Indigenous Archaeology

George P. Nicholas, Amy Roberts, David M. Schaepe, Joe Watkins, Lyn Leader-Elliot and Susan Rowley Department of Anthropology, Simon Fraser University; Department of Archaeology, Flinders University; Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre; Native American Studies Program, University of Oklahoma; Department of Archaeology, Flinders University; Museum of Anthropology, University of British Columbia nicholas@sfu.ca; amy.roberts@flinders.edu.au; dave.schaepe@stolonation.bc.ca; jwatkins@ou.edu; lyn.leader-elliott@flinders.edu.au; srowley@interchange.ubc.ca

Tutchener and Claudie’s article is a timely reconsideration of the term ‘contact’ and its place in Australian First Peoples archaeology. Tutchener and Claudie argue that the concept of ‘contact’, used to describe early, cross-cultural interactions between the First Peoples of Australia and Europeans, has become ‘outdated and requires revisiting’. Two elements of their argument are considered here: that the term ‘contact’ continues to be used widely in Australia, and that it ‘does not recognise and respect the persistence of Indigenous culture’. Here, it is argued that reasons for the continued use of 'contact' in Australian First Peoples archaeology warrant further consideration, and that, for some Traditional Custodians, the concept of ‘contact’ assists with identifying cultural resilience in their community. The question that follows is, can we practicably avoid using the term ‘contact’ in Australian archaeology?

Increased interaction between indigenous peoples and archaeologists has raised a number of issues, primary among which is the nature of appropriate theoretical structures. Many alternate perspectives may be useful. However. the issue is complicated by the presence of two types of knowledge systems: subjective knowledge held unavailable for evaluation (e.g. some religious beliefs). and objective knowledge that can be evaluated by individuals employing different perspectives (e.g.. some migration stories). Subjective knowledge is inherently personal and consensus on these issues may not be possible. In contrast. evaluation of objective knowledge may allow indigenous groups and archaeologists to reach a consensus concerning the past.

For the past several years the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon have partnered with the Confederated Tribes of Siletz lnctians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to assist Dr. Dale Croes of South Puget Sound Community Col lege (SPSCC) in providing stewardship and management over a unique site named the Sunken Village Site. This site is unique not just due to its preservation and content but also in that it has been an opportunity for International (Japanese sponsorship in this case), federal , state, and local agencies to work with Tribes in the preservation of a area that is geologically distinct and vitally important to the maintenance of the culture of the three Tribes involved. This world-wide partnership will not only allow us to better understand but also better protect one of the best wet sites on the Columbia River.

This is my MA Thesis at WSU on the Ozette Baskets.  I attempted to do two parts of the scientific approach here, (1) observe and describe the 112 ancient Ozette baskets available at the time and (2) classify the basket attributes and types into explicit units of analysis for later use in the third part of the scientific approach (3)  explain and create hypotheses about these basket in comparisons to all other known Northwest Coast wet sites for my Ph.D. dissertation.  I also only do Ozette baskets in this study, and the Ph.D. dissertation also includes Ozette hats and mats.  To use the basket, hats, and mats classification and type designations, PLEASE USE THE 1977 and updated 2019 PH.D. DISSERTATION AS YOUR REFERENCE.  THIS MA HAD DIFFERENT TYPE NUMBER DESIGNATIONS, SO NOT CURRENT FOR COMPARATIVE WORK.

Here's how I describe this work in the original MA Thesis:

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study are; first, to describe what has been found in the realm of baskets at the 0zette Site (45 CA 24), Cape Alava, Washing­ton; second, to establish a foundation for predicting what should be ex­pected in future excavations of baskets from this time period at 0zette; and third, to establish control of these data so that the 0zette baskets can be compared with both historic and prehistoric baskets in this area and elsewhere. This study will later be expanded to include the other forms of basketry--hats, mats, and cradles--and the cordage and knots at 0zette.

The baskets from 0zette were excavated from beneath a massive mudslide which, in prehistoric time (estimated to be about 500 years ago), covered a section of an occupied Indian village. The cultural material of this village closely resembles the historic materials of the Makah and Southern Nootkan groups. Almost all vegetal artifacts were preserved in a waterlogged environment under the mudslide. At present the area covered by the slide is being excavated and exposed from the seaward edge toward the center. The first longhouse encountered is nearly excavated. All the baskets in this house have not yet been recovered, but a large enough sample is available so that a basic study such as this can be accomplished. The collection of baskets used for this paper numbers 112 specimens [much higher for the 1977, 2019 Ph.D. dissertation]. The collection surely will be several times this size when excavations have been completed.

The universe for this study is from the first buried house exca­vated at Ozette (house B70 in the excavation series). This house is similar to the long shed roof structures of historic Makah, Nootka, and other coastal peoples. It is 66 feet long and about 36 feet wide, or approxi­mately 2,375 square feet in area. Baskets in the house were generally
found around the inside wall, along the bench-bed platform area where most of the household activities took place. Baskets found outside the house were generally broken, discarded ones. This analysis differs from previous studies of basketry in terms of the analytic techniques used. Nonetheless, the various attributes of baskets and the terminology used to describe them are standard and have been developed and used in studies of basketry over the past 70 years.

In the study of archaeological or historical cultural landscapes in the maritime environment, it is most important to see the landscape and settlement (more widely-the world) as the sea[people] and fisher[people] did in the past, approaching the shore from the sea or from the rivers (Ilves 2004: 168).

The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity-how archaeologists conceptualize difference-and collaboration-how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies.

La critique de l'archéologie dans une perspective autochtone et postcoloniale a été largement acceptée, du moins en théorie, dans de nombreuses colonies de colons, du Canada à la Nouvelle-Zélande. Dans le présent texte, j'aimerais développer cette critique de deux façons : d'une part, je soulignerai certaines questions qui n'ont pas été résolues ; d'autre part, j'aborderai les expériences autochtones et coloniales qui sont différentes de celles des colonies de colons britanniques, qui ont façonné massivement notre compréhension de l'indigénéité et de la relation entre l'archéologie et celle-ci. Je m'intéresse particulièrement à deux problèmes clés : l'altérité-comment les archéologues conçoivent la différence-et la collaboration-comment les archéologues imaginent leur relation avec des personnes d'un autre milieu culturel. Mes réflexions sont basées sur mes expériences personnelles de travail avec des communautés d'Europe du Sud, d'Afrique subsaharienne et d'Amérique du Sud qui diffèrent sensiblement de celles que l'on retrouve habituellement dans les archéologies autochtones.

As an expatriot in Polynesia, French painter Paul Gauguin was deeply troubled by the impact of Western culture upon Tahitian society in the late 19th century. His painting Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? [D'où Venons Nous / Que Sommes Nous / Où Allons Nous] reflects a period of intense change, and also marks the loss of his romanticism. Gauguin’s three questions provide the basis for this essay on the changing role of anthropology in the postmodern world, which, like Gauguin, is appreciably different from what it was just a generation ago. While current theoretical and methodological trends will continue to develop, I discuss here some of the new challenges in the coming century, foremost of which may be those relating to knowledge and power.

At a community event some years ago on an Indian Reserve in British Columbia, I overhead a Secwepemc elder say to a young man who was fooling around, “You can’t listen when your mouth is moving. So be quiet and learn.” He was suitably embarrassed in front of his peers and thanked her for the important lesson. This paper is about what can be learned when we, as archaeologists, stop talking and listen—advice I have long taken to heart. ....

During the 19th century, sublime depictions of North American mounds captivated Euro-American colonists and Romantic travelers. Settlers frequently embedded farms and homesteads into the material fabric of these Indigenous ruins across the American Bottom region and surrounding uplands, uncovering traces of antiquity in the process. Focusing on the Emerald mound site and broader mound discourses, I examine how material intimacies underlying this 19th-century phenomenon periodically corrupted Romantic sensibilities. Specifically, I highlight aspects of archival and spatial data that capture fleeting moments when mound intercourse generated uncanny affects and queer temporalities. I argue that in moments when uncanny affects haunted colonial homes, Indigenous histories queered the tense of settler colonialism.

Indigenous archaeologies call on researchers to recenter theory and practice on descendant peoples' lives and ways of knowing. Extending this project, this article takes story and dance as a site of theory, foregrounding Indigenous modes of embodiment in which bodily and sensory perspectives are cultivated through participation in more-than-human beings. Drawing on research with members of a small, Muskogee-identified community in the US South, it frames the large-scale earthworks at Poverty Point site in Louisiana as representing a horned owl. This evokes stories about a people who lived in an owl-shaped village and who could move in some particularly owlish ways. Critiquing ontological frameworks in which the sensory is universal and mind is removed from body and land, I argue that ancient peoples may have cultivated perspectival sensory perspectives through the everyday activity of living together in the collective form of an owl. Moreover, as contemporary descendants return to Poverty Point, the land animates shared, multispecies sensory fields that enroll descendants into a longue durée of owlish encounters and entanglements, or what my hosts simply call "Owls teachings." Here, I call for an archaeology reimagined in the context of Native American and Indigenous studies, asking how mounds might animate resurgent possibilities beyond settler nation-states rooted in (and routed through) deep Indigenous histories of return.

“Indigenous archaeology” can be conceived of as a response to the legacy of colonialism in archaeology, while also reflecting a broadening and reconstitution of existing theory and practice designed to make the discipline more relevant and satisfying to descendant communities. It is an entity that is also defined by its engagement, often simultaneously, with issues relating to identity and ethnicity, the nature of knowledge, the flow of benefits derived from archaeological research, the indivisibility of tangible and intangible heritage, and different ways of knowing the world. Indigenous archaeology, depending upon who is involved and in what context, may be as much about the recovery of objects and information about past lifeways as it is about the sociopolitics of the endeavor and equally as much about community direction and involvement as it is about the decisions and choices of those individuals involved. It is thus very much a multifaceted and reflexive endeavor in which Indigenous epistemology(ies) intersect with archaeological practice in sometimes controversial, frequently challenging, but ultimately always enlightening ways....

Over the past two decades, archaeology in British Columbia has been marked by two dramatic changes: the steep rise in forest industry-related “cultural resource management” (CRM) and the concomitant increase in First Nations engagement with archaeology and heritage stewardship. These trends have led to conflict between indigenous perspectives and CRM practice, but have also led to alliances and collaborations with archaeologists and the implementation of applied archaeological approaches. This dissertation addresses the implications of indigenous heritage stewardship, from the viewpoints of the St’át’imc and Nlaka’pamux nations, in the historical and contemporary context of CRM practice and applied archaeology in the mid-Fraser region of British Columbia. To place their engagement in perspective, I consider recent theoretical debates in community-based and indigenous archaeologies, as well as the development of participatory action research in archaeology. I also review the involvement of First Nations throughout British Columbia in CRM, stewardship, heritage legislation, and ethics.
The St’át’imc and Nlaka’pamux case studies presented in this dissertation relate their outlooks on archaeology and their specific efforts in heritage stewardship, based on literature reviews, interviews, and direct participation. The St’át’imc case study describes their traditional and contemporary views on archaeology and stewardship, relates their involvement in archaeology since the 1970s, and evaluates the process and outcomes of their recent direct involvement in the business of CRM. The Nlaka’pamux case study recounts their experiences with archaeology since the late nineteenth century, as well as their more recent confrontations with CRM practice, and examines their current efforts at defining Nlaka’pamux heritage stewardship, particularly from the vantage of landscape. The different approaches taken by these two nations have their strengths and shortcomings, and both continue to aspire to greater participation and authority in archaeology and heritage stewardship. Most important, the standpoints and strategies of both nations provide insights into how applied archaeology practice can be transformed to better serve indigenous heritage stewardship, including in the realms of ethics, indigenous authority, intangible heritage, and cultural landscapes. I contend that archaeologists can best accommodate these perspectives through participatory action research and the concept of archaeological praxis.

Ethnographic archaeology has emerged as a form of inquiry into archaeological dilemmas that arise as scholars question older, more positivistic paradigms. In Ethnographic Archaeologies, the term refers to diverse methods, objectives, and rationalities. The contributors to this volume, for example, understand ethnographic archaeology variously as a means of critical engagement with heritage stakeholders, as the basis of public policy debates, as a critical archaeological study of ethnic groups, as the study of what archaeology actually does (as opposed to what researchers often think it is doing) in excavations and surveys, and as a foundation for transnational collaborations among archaeologists. What keeps the term “ethnographic archaeology” coherent and relevant is the consensus among practitioners that they are embarking on a new archaeological path by attempting to engage the present directly and fundamentally.

On the significance of this book
“This important collection expands the boundaries of archaeology and charts out an emerging and dynamic field. The eminent contributors, in their consistently powerful and thought-provoking chapters, situate archaeological practice in the ethnographic present, forcing us to reflect on our responsibilities toward the various communities associated with the archaeological past and with archaeology as a discipline. In these pages, archaeology is reconnected with ethnography in a critical, reflexive, and ethically sensitive manner.”
—Yannis Hamilakis, University of Southampton, UK; author of The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece (2007).

The 20 papers in this volume written by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors, examine the complex interactions between archaeologists and contemporary Indigenous peoples of Canada in regard to working together, interpretation of the past, ownership of the past, and the relationships between traditional knowledge and archaeological fact.

This study proposes a synthesis of the architectural remains and the material culture of Basque whaling and codfishing sites on the northern coast of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. It deals with the factors of continuity and change in the Basque fisheries over almost three centuries, in order to better understand the identity of these fishermen. The crews mainly of Spanish origin, the evolution of fishing and whaling techniques, the hierarchical and gender relations in exclusively male crews, and their relations with indigenous populations were the guidelines for the survey of some twenty Basque sites. The collections analysis carried out in Québec City, Ottawa, St. John's and Red Bay (Labrador) and participation in terrestrial and underwater excavations of a Basque site on Petit-Mécatina Island (Lower North Shore, Quebec) have been the focus of many ideas. The contextual and comparative analysis of all the archaeological material found on the various sites has revealed several noteworthy features of the identity of the Basque fishermen. First, they have left a lasting and deliberately visible architectural imprint on the coastal landscape. Second, the analysis of material provenances shows that the Basque fishermen forged commercial links all alone the European Atlantic coast, from Andalusia to Normandy, but also brought several previously unidentified Basque productions to the New World. This dissertation demonstrates that these fishermen formed a seafarers' society open to the transfer of knowledge in which the importance of family ties, adaptation to the maritime environment and geopolitical realities, as well as reciprocal relations with indigenous people, allowed them to have a relatively comfortable position in a sometimes hostile environment.

Cette étude propose une synthèse des vestiges architecturaux et de la culture matérielle des sites baleiniers et morutiers basques sur la côte nord du golfe du Saint-Laurent du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Elle s’intéresse aux facteurs de continuité et de changement dans les pêches basques sur près de trois siècles, afin de mieux comprendre l’identité de ces pêcheurs. L’origine principalement en Espagne des équipages, l’évolution des techniques de pêche et de chasse à la baleine, les rapports hiérarchiques et de genre au sein des équipages exclusivement masculins, et leurs relations avec les populations autochtones ont été les lignes directrices dans l’étude d’une vingtaine de sites basques. L’analyse des collections conservées à Québec, Ottawa, Saint-Jean et Red Bay (Labrador) et la participation à des fouilles terrestres et subaquatiques d’un site basque à l’île de Petit-Mécatina (Basse-Côte-Nord, Québec) ont été le pivot de nombreuses réflexions. L’analyse contextuelle et comparative de l’ensemble du mobilier retrouvé sur les différents sites a permis de dégager plusieurs traits remarquables de l’identité des pêcheurs basques. Tout d’abord, ils ont laissé une empreinte architecturale durable et délibérément visible dans le paysage côtier. Ensuite, l’analyse des provenances montre que les pêcheurs basques ont tissé des liens commerciaux sur toute la façade atlantique européenne, de l’Andalousie à la Normandie, mais ont également apporté plusieurs productions basques jusque-là non identifiées. Cette thèse démontre que ces pêcheurs formaient une société de gens de mer ouverte à la transmission des savoir-faire dans laquelle l’importance des liens familiaux, l’adaptation au milieu maritime et aux réalités géopolitiques, ainsi que des rapports de réciprocité avec les Autochtones, leur permettaient une relative aisance dans un milieu environnemental parfois hostile.

A review of evidence for Algonquin (Anishinabek) cultural presence in southern Ontario over the past four centuries as well as prior to European contact.  Archaeological constructs and terminology used in Ontario Iroquoian archaeology are contrasted with the absence of such constructs and terminology for Ontario Anishinabek archaeology.  Statements of ethnicity, linking living peoples with archaeological constructs based on material culture, are questioned as unlikely to have validity.

From  Rageneau's account of the Algonquin Missions in the Jesuit Relation of 1648-1649, Chapter X:  "On the south shore of this fresh-water sea, or Lake of the Hurons, dwell the following Algonquin tribes: Ouachaskesouek, Nigouaouichirinik, Outaouasinagouek, Kichkagoneiak, and Ontaanak, who are all allies of our Huron  With these we have considerable intercourse, but not with the following, who dwell on the shores of the same Lake farther toward the West, namely: the Ouchaouanag, who form part of the Nation of fire; the Ondatouatandy and the Ouinipegong, who are part of the Nation of the Puants".

Compiladores L a arqueología de contrato —es decir, la arqueología pagada por las em-presas por medio de contratos de servicio para cumplir con las exigen-cias de las leyes ambientales— es un fenómeno relativamente reciente que ha tenido un tremendo impacto global, tanto así que un porcentaje mayoritario de quienes hacen arqueología en el mundo trabaja para ese mercado crecien-te. La arqueología de contrato ha dado lugar a profundas transformaciones curri culares: han surgido programas de pregrado de corta duración (no más de tres años) y énfasis técnico para producir en masa arqueólogos que satisfa-gan las exigencias de una agresiva expansión capitalista en varios campos (la infraestructura para transporte y la minería son los más salientes, pero no los únicos). En el proceso, los vínculos entre la arqueología y la antropología, ya débiles, han sido prácticamente cortados. Los efectos colaterales de la entrega de la arqueo logía al mercado de contrato han sido varios: se ha cancelado una actitud crítica hacia el orden global, se ha profundizado la conversión del pa-sado y el patrimonio en mercancía y, asimismo, ha disminuido la posibilidad de que la dis ciplina deje atrás su orden jerárquico y colonial. La relación mani-fiesta de la arqueología de contrato con el desarrollo, el descendiente contem-poráneo de la teleología del tiempo occidental, profundiza la larga relación de la disciplina con la modernidad. No la traiciona. De hecho, las críticas que ha recibido la arqueología de contrato están dentro de los límites de la práctica disciplinaria, es decir, se mide y se juzga por lo que es (o no es) desde una pers-pectiva disciplinaria, incluso profesional, por lo general vinculada a la retórica de la ciencia. Rara vez es medida y juzgada desde un punto de vista contextual, como hacen los artículos reunidos en este libro, cuyos autores buscan posicio-narse ante una práctica que creen perjudicial para la arqueología, por no decir para la vida de mucha gente y el destino de la naturaleza. Por eso no ofrecen una visión balanceada de la arqueología de contrato sino la perspectiva posi-cionada que mejor sirve a una reflexión crítica y transformadora.

"This dissertation about the Native American mounds... is meticulously researched (30 different sites) and beautifully written, integrating ethnography and theory. It is located at an intersection of disciplinary debate: the status of colonial and post-colonial paradigms at a time when an environmental paradigm of the anthropocene is ascendant." -The Richard Guy Wilson Prize for Excellence in The Study of Buildings, Landscapes and Places, University of Virginia School of Architecture

This dissertation centers the study of the mound landscapes on an Indigenous people’s knowledges and ongoing relationships with ancestral places. Thousands of these earthen mounds sit across eastern North America, constructed by Native American peoples over the previous five thousand years. My data is based on ethnographic research conducted in partnership with members of a small Native American community in the Southeastern U.S. who identify as having Muskogee (Creek) ancestry, but maintain their own understandings of the meaning of individual mounds and their interconnections in the past and present. The mounds visited and discussed are distributed widely across the Eastern U.S. (from Illinois to Florida). Popular history, interpretive signage, and dominant archaeological discourses frame mounds as abandoned sites and places “of the past,” yet these landscapes remain powerful and animate presences for members of this Native American community. Oral traditions shared with me describe mounds as places along roads traveled by celestial teachers and human traders, who helped resolve conflicts between warring communities and create peace. These routes extend into the present as animate mounds enroll my hosts into relations of exchange and care, particularly through circulations of ancestral objects, soils, and dreams. In these moments, members of the community cultivate vulnerability to ancestral affects and attend to landscapes wounded by ongoing settler violence. As my hosts visit mound landscapes, they are drawn into a nonlinear, Indigenous longue durée: an emergent space-time of winding, interconnected paths along which stories, things, soils, and dreams circulate.

Native Americans’ relationship with the discipline of archaeology has been shaped by centuries of historical circumstances, political engagement, and changing research agendas, in connection with Indigenous efforts to maintain or regain control over their affairs. At different times, archaeologists were seen (and often acted) as agents of colonialism or grave robbers, but also as allies or even employees of tribes. With the increasing number of Native American archaeologists, the terms “archaeologist” and “Indigenous” are no longer mutually exclusive.
    There is no one attitude toward archaeology among Indigenous people. While some do not find it a meaningful way of relating to the past, others have embraced it as a tool that can be reconstructed and used in culturally appropriate ways. Nonetheless, professional archaeology still presents an artificial boundary that has often served to separate peoples and communities from their heritage and history.
    This chapter focuses on Indigenous North Americans’ engagement with archaeology—its historical development, contemporary practice, and future prospects and challenges. A rich, sometimes contentious discourse has developed since the 1970s on Indigeneity, ethnicity, and ethnogenesis; alternative modes of stewardship and heritage management; the protection of sacred places and cultural landscapes; bioarchaeology and genetics; intellectual property and intangible heritage; the role of oral history and traditional knowledge; and social justice and human rights. These reflect new opportunities for archaeology in response to technological advancements, changing theoretical regimes and interpretive methods, or political issues and ethical concerns relating to issues of sovereignty, repatriation, tribal recognition, and decolonization.

En este ensayo se analizan los vínculos entre arqueólogos y pueblos indígenas a partir de los casos Aymara, Atacameño, Mapuche y Rapa Nui. Se discute la relación del Estado con estas colectividades y la legislación referida al patrimonio cultural, así como los paradigmas teóricos dominantes en la arqueología chilena y su articulación con el colonialismo, el nacionalismo y el multiculturalismo. Se analizan los diferentes enfoques desde los cuales se ha integrado a las agrupaciones indígenas en el quehacer arqueológico. Se concluye que si bien las arqueologías socialmente comprometidas son aún marginales en la arqueología chilena, las experiencias analizadas en este ensayo comienzan a abrir caminos alternativos para una arqueología con, por y para los pueblos indígenas.

This paper analyzes the links between archaeologists and indigenous peoples considering the case studies of Aymara, Atacameño, Mapuche and Rapa Nui people. We discuss the relationship of the State with these communities and the cultural heritage legislation. This paper also reflects on the dominant theoretical paradigms in Chilean archeology and its articulation with colonialism, nationalism and multiculturalism. We analyze the different approaches from which indigenous groups have been integrated in the archaeological field. We conclude the existence of archaeologies committed with indigenous people in Chile.

and co-chair of the SAA Task Force on Decolonization. Dorothy Lippert (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) is a tribal liaison in the Repatriation Program at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Museum of Natural History and is co-chair of the SAA Task Force on Decolonization.

Superimposition progressed from the overlay of tracings of the skull and face to the overlay of photographic still images and then to motion Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition, Fig. 1 Craniofacial superimposition and facial approximation: (a) semitransparent vertical skull wipe during video superimposition to compare the skull and face (the skull in this case belongs to the person depicted in the facial photograph); (b) a facial approximation that was constructed without a priori knowledge of the facial appearance of the correctly matching individual depicted in (c) (Parts (b) and (c) are reprinted from Stephan and Henneberg (2006), with permission from Elsevier) F 2722 Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition F 2726 Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition, Fig. 5 Mean soft tissue thicknesses, at craniometric landmarks, as collated from the literature for adults and subadults (Illustrations and data reprinted from Stephan and Simpson (2008a, b), with permission from Blackwell-Wiley) Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition 2727 F F Falabella, Fernanda 2729 F F F 2730 Falabella, Fernanda technological practices at a local level: neutron activation and petrographic analyses of early ceramic period pottery in central Chile. Archaeometry 55(1): 33-53. PLANELLA, M.T. & F. FALABELLA. 2008. La mujer en el Chile prehispano: un acercamiento desde los estudios arqueológicos en la zona central, in S. Montecino (ed.) Mujeres Chilenas: fragmentos de una historia: 23-30. Santiago de Chile: Catalonia. PLANELLA, M. T., F. FALABELLA & B. TAGLE. 2010. Reconstruyendo cocinas y recuperando sabores de Chile central prehispano, in C. Sciolla (ed.) Historia y cultura de la alimentacio´n en Chile: 63-85. Santiago: Editorial Catalonia. SANHUEZA, L. & F. FALABELLA. 2009. Descomponiendo el complejo Llolleo: hacia una propuesta de sus niveles mínimos de integración. Chungara Revista de Antropología Chilena 41(2): 229-39.-2010. Analyses of stable isotopes: from the archaic to the horticultural communities in central Chile. Current

Patrimonio es un concepto que, en los últimos años, ha sido ampliamente debatido; se lo ha discutido en el campo de las ciencias sociales y las humanidades y en el ámbito de la gestión y administración pública, se lo ha vinculado con el desarrollo turístico, aparece frecuentemente mencionado en los medios de comunicación y es disputado por grupos subordinados que empiezan a adquirir visibilidad y expresión propia. Ahora bien, ¿qué se entiende por patrimonio? Sin caer en una definición precisa y exhaustiva del término, se podría decir que son elementos (materiales o inmateriales), considerados bienes, que están relacionados con la identidad de un colectivo determinado, con su cultura, sus tradiciones e historia. Este libro aborda el tema de la relación entre patrimonio y pueblos originarios en lo que hoy es Argentina. A diferencia de otros trabajos publicados sobre la temática, en este volumen se presenta la voz originaria en primera persona. En efecto, a lo largo de los distintos capítulos el lector podrá interiorizarse, a través de la vocería de referentes, delegados, autoridades y colectivos indígenas, sobre qué consideran patrimonio los pueblos originarios y cuál es el vínculo que se establece con estos elementos.

What has become known as “indigenous archaeology” took form in the 1990s through efforts to ensure a place for descendent communities in the discovery, interpretation of, and benefits from their heritage. This followed growing public awareness of the plight of indigenous peoples worldwide, the passage of federal legislation to protect tribal interests, and a commitment by anthropologists and archaeologists to counter the colonial legacy of their disciplines. Since its inception, indigenous archaeology has grown considerably in scope and become more nuanced in its practice; today it garners much attention in discussions of heritage management, stewardship, collaborative research practices, indigeneity, postcolonialism, and the sociopolitics of archaeology, among other topics. Indigenous archaeology now 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”...

We advocate a feminist approach to archaeological heritage work in order to transform heritage practice and the production of archaeological knowledge. We use an engaged feminist standpoint and situate intersubjectivity and intersectionality as critical components of this practice. An engaged feminist approach to heritage work allows the discipline to consider women's, men's, and gender non-conforming persons' positions in the field, to reveal their contributions, to develop critical pedagogical approaches, and to rethink forms of representation. Throughout, we emphasize the intellectual labor of women of color, queer and gender non-conforming persons, and early white feminists in archaeology. [feminism, engaged research, heritage praxis, intersubjectivity, intersectionality]

One of the primary goals of decolonizing archaeology is addressing the imbalance that exists between the discipline and descendant communities regarding who makes decisions about, who has access to, who controls information and who benefits from archaeological endeavours. Of the many so-called stakeholders in this discourse—from artefact collectors and sellers to the public at large (e.g. Renfrew 2000; Waxman 2008)—descendant communities have the most at stake regarding their heritage (e.g. Langford 1983; Watkins and Beaver 2008). This is especially true for Indigenous peoples for whom identity, worldview and well-being may depend upon retaining, protecting and using the tangible and intangible aspects of their cultural heritage....

The Routledge Handbook of the Archaeology of Indigenous- Colonial Interaction in the Americas brings together scholars from across the hemisphere to examine how archaeology can highlight the myriad ways that Indigenous people have negotiated colonial systems from the fifteenth century through to today. This volume is the ideal starting point for students interested in how archaeology can illuminate Indigenous agency in colonial settings. Professionals, including academic and cultural resource management archaeologists, will find it a convenient reference for a range of topics related to the archaeology of colonialism in the Americas.

As a case study of the Project for the Repatriation and Protection of First Nation Cultural Heritage In Canada, this report examines Central Coast Salish Hul’qumi’num customary laws about the protection of their archaeological heritage in British Columbia. The research is based primarily on interviews with Hul’qumi’num Elders and knowledgeable community members. The main research goals were to: 1) define Hul’qumi’num customary laws about their archaeological heritage; 2) identify perceived problems in respect for Hul’qumi’num heritage laws; and 3) recommend directions to reform Canadian law to address Hul’qumi’num interests in the protection of their archaeological heritage.
This report provides a narrative rather than an analysis of Hul’qumi’num Elders and community members’ cultural perceptions, customary laws and concerns about the protection of their archaeological heritage. It reveals that protection of Hul’qumi’num people’s archaeological heritage is integral to their distinctive cultural identity.

Indigenous communities living in the Iamal-Nenets region of the Arctic Siberia incorporate reindeer antlers into various aspects of their lives, at times in remarkable ways. This is especially the case for Nenets herding families, who closely interact with domestic reindeer on a daily basis. Antlers for Nenets are not just raw materials for producing tools, but rather a part of their perceptions of time, clothing designs, gendered skills and spaces, and physical manifestations of pride. This article links current Nenets entanglements with antler to similar material practices on the Iamal Peninsula during the Iron Age. To accomplish this, we incorporate multi-generational Nenets knowledge into the analysis of modified and unmodified antler recovered during excavations of Iarte VI, an Iron Age archaeological site located on the tundra of the Iamal Peninsula. Our approach is founded upon direct engagement and collaboration with Nenets families from the Iamal region. Together, we focus on identification of reindeer age and sex through visual assessment of antler objects from Iarte VI. We also explore antler shapes and growth cycles, working qualities, and placement within and outside dwelling areas at the site. This collaborative approach sheds light on site seasonality, the ages and genders of the inhabitants of Iarte VI, and several longstanding continuities in antler practices.

In this book the concept of mobility is explored for the
archaeology of the Amazonian and Caribbean region. As
a result of technological and methodological progress in
archaeology, mobility has become increasingly visible on
the level of the individual. However, as a concept it does
not seem to fit with current approaches in Amazonian
archaeology, which favour a move away from viewing
small mobile groups as models for the deeper past.
Instead of ignoring such ethnographic tyrannies, in this
book they are considered to be essential for arriving at a
different past. Viewing archaeological mobility as the sum
of movements of both people and objects, the empirical
part of Amotopoan Trails focuses on Amotopo, a small
contemporary Trio village in the interior of Suriname.
The movements of the Amotopoans are tracked and
positioned in a century of Trio dynamics, ultimately
yielding a recent archaeology of Surinamese-Trio
movements for the Sipaliwini River basin (1907-2008).
Alongside the construction of this archaeology, novel
mobility concepts are introduced. They provide the
conceptual footholds which enable the envisioning of
mobility at various temporal scales, from a decade up to a
century, the sequence of which has remained a blind spot
in Caribbean and Amazonian archaeology.

Políticas patrimoniales y procesos de despojo y violencia en Latinoamérica / Carina Jofré ; Cristóbal Gnecco ; editado por Carina Jofré ; Cristóbal Gnecco. - 1a ed. - Tandil : Editorial UNICEN, 2022.
332 p. ; 24 x 17 cm.
ISBN 978-987-4901-40-8

This thesis is about the relationship between Aboriginal People and archaeology in Canada. Aboriginal involvement in Canadian archaeology has been limited by the failure of archaeology to include Aboriginal interests within its research agenda. This failure has been due in part to a colonial bias embedded in the discipline. In order to disrupt this bias, a process of "decolonization" must be undertaken. Many academic disciplines have begun to assess the value of research done "on" Indigenous communities and have suggested ways that research can be done "by" and "for" these communities with benefits to both the academic and social causes. Community-based methods have been and are being used in Canada, yet without much formal discussion or sense of shared goals. This thesis suggests that the problem of limited Aboriginal involvement in archaeological undertakings can be addressed by applying community-based methods to archaeology. These types of projects also bring many added benefits to both archaeology and Aboriginal communities as a whole. The examination of community-based archaeology in Canada in this thesis is done through theorizing, examining practical examples and presenting common themes.

Fine-screen animal bone and Pacific salmon ancient DNA (aDNA) results from Northwest Coast shell midden sites, together with other kinds of material culture, can provide detailed information on foodways, site-specific activities, and sociality. Seasonal use of the landscape may also be revealed through an understanding of place in the southern Gulf Islands of British Columbia, Canada. New results from column sample faunal analysis at the Pender Canal site are considered in conjunction with previously identified fauna. Alongside site characteristics, zooarchaeological and aDNA species identification data are employed to help reconstruct activities that people undertook. These tasks and their social implications at Pender Canal are contextualized with a discussion of several similar data sets from contemporary sites in the region. Temporal patterns in small fish remains and ancient salmon DNA at Pender Canal correspond with region-wide changes in land use, helping us interpret the formation of Coast Salish social relationships and identities over millennia.

What does being an archaeologist mean to those Indigenous persons who have chosen this profession? How did they become archaeologists? What led them down a career path to what some in their communities have labeled a “colonialist” venture, or, alternatively, what others see as a way to challenge colonialism’s legacy? What were the circumstances that brought them to this career, and what were the challenges they faced along the way? What were (and are) the motivations that have enabled their success? How have they managed to balance Indigenous traditional values and worldviews (that is, if they embrace these) with Western modes of inquiry? Finally, how are their contributions broadening the scope of archaeology? Such questions frame this collection of autobiographical chapters on what it means to become and be Indigenous archaeologists....

Cultural Heritage Management and Indigenous People in the North of
Colombia explores indigenous people’s struggle for territorial autonomy in an
aggressive political environment and the tensions between heritage tourism
and Indigenous rights.
South American cases where local communities, especially Indigenous
groups, are opposed to infrastructure projects, are little known. This book
lays out the results of more than a decade of research in which the resettlement of a pre-Columbian village has been documented. It highlights the difficulty of establishing the link between archaeological sites and objects, and
Indigenous people due to legal restrictions. From a decolonial framework, the
archaeology of Pueblito Chairama (Teykú) is explored, and the village stands
as a model to understand the broader picture of the relationship between
Indigenous people and political and economic forces in South America.
The book will be of interest to researchers in Archaeology, Anthropology,
Heritage and Indigenous Studies who wish to understand the particularities of
South American repatriation cases and Indigenous archaeology in the region.
Wilhelm Londoño Díaz is Professor of Archaeology in the Department of
Anthropology, University of Magdalena, Colombia.

The Secwepemc (or Shuswap) are an Interior Salish people of south-central British Columbia, Canada, today comprised of 17 bands. In 1989, the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society (SCES) and Simon Fraser University (SFU) entered into a partnership to develop a unique post-secondary education program for First Nations Students on the Kamloops Indian Reserve in Kamloops, British Columbia. These efforts were led by then-Skeetchestn Band chief Ronald Ignace, Marianne Boelscher Ignace (anthropologist, SFU), and Hari Sharma (sociol- ogist, SFU). The goal was to offer university courses on the reserve in order to enhance the quality of life for the Secwepemc peoples and their indigenous neighbors; to preserve and promote their history, language, and culture; and to provide training in research, and developmental opportunities to assist them in controlling more fully their own affairs. Ironically, the program started in several rooms within the former residential school run by the Catholic Church, whose mission it was to “remove the Indian from the child.” ...