum
Kleos - the Amsterdam Bulletin of Ancient Studies and Archaeology, Brodhie M . I . Molloy

2022

The paper examines the multiple contested heritages of museum artefacts held in the Western World. By using the British Museum as a test case, specifically though its Collecting and Empire Trail, it investigates the sharing of stories and narratives within a powerful institution and collecting environment. This leads on to a critique of the application and appropriateness of a decolonizing approach to a highly colonial past.

View PDFchevron_right
Reclaiming archaeology (introduction)
Alfredo González-Ruibal

In A. González-Ruibal (ed.): Reclaiming Archaeology: beyond the tropes of Modernity., 2013

Archaeology has been an important source of metaphors for some of the key intellectuals of the 20 th century , including philosophers, writers, art historians and historians: Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Alois Riegl, Michel Foucault or George Bataille to mention but a few. Some of them resorted to archaeological metaphors in a very explicit way (Freud, Foucault), others more unconsciously (Husserl or Heidegger: Edgeworth 2006), but, in any case, the allure of the archaeological is very present in the making of modern thought. However, this power of archaeology has also turned against archaeology, because the discipline has been dealt with perfunctorily as a mere provider of metaphors that other intellectuals have exploited (Olsen 2010: 2), often in more fruitful ways. Not surprisingly, if one searches the word "archaeology" in Google Scholar, the first three results refer to Foucault's work, not to "real" archaeology-which is ironic, because the book is actually a rejection of classical archaeological tropes (such as origins and depth).

View PDFchevron_right

References (50)

  1. AZEVEDO, D.L. 2019. Os mortos não pesam todos o mesmo: Uma reflexão sobre atribuição de identidade política às ossadas da Vala de Perus. Papeles del CEIC 2019/2: 218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/pceic.20389
  2. BASTOS, M.Q.R., R.V. SANTOS, S.M.F.M. DE SOUZA, C. RODRIGUES-CARVALHO, R.H. TYKOT, D.C. COOK & R.V. SANTOS. 2016. Isotopic study of geographic origins and diet of enslaved Africans buried in two Brazilian cemeteries. Journal of Archaeological Science 70: 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.020
  3. BELL, D.S.A. 2003. Mythscapes: memory, mythology, and national identity. British Journal of Sociology 54(1): 63-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0007131032000045905
  4. BIERS, T. 2023. Engaging with death in museums and collections, in T. Biers & K.S. Clary (ed.) The Routledge handbook of museums, heritage and death: 78-98. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195870
  5. BLAKEY, M. 2001. Bioarchaeology of the African diaspora in the Americas: its origins and scope. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 387-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1. 387 -2020. Archaeology under the blinding light of race. Current Anthropology 61 (S22): S183-97. https://doi.org/10.1086/710357
  6. BRUCHAC, M. 2014. Decolonization in archaeological theory, in C. Smith (ed.) Encyclopedia of global archaeology: 2069-77. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465- 2_258
  7. BRÜCK, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2: 313-44. https://doi.org/10.1179/eja.1999.2.3.313
  8. BUTLER, J. 2024. Lidia Thorpe: who is the MP who accused King Charles of genocide in fiery confrontation in Australian parliament? The Guardian, 21 January 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ 2024/oct/21/lidia-thorpe-who-is-the-mp-who- accused-king-charles-of-genocide-in-fiery- confrontation-in-australian-parliament-ntwnfb (accessed 23 January 2025).
  9. CABRAL, M.P. 2014. "E se todos fossem arqueólogos?": experiências na Terra Indígena Wajãpi. Anuário Antropológico 39 (2): 115-32. https://doi.org/10.4000/aa.1269
  10. -2016. Traces of past subjects: experiencing Indigenous thought as an archaeological mode of knowledge. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 2: S4-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jca.v2i2.28447 -2022. Cuando un pájaro viviente es un vestigio arqueológico: considerando la arqueología desde una perspectiva de conocimiento diferente, in F. Rojas, B. Ellsworth Hamann & B. Anderson (ed.) Otros pasados: ontologías alternativas y el estudio de lo que ha sido, 25-51. Bogota: Ediciones Uniandes.
  11. CONNAH, G. 2004. Forgotten Africa: an introduction to its archaeology. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203511800
  12. DUNAJEVA, J. 2023. Constructing identities over time: "bad Gypsies" and "good Roma" in Russia and Hungary. Budapest: Central European University Press.
  13. ERRERA, K. & S.M. DELULIIS. 2023. Public memory: the politics of remembering and forgetting. Southern Communication Journal 88 (1): 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2022. 2139407
  14. GAUVREAU, A. & D. MCLAREN. 2016. Stratigraphy and storytelling: imbricating Indigenous oral narratives and archaeology on the Northwest Coast of North America. Hunter Gatherer Research 2(3): 303-25. https://doi.org/10.3828/hgr.2016.22
  15. GIVEN, M. 2004. The archaeology of the colonized. London: Routledge.
  16. GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL, A. 2020. The archaeology of the Spanish civil war. London: Routledge.
  17. GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL, A., P.A. GONZÁLEZ & F. CRIADO-BOADO. 2018. Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology. Antiquity 92: 507-15. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.227
  18. GREABER, D. & D. WENGROW. 2021. The dawn of everything: a new history of humanity. London: Penguin.
  19. HABER, A. 2012. Un-disciplining archaeology. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 8: 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-011-9178-4 -2016. Decolonizing archaeological thought in South America. Annual Review of Anthropology 45: 469-85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro- 102215-095906
  20. HALL, M. 2001. Social archaeology and the theatres of memory. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/146960530100100104
  21. HAMILAKIS, Y. 2018. Decolonial archaeology as social justice. Antiquity 92: 518-20. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.17 -2025. Palestine is our working condition: border pedagogy, materiality, and the corporate university. Archaeological Dialogues: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203824000114
  22. KHOMAMI, N. 2021. Cambridge college to be first in UK to return looted Benin bronze. The Guardian, 15 October 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/ oct/15/cambridge-college-to-be-first-uk-return- looted-benin-bronze (accessed 23 January 2025).
  23. KOOTKER, L.M., L. MBEKI, A.G. MORRIS, H. KARS & G.R. DAVIES. 2016. Dynamics of Indian Ocean slavery revealed through isotopic data from the colonial era Cobern Street Burial Site, Cape Town, South Africa (1750-1827). PLoS ONE 11 (6): e0157750. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157750
  24. KRENAK, A. 2020. Ideas do postpone the end of the world. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
  25. LANE, P. 2011. Possibilities for a postcolonial archaeology in sub-Sahara Africa: Indigenous and usable pasts. World Archaeology 43: 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011.
  26. LEMOS, R. 2023. Can we decolonize the ancient past? Bridging postcolonial and decolonial theory in Sudanese and Nubian archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 33: 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774322000178
  27. LIMA, T.A. 2013. Arqueologia como ação sociopolítica: o caso do Cais do Valongo, Rio de Janeiro, século XIX. Vestígios -Revista Latino-Americana de Arqueologia Histórica 7 (1): 179-207. https://doi.org/10.31239/vtg.v7i1.10617 -2020. Valongo: an uncomfortable legacy. Current Anthropology 61: S317-27. https://doi.org/10.1086/709820
  28. -2024. Valongo, the place of the ancestors: spiritual practices among enslaved Africans in nineteenth-century Rio de Janeiro. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 13 (1): 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/21619441.2024. 2393525
  29. LYDON, J. & U. RIZVI. 2010. Introduction: postcolonialism and archaeology, in J. Lydon and U.Z. Rizvi (ed.) Handbook of postcolonial archaeology: 17-33. London: Routledge.
  30. MCINTOSH, S.K. 2023. West Africa: villages, cities and early states. New York: Elsevier.
  31. MELOCHE, C.H., L. SPAKE & K.L. NICHOLS (ed.). 2020. Introduction: working together to do better, in Working with and for ancestors: collaboration in the care and study of ancestral remains: 1-17. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809317
  32. MICKEL, A. 2023. Active archaeology in the Middle East. Forum Kritische Archäologie 12: 44-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-40263
  33. MIGNOLO, W. 2017. Coloniality is far from over, and so must be decoloniality. Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry 43 (1): 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1086/692552
  34. MONROE, C. & A. OGUNDIRAN. 2012. Power and landscape in Atlantic West Africa: archaeological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. MORO-ABADÍA, O. 2006. The history of archaeology as a 'colonial discourse'. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 16 (2): 4-17. https://doi.org/10.5334/bha.16202
  36. NICHOLAS, G. 2008. Native peoples and archaeology, in D.M. Pearsall (ed.) Encyclopedia of archaeology, Vol. 3: 1660-69. New York: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373962-9. 00203-X NICHOLAS, G. & T.D. ANDREWS (ed.). 1997. Indigenous archaeology in the post-modern world, in At a crossroads: archaeology and First Peoples in Canada: 1-18. Burnaby: Archaeology Press.
  37. OLIVEIRA, N.V. 2002. Escavando "desaparecidos" em um cemitério do Rio de Janeiro. Fronteiras: Revista de História 6 (11): 79-86.
  38. PYBURN, K.A. 1999. Native American religion versus archaeological science: a pernicious dichotomy revisited. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 355-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0026-5
  39. QUIJANO, A. 2000. Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina, in E. Lander (ed.) La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. Perspectivas Latinoamericanas: 193-238. Buenos Aires: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.
  40. RAI, N. 2024. Indigenous archaeologies (again). Archaeological Review from Cambridge 39 (2): 1-17.
  41. SCHOEMAN, M.H. & I. PIKIRAYI. 2011. Repatriating more than Mapungubwe human remains: archaeological material culture, a shared future and an artificially divided past. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 29(4): 389-403.
  42. SHEPHERD, N. 2007. Archaeology dreaming: post-apartheid urban imaginaries and the bones of the Prestwich Street dead. Journal of Social Archaeology 7: 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605307067842
  43. SHEPPARD, K. 2010. Flinders Petrie and eugenics at UCL. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 20 (1): 16-29. https://doi.org/10.5334/bha.20103
  44. SIMAS, L.A. 2019. O corpo encantado das ruas. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
  45. STEEVES, P. 2021. The Indigenous paleolithic of the western hemisphere. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  46. TUCK, E. & K.W. YANG. 2012. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1): 1-40. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/ article/view/18630 (accessed 23 January 2025).
  47. VAN DOMMELEN, P. 2011. Postcolonial archaeologies between discourse and practice. World Archaeology 43: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011. 544883
  48. WALSH, C. 2014. Pedagogical notes from the decolonial cracks. Decolonial Gesture 11 (1). https://hemisphericinstitute.org/en/emisferica- 11-1-decolonial-gesture/11-1-dossier/ pedagogical-notes-from-the-decolonial-cracks. html (accessed 23 January 2025).
  49. WILKIE, L. & K.M. BARTOY. 2000. A critical archaeology revisited. Current Anthropology 41: 747-77. https://doi.org/10.1086/317405
  50. WYLIE, A. 2015. A plurality of pluralisms: collaborative practice in archaeology, in F. Padovani, A. Richardson & J. Tsou (ed.) Objectivity in science: 189-210. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10

Related papers

Archaeology and decolonization
Nick Shepherd

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 Arqueologı´a Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentina) and Cristo´ bal Gnecco (Colombia), discuss the topic of archaeology and decolonization.

View PDFchevron_right
Peter Ucko Memorial Lecture, Decolonizing Archaeological Practice: Gazing into the Past to Transform the Future
Peter Schmidt

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.

View PDFchevron_right
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
Margaret M. Bruchac

Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
Accounting for Multiple Desires: Decolonizing Methodologies, Archaeology, and the Public Interest
Uzma Z. Rizvi

2006

Contemporary archaeological practice is shifting from object based to people based research, subsequently requiring and creating new methodological approaches to studying the past. As our lens refocuses, in this case upon India with its particular colonial past, archaeologists are turning to postcolonial frameworks for new field methodologies. Public interest and community based archaeology are two distinct, albeit related in motivation, approaches that provide the infrastructure to allow for a participatory, collaborative, and interaction based archaeological project, thus destabilizing archaeological practice that colonizes landscapes and people, and promotes specific types of knowledge of the past through that process.

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeology and Applied Anthropology as a Collaborative Approach to Decolonization
Buck Woodard

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.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Archaeological Practice
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved