Structured controversy exercise

Smith-and-Wobst-2005-Indigenous-Archaeologies-Decolonising-Theory-and-practice.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Structured controversy exercise

1 Decolonizing archaeological theory and

practice CLAIRE SMITH AND H.MARTIN WOBST

At heart, archaeology is a colonialist endeavour. It is based on, and generally perpetrates, the values of Western cultures. Privileging the material over the spiritual and the scientific over the religious, archaeological practice is solidly grounded in Western ways of knowing the world. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is a truism that ‘doing’ archaeology is a political act and archaeologists routinely recognize that many groups have rights and responsibilities in the themes, materials and locations that are studied. Nevertheless, while the way in which archaeology is practised is of great consequence to the world’s colonized peoples, the relationships between archaeologists and members of Indigenous groups continue to be unequal and asymmetrical. Potential for conflict is at the core of Indigenous1 archaeology, since this involves working with a living heritage in which other people have rights and responsibilities. That Indigenous groups have their own values and priorities immediately creates a working situation of complex interactions and potentially competing agendas. ‘Who has a right to control the past?’ is not just an academic question, but a practical reality that must be faced in the many day-to-day interactions between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples.

The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) has been immersed in debate about the politics of practice since the first Congress in Southampton, UK in 1986. The inherently political nature of archaeological practice is recognized in the second statute of the by- laws, which states that the Congress is based ‘on the explicit recognition of the historical and social role, and the political context, of archaeological inquiry, of archaeological organizations, and of archaeological interpretation’. The political nature of archaeological research influences field procedures and methods of analysis as well as the selection and presentation of results. In 1989, a WAC Inter-congress on ‘Archaeological Ethics and the Treatment of the Dead’ was held in Vermillion, South Dakota, USA. The key role played by WAC in this debate was evident at the 4th Congress in a symposium on ‘The Politics of Practice’, which forms the basis of this book, as well as in several symposia on related issues, including the repatriation of human remains, funerary objects and sacred objects. These discussions were refined and extended in the Executive Program Committee Session on Indigenous Archaeologies at the American Anthropological Association in San Francisco, 2000 (Figure 1.1).

Indigenous Archaeologies : Decolonising Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith, and H. Martin Wobst, Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uow/detail.action?docID=199874. Created from uow on 2022-02-20 23:19:23.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 1.1 Participants in the Executive Program Committee Session on Indigenous Archaeologies at the American Anthropological Association in San Francisco, 2000

The debate over ‘who owns the past’ runs particularly ‘hot’ when it involves the cultural and intellectual property of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous critiques of archaeological practice have opened up the discipline in constructive directions. These critiques, like the earlier critiques of Marxists and feminists, today set new accents and directions for an archaeological practice that is politically aware of, sensitive to, and harmonious with, the goals of Indigenous peoples. The papers brought together for this volume demonstrate a fundamental re-thinking of archaeological theory and practice. Core issues include: who benefits from archaeological research? Do archaeologists have a right to control the pasts of others? Is the Western, scientific approach to archaeological theory and method necessarily the ‘best’ way of interpreting the past? What are the practical ramifications of archaeological research for the Indigenous peoples with whom they work, for whom the ‘artefacts’ of archaeology are a living heritage? How can archaeologists transform their theory and practice so that they cease doing damage to Indigenous peoples?

Archaeologists normally assume the answers to these kinds of questions. We often take it as self-evident that archaeology is useful, and that we have a responsibility, as well as a right, to control and create the pasts of others. It seems clear to us that this needs to be done and that it needs to be done in the scientific, rigorous manner that is archaeology. Rarely do we seriously consider non-Western approaches to caring for cultural heritage, or question the agendas that are furthered by our work and how that work can empower or disempower the people we work with.

Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice 5

�

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

More and more decisions that affect Indigenous peoples and their communities are made at the global level, far away from local realities. Yet often Indigenous peoples have neither voice nor representation in the global decision-making that affects their lives. Archaeologists have a responsibility to facilitate Indigenous voices, even in the presence of structural inequities in the distribution of assets such as education, land and finance; mechanisms that enable the voices of Indigenous peoples to be heard and inform decision-making at the global level. In some cases, it may be that Indigenous peoples have more in common with each other at a global level than they do with the other peoples who share the countries in which they live. A shift in mindset is the major precondition to the opening up of opportunities for Indigenous peoples, a shift in which archaeologists consider it normal and essential to be directly informed by and learn from the experiences of Indigenous men and women who will be affected or are expected to benefit from their actions. Changes in mindset are not easy to bring about, but can be facilitated through dialogue and working together.

This book is groundbreaking, most strikingly because it is the first volume on Indigenous archaeology that has more Indigenous than non-Indigenous authors. Traditionally, archaeology has been done ‘on’, not ‘by’, ‘for’ or ‘with’ Indigenous peoples. There are Indigenous peoples living in 72 countries world-wide and in all of these countries these groups are in disadvantaged positions in comparison to the dominant populations. Especially in developing countries, they are those people whose voices are the least likely to be heard in a global forum. There is an urgent need to facilitate the participation of Indigenous populations in international discussions; to strengthen their access to international professional networks; to integrate them into global alliances; and to help them benefit from regional and international collaboration. Through identifying Indigenous authors and developing a format that facilitates Indigenous voice, this book addresses a critical gap in the way that knowledge of Indigenous archaeology is disseminated.

No doubt influenced by a post-processual interest in the value of a range of speaking positions, our decision led to a difference in the shape of this volume, away from a purely academic structure to one that includes a variety of sources, including interviews, poems and visual pieces. This format allows an enhanced sense of place and provides room for a range of Indigenous expressions and perspectives on our topic. Moreover, the juxtapositions of these different forms of communication facilitate a more nuanced understanding of the issues under discussion, allowing readers to call on their intuitive skills as well as their reasoning. In this way, these topics become more accessible to the public as well as the Indigenous peoples whose cultural and intellectual property is the subject of research.

The authors contributing to this volume can be divided into three broad groups. The first of these is Indigenous cultural leaders. Their papers are based on interviews but instead of using these transcripts as a springboard for academic musings, here these voices have been presented largely verbatim, with minimal academic translation. This provides the reader with direct access to the opinions of these senior people, without having to peer through layers of academic interpretation. In these papers, the role of non- Indigenous co-authors has been to facilitate Indigenous voices and to frame them within an archaeological discourse. While it is important to access Indigenous voice at all levels, it is especially vital to obtain the views of Indigenous Elders, given that Indigenous

Indigenous archaeologies 6

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

systems of knowledge place power in their hands. However, publication of the voices of Indigenous Elders can be hampered by the difficulty of communicating ideas across cultures and, often, across languages. It is particularly hard to promote the voices of Indigenous Elders in those parts of the world where they speak the colonial language as only their second, third or fourth language. Some of the papers presented here demonstrate ways of overcoming these kinds of difficulties. The second group of authors is that of Indigenous scholars, well versed in both Indigenous and Western worldviews. Increasingly, research on Indigenous topics is being undertaken by Indigenous people. Indigenous researchers working in both the academy and Indigenous communities face great challenges, but have an unprecedented chance to generate something entirely new, that integrates both archaeological and Indigenous world views. The opportunities, contradictions and dilemmas inherent in their position are addressed in several of the papers presented here. The third group of authors in this book is the non-Indigenous archaeologists whose practice has been transformed through their contact with Indigenous peoples. These authors have divergent histories but are linked by a shared vision of an Indigenous archaeology that empowers Indigenous peoples.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Part I of this book considers the theoretical underpinnings of archaeological practice. H.Martin Wobst addresses the biases inherent in the traditional practice of archaeology and outlines some of the changes that are necessary in its theory and method to liberate the discipline from these biases. He deconstructs the theoretical assumptions that have supported colonialist archaeology and argues for a broadening of archaeological theory to integrate material culture studies with fields of study that explicitly have been concerned with ‘non-material’ realms, such as historical linguistics, poetry, music, dance, oral histories and folklores. It is time to move beyond the colonial strategy of reducing the significance of Indigenous places to archaeological sites and artefacts as a way of circumscribing and containing Indigenous interests.

The importance of integrating Indigenous knowledge with archaeological practice is highlighted by several Indigenous scholars. Heather Harris’ paper examines misunderstandings between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples in terms of the differing worldviews and ways of knowing. She contends that a more holistic engagement encompassing oral histories, visual material and poetic text will produce a greater appreciation of the complexity of Indigenous cultures. Tara Million replaces the linear archaeological paradigm with a circular paradigm that allows her to integrate her Indigenous identity with her archaeological practice. Her paper describes how her archaeological practice has changed in response to her Indigenous understandings of animacy and circularity. Margaret Bruchac also argues for the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, focusing her paper on the area of oral histories and the ways in which these histories relate to place. Using the looking glass of Pocumtuck and Abenaki stories from northeastern North America, she documents how such ‘intangibles’ importantly supplement more routine material evidence, such as habitations, burials, and non- perishable material artefacts. Similarly, George Nicholas considers how archaeological stories impact on the knowledge that Indigenous peoples may already possess,

Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice 7

�

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

independent of archaeology, through oral history, worldview and other means. He questions the right of archaeologists to impose their ideas about the past on Indigenous peoples, many of whom are satisfied with their memory and knowledge of that past, and examines this in terms of contemporary archaeological practice in Canada. These papers are broadening the boundaries of contemporary archaeological practice.

RECLAIMING THE PAST

The need for Indigenous peoples to reclaim their pasts is the subject of Part II of this book. This is a theme that permeates most, if not all of the papers in this volume, with both local and global implications. Without doubt, the area of greatest contention and potential conflict is the treatment of the dead, and several papers and poems directly address this issue in terms of the repatriation of human remains. The chapter by Sally May, Donald Gumurdul, Jacob Manakgu, Gabriel Maralngurra and Wilfred Nawirridj documents the awakening in an Australian Aboriginal community, when its senior people become aware that human remains have been taken from them and placed into the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, in Washington DC. As late as 1948 such remains were taken by scientific expeditions, in this case the American- Australian Scientific Expedition, co-sponsored by the Australian and American Federal governments and the National Geographic Society, without the informed consent2 of Aboriginal Elders. Now that they are aware of the deposition of these remains, the community wants them returned. The title of this paper, ‘You write it down and bring it back…that’s what we want,’ clearly signals the role that these Aboriginal people expect the researcher to take, working to help them reclaim their past.

Understanding the early interactions between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists is fundamental to reclaiming the past. Another paper which revisits the work of early expeditions and assesses their contemporary consequences is that by Catherine Carlson. Again, skeletal remains are at the heart of the matter. These early interactions are the focus of Carlson s paper on the Smithsonian Institution’s American Museum of Natural History’s Jesup Expedition, which carried out the first scientific archaeology in the Pacific Northwest region. Her review of archival letters from the field by Harlan I.Smith to Franz Boas reveals a very different picture of the research than that described in the publications. Whereas the published work describes and catalogues material culture and lifeways, the letters focus on the collection of human skeletal remains, and the conflict that this engendered among the local Indigenous peoples. Carlson links this to existing oral histories and interprets it as being the basis of the persistent negative attitudes about archaeology among Aboriginal peoples in these communities.

The consequences for Indigenous communities in the present are highlighted by Stapp and Longenecker s paper, which calls for the repatriation of the Ancient One from Kennewick. The skeletal remains of this person were discovered inadvertently in 1996 near the city of Kennewick, Washington State. A series of radiocarbon dates from these remains indicated that the man had lived between 9500 and 8500 years ago. These remains have become the centre of an ongoing debate between a group of forensic anthropologists and archaeologists and a coalition of five Indian tribes in the region, who have taken a united stand, seeking repatriation of this material (Thomas 2000;

Indigenous archaeologies 8

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

www.umatilla.nsn.us/kennman6.html). Stapp and Longenecker’s contribution presents an Indigenous view on why it is so necessary for the remains of the Ancient One to be reclaimed by his descendants. It is complemented by the poem by Heather Harris ‘The Ancient One’ and by the short article by Jeff Van Pelt of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, who looks on this debate in terms of the development of archaeological theory and method. Given the state of the debate at the time of writing (under appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of America), Van Pelt takes a conciliatory approach. He expresses the hope that Kennewick Man will become a connection, rather than a wedge, between archaeologists and Native Americans, drawing them both closer to solving problems together. The contributions by Harris and Van Pelt are linked by an Indigenous understanding of time which treats the Ancient One as human, with a form of existence in the present, rather than as archaeological ‘matter’, systematically distanced from the present. Such differences in worldviews are fundamental to some of the controversies that exist between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples.

The political ramifications of the debate over the Ancient One from Kennewick are addressed in the paper by Watkins. He suggests that the issue was never one of science versus religion, as presented in the popular press, but rather a conflict between the political status of American Indians versus that of American science. Watkins argues that while some archaeologists might consider themselves to be outside the political realm, it is obvious that archaeology and the study of the past are rife with political implications. He sees the future of archeological and anthropological research on archaeological sites of Indigenous populations as belonging to the group that can organize most efficiently or exert the greatest influence on law makers.

INDIGENOUS VOICE AND IDENTITY

A willingness to establish alliances, augmented by a keen political instinct fine-tuned by colonial encounters, may be the reason that Indigenous Australians won the battle over the repatriation of human remains. In Australia, all skeletal remains, recent or ancient, are considered the responsibility of Indigenous groups. In Part III Steve Hemming and Tom Trevorrow demonstrate the potential for archaeologists and Indigenous peoples to work together in such situations, collaboratively challenging the continuing colonial nature of dominant societies. In this case, the impetus was the reburial of two Ngarrindjeri Elders in South Australia, taken from their original resting place as a result of redevelopment. Working together, the outcome was a reburial ceremony and an apology by the local council to the Ngarrindjeri people for the injustices they had received as part of colonialism. Writing and performance acted together to reinforce the Indigenous identity of the land in the mind of the public, challenging colonial myths of extinction, dislocation and political absence. Hemming and Trevorrow see the continuing decolonization of archaeology and its practices as a critical part of the struggle for Ngarrindjeri rights in Ngarrindjeri country. They hope that their experiences will provide useful insights for other Indigenous groups in their struggle to survive in their own lands.

Central to many of these issues are questions of Indigenous voice and identity, and the diversity inherent in both. While much of the public debate that frames discussions of the

Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice 9

�

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Ancient One from Kennewick hinges on an approach that pits a single Indigenous view against a single archaeological view, counterposing a monolithic Indigenous view with a monolithic archaeological view fails to recognize diversity of opinion within each group, as well as the existence of people who are legitimately members of both groups. In fact, the papers in this volume belie any absolute dichotomy between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples, as many of the papers are written by people who are both archaeologists and Indigenous. Further, as Ruth Mathis and Terrance Weik point out, Indigenous identity does not exhaust itself in one dimension, or in a binary opposition with Whiteness. Many of the papers problematize the very notion of what constitutes Indigenous identity, and the question of Indigenous voice and identity is a third focus of this volume.

The question of what constitutes Indigenous identity is one which is being worked through in various ways in many parts of the world. Sven Ouzman addresses the question from a Southern African perspective, pointing out that in this region the notion of Indigenous identity is complicated by around 2,000 years of human colonization, resulting in dangerously ill-defined terms such as ‘African’, ‘Indigenous’ and ‘First Nation’. Throughout the globe, many people have a heritage that includes identification with Indigenous as well as other cultures. The paper by Mathis and Weik argues for a broadening of African American diaspora studies to include the social and political relationships between African Americans and Native Americans. They argue for a methodological integration of the dynamic social, economic and political movements that both Native Americans and African Americans maintained despite the oppressive conditions of European colonialism and slavery. They maintain that archaeology has the potential to aid African Americans and Amerindians in rediscovering parts of their heritage that Eurocentric education systems have attempted to fit into a White worldview. While textbooks have ignored or negated these topics for years, archaeology and history can help some people resurrect kinship ties that have been lost and strengthen peoples notions of their cross-cultural lineages.

A broadening of the groups who identify as Indigenous has the potential to both strengthen and challenge Indigenous voice, depending on the particular histories and dynamics of local situations. In many places, Indigeous groups welcome the energy and skills that can be brought by people who have only recently identified as Indigenous. The political power and influence of the Stolen Generations3 in Australia, the USA and Canada, in particular, are an example of this. In other places, Indigenous groups may feel threatened by people who, from their viewpoint, have not lived the experience of being Indigenous, but who have come to identify as Indigenous. In these situations, a respect for Indigenous systems of authority and the interplay of personal relationships can be crucial to a positive outcome. While many Indigenous peoples recognize the need to draw power from whatever sources are available, most are careful that this is administered under the auspices of traditional leaders and according to Indigenous structures and systems of governance.

Certainly, the inclusion of Indigenous voice is changing archaeological practice world- wide. Ouzman argues that increasingly issues of Indigenous voice are exploring intangible aspects of existence and heritage, such as cultural and intellectual property rights. Though battles over the repatriation of people and objects, land restitution and the like are by no means settled, Ouzman argues that making explicit the systems of thought

Indigenous archaeologies 10

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

that are embedded in people, places and objects helps overturn stereotypes of Indigenous people as people of ‘nature’. As he points out, this pervasive stereotype removes Indigenous people both from the present and from the arena of socio-political action. In Southern Africa, there are signs that the sharing of Indigenous and embedded knowledge can contribute to nationbuilding and act as a point of anchorage for all people in the region.

The desire to challenge stereotypes and change public perceptions of what constitutes an Aboriginal person is one of the motivations behind the work being conducted by the Yarrawarra community of north-east New South Wales, Australia. Central to this process is the undermining of notions of extinction and political absence and the redressing of racist stereotypes that identify Indigenous peoples with a pristine past unsullied by contact with European Australians. The researchers in this project are Wendy Beck, Dee Murphy, Cheryl Perkins and Tony Perkins, with Anita Smith and Margaret Somerville. Their paper makes the point that the Yarrawarra are the most concentrated Aboriginal population in Australia, yet are plagued by public perceptions that characterize Aboriginal people as having black faces and living in remote areas of the country. The Yarrawarra challenge this perception in their successful cultural tourism enterprises, which use a range of methods, including archaeology and oral history, to demonstrate how they have related to a number of different sites over time. This manner of Indigenous peoples and archaeologists working together is part of a significant reorientation in archaeological practices.

Comparable transformations are occurring in other Indigenous communities. Increasingly, Indigenous peoples are seeing the potential for archaeologists to act as tools to help them reclaim their pasts. In the situation outlined in the paper by Hemming and Trevorrow, the archaeologists role is one of respectful instrument, enabling the Ngarrindjeri and non-Indigenous people to hold a joint public ceremony to properly re- bury two Ngarrindjeri Elders. In a similar manner, the paper by Peter Birt and Vincent Copley emphasizes the importance of well-documented and researched archaeological sites in providing a material basis for the reclaiming of Indigenous cultural identity. In this case, Ngadjuri links to their lands had been severed through nineteenth century massacres and resettlements, diminishing them to the point that they seemed almost completely lost. Archaeology provides a means for re-establishing links to specific sites within their traditional lands, revitalizing traditional responsibilities—and reinforcing local identity.

Both global alliancing and local action are essential to the promotion of archaeological practices that are empowering to Indigenous peoples and concerns. Global alliancing and the effective exchange of information have the potential to move Indigenous peoples from exclusion to inclusion. A primary mechanism here is the inclusion of Indigenous voices in publications and conference presentations. We are not talking here of a token Indigenous voice, or additional non-white faces at a conference, but of sharing knowledge equally, with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples speaking to their area of expertise. Instead of members of the audience asking the professionally trained researcher ‘What is Dolly s opinion on this?’, they should be able to ask Dolly directly— and will gain a direct view, rather than one which is filtered through the interpretive lens of the researcher. Even more importantly in terms of Indigenous concerns, co-publication

Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice 11

�

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and co-presentation also acknowledge Indigenous rights in the intellectual property that arises from research.

The benefits of empowering Indigenous voices are not limited to the Indigenous peoples who participate in international forums. Like all people involved in research, Indigenous peoples come to international meetings not only to learn but also to teach. Throughout the world, Indigenous peoples have valuable ideas and initiatives that should be made available to the global community and that can be fine-tuned in high-level international debate. Their active participation in international forums empowers not only the individuals themselves and their communities but Indigenous peoples in general. It is equally important to connect global resources and knowledge to the local level where they can help to optimize grass-roots initiatives, and to ensure that historically disadvantaged groups are not further excluded from opportunities in their rapidly changing worlds. Innovative solutions are needed to increase the connectivity of the Indigenous peoples to each other and to global decision-makers.

THE ETHICS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE

Issues relating to the ethics of archaeological practice are the focus of Part IV of this volume. Once entered into, any debate over ethics raises significant, and potentially unanswerable, questions, such as: What use is archaeology? Whom does it serve and whom does it disempower? Do archaeologists have a right to create and control the past of others? Archaeologists normally assume the answers to these kinds of questions. We take it as self-evident that archaeology is useful, and that we have a responsibility, as well as a right, to control and create the pasts of others. It seems clear to us that this needs to be done and that it needs to be done in the scientific, rigorous manner that is archaeology. Rarely do we question the agendas that are furthered by our work and what groups are dis-empowered through this. Archaeology is a powerful tool in the creation of cultural identities in the past, and we know our evidence is chosen selectively and interpreted according to our own biases and inclinations in the present, but many of us still work on the assumption that our work should be considered as being beyond politics.

The question of developing an ethical archaeological practice is at the heart of several contributions to this book. These papers address issues that are fundamental to contemporary archaeological practice. Drawing on his extensive experience with Indigenous communities, Larry Zimmerman deals with practical issues, such as defining community, obtaining informed consent and dealing with conflicting agendas. He argues that ethical archaeological practice has to take into account the political consequences of the work that is undertaken by archaeologists. His ultimate advice is to be humble above all. He argues that everything else follows from this position. If archaeologists are respectful of the pasts they study, they will find that the pasts they create also will receive respect.

The papers in Part IV deal with issues relating to shaping and sharing the benefits of archaeological research. Who has the right to control the past? The paper by Phyllis Wiynjorroc, Peter Manabaru, Nell Brown and Andrew Warner uses the writing skills of the researcher to present the views of Indigenous people from the Barunga-Wugularr region of northern Australia. A large section of this paper is presented in the local first

Indigenous archaeologies 12

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

language of Kriol and translated into English. This paper outlines the ethical practices that Elders consider should be adopted by non-Indigenous people visiting this region. In a sense, the shape of the paper is grounded in Indigenous power structures. The Elders’ views are presented with a minimum of academic interpretation, in order to encourage readers to work at obtaining their own understanding of these Indigenous views. The complementary paper by Gary Jackson and Claire Smith presents the archaeologist s viewpoint, discussing the dilemmas that have arisen in their research in this region over the last 13 years and describing the ways in which the Aboriginal people with whom they work maintain control over their research and publications. Jackson and Smith argue that rather than this being an impediment to research, Indigenous control actually serves to enrich it, since it provides an opportunity for Aboriginal people to shape both the research design and its outcomes.

Some of the ways that archaeologists and Indigenous peoples might work together to shape a shared future are the focus of the paper by Steve Hemming and Tom Trevorrow discussed earlier, and that by Ken Isaacson and Stephanie Ford, both of which argue that archaeological theory and practice need to be grounded in the recognition of the rights of contemporary Indigenous peoples over their cultural heritage. Using the reburial of Ngarrindjeri Elders as a case study, Hemming and Trevorrow demonstrate how archaeology can play an important role as facilitator in the process of respecting and understanding Indigenous rights and interests to country Isaacson and Ford also argue that research needs to benefit Indigenous peoples as well as archaeologists. They see the way forward in terms of the development of protocols for working together and alliances between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples and between Indigenous peoples from around the world. They exhort archaeologists to use their skills to assist Indigenous peoples in the recovery of traditional knowledge or to reinvigorate Indigenous customs. From this viewpoint, the ultimate goal of Indigenous archaeology should be to reclaim the Indigenous past for Indigenous peoples.

General issues relating to social justice are addressed in the paper by Daryle Rigney and Gus Worby, which argues for the need to shape archaeology so that it consciously engages with such issues. This paper provides a case study on the development of ethics guidelines in a university environment, the aim of which is to ensure researchers appreciate the sensitivity and ethical issues involved in Indigenous studies. The authors argue that such guidelines protect both researchers and Indigenous communities and lead to better and more productive research for all involved in the process. They argue for a clear commitment to the articulation and implementation of ethical research practices and point out that fair dealing in intellectual matters carries its own kind of commitment to reconciliation and issues relating to social justice.

Taken together, the papers in this volume document the development of a new form of archaeology, one that is informed by Indigenous values and agendas. This Indigenous archaeology moves beyond research ‘about’ Indigenous peoples to focus on research that is conducted with, and for, Indigenous peoples. It moves Indigenous concerns and values from the ‘outside’ to the ‘centre’, orienting archaeology towards Indigenous systems of knowledge and power. This involves fundamental changes in archaeological theory and practice as well as substantive changes in the power relations between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples. Most certainly, archaeologists (and society) will have to share more of the wealth that the Indigenous past helps to generate. For example, if society

Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice 13

�

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

underwrites academic salaries for experts on Indigenous populations, these populations will demand that part of that wealth is passed on to the Indigenous experts on the same topics. Where wealth is being generated by auction re-sales of Indigenous crafts, Indigenous peoples rightfully will ask for a share of that wealth. More than anything, the decolonization of Indigenous archaeology depends on the empowerment of Indigenous voices. The decolonized archaeology that is emerging challenges and extends the boundaries of archaeological theory and method. Fresh questions are being asked, new methods developed and different outcomes produced.

NOTES 1 Following the increasing practice of Indigenous authors we use the term ‘Indigenous peoples’.

The capital ‘I’ emphasizes the nationhood of individual groups while use of the plural ‘peoples’ internationalizes Indigenous experiences, issues and struggles (see L.Smith 1999:114–15), and acts against the notion of an Indigenous homogeneity.

2 Informed consent is when a person understands the purpose and nature of the study, what participation in the study requires them to do and to risk, and what benefits are intended to result from the study (NHMRC 1999).

3 Children of mixed heritage who were forcibly removed from their Indigenous families as part of government assimilation polices. Many of these children are now highly effective advocates for Indigenous causes, being well trained in non-Indigenous systems of authority and governance.

REFERENCES

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (1999) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available Online at http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/ethics/statemen.htm.

Smith, L.T. (1999) Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, second edition, London: Zed Books.

Thomas, D.H. (2000) Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity, New York: Basic Books.

Indigenous archaeologies 14

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

5. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed