Indigenous ArchaeologyGeorge P. Nicholas

LAST MODIFIED: 30 JULY 2014DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199766567-0073

Introduction

What has become known as “indigenous archaeology” took form in the 1990s through efforts to ensure a place for descendentcommunities in the discovery, interpretation of, and benefits from their heritage. This followed growing public awareness of the plight ofindigenous peoples worldwide, the passage of federal legislation to protect tribal interests, and a commitment by anthropologists andarchaeologists to counter the colonial legacy of their disciplines. Since its inception, indigenous archaeology has grown considerably inscope 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. Indigenousarchaeology now comprises a broad set of ideas, methods, and strategies applied to the discovery and interpretation of the human pastthat are informed by the values, concerns, and goals of Indigenous peoples. It has been defined, in part, as: “ … an expression ofarchaeological theory and practice in which the discipline intersects with indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, andsensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives” (Nicholas,Native peoples and archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Vol. 3, edited by D. Pearsall. Academic Press, New York, 2008: p.1660). Major issues addressed range from differences between indigenous and Western epistemologies, to inequalities inrepresentation and decision making, to challenges relating to indigeneity and racialism. Usually placed in the context of postprocessualarchaeology, indigenous archaeology has both influenced and been influenced by Marxist, critical, feminist, and interpretive approachesin archaeological theory and practice, but ideally it is expected to be grounded in local indigenous values, worldviews, andepistemology. Its nature, goals, and benefits contribute to debates regarding who controls, has access to, or benefits fromarchaeological endeavors, who is “indigenous,” whether indigenous archaeology should be separate from the mainstream, and thetension that exists between positivist and relativist modes of knowledge about “the past.” While indigenous archaeology is muchinvolved in examining the material aspects of past human endeavors (i.e., the archaeological record), it is a more complicated affair thatmay involve ethnography, traditional knowledge, and religious practices and worldview. Some argue that pursuing indigenous interestsdepart from archaeology as we know it. In addition, indigenous archaeology is as much a method or process as a political agenda tochange and improve the nature the discipline, much like feminist archaeology. Indigenous archaeology is part of a suite of approaches(e.g., public, collaborative, community-based) in contemporary archaeology that seek to connect contemporary groups to their heritage.

General Overviews

There is a rich and varied literature relating to the presence (but also absence) of Indigenous peoples in archaeology and the broaderrealm of heritage management. The following provide an entry into the realm of indigenous archaeology, as well as related themes, andoffer a selection of both earlier and more contemporary perspectives and examples. Watkins 2005 is a good overview of therelationship between Indigenous peoples and the discipline of archaeology, written from a Native American perspective, as is Murray2011, from a non-indigenous one. The ethical and theoretical dimensions of that relationship are explored in Colwell-Chanthaphonh2012, McNiven and Russell 2005, and Nicholas 2008, with the latter two also offering a review of the historical development ofindigenous archaeology. Peck, et al. 2003 offers a glimpse into the first major North American conference on Indigenous peoples and

archaeology, held in 1999. Atalay 2006 focuses on one goal of indigenous archaeology, which is to address inequities in the powerstructure of archaeological practice. Indigenous and non-indigenous contributors in Allen and Phillips 2010 and Bruchac, et al. 2010exemplify the range of contemporary issues, goals, challenges, and results.

Allen, H., and C. Phillips, eds. 2010. Bridging the divide: Indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st Century.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

A set of twelve chapters on the challenges and opportunities involving Indigenous peoples and archaeology today, focusing on theAmericas, Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific islands, with five appendices and a glossary. The contributors offer on-the-groundexamples of effective strategies, as well as thoughtful discussions on the future.

Atalay, S., ed. 2006. Special issue: Decolonizing archaeology. American Indian Quarterly 30.3–4.

A collection of eleven thought-provoking essays by indigenous and non-indigenous scholars or practioners on the need to decolonizethe discipline and what that really means. Examples demonstrate ways to shift control and benefits back to descendent communities,with a strong but not exclusive North American focus.

Bruchac, M. M., S. M. Hart, and H. M. Wobst, eds. 2010. Indigenous archaeologies: A reader on decolonization. Walnut Creek:Left Coast.

This reader of fifty-one reprinted and some original articles samples the purpose, historical development, breadth, and applications ofindigenous archaeology worldwide. Contributions from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania reveal the geographic breadthof indigenous archaeology today. In addition to the many topics covered are major sections on indigeneity, and on historical andtheoretical perspectives.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2012. Archaeology and indigenous collaboration. In Archaeological theory today. 2d ed. Edited byI. Hodder, 267–291. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

A thought-provoking essay that contextualizes the topic within the history of evolutionary thought, and the emergence of politicallyaware and multi-vocal archaeological theory. A very useful and engaging review.

McNiven, I., and L. Russell. 2005. Appropriated pasts: Indigenous peoples and the colonial culture of archaeology. WalnutCreek, CA: AltaMira.

A review of the history of archaeology in Australia and North America that highlights colonial nature, and the subsequent shift toward amore inclusive and culturally aware archaeology. Very useful for identifying major similarities between the two regions in terms of thehistory of engagement with local populations.

Murray, T. 2011. Archaeologists and indigenous people: A maturing relationship? Annual Review of Anthropology 40.1: 363–381.

A critical review of the evolving relationship indigenous communities have had with archaeologists in the last 25 years, and of the rolethat heritage has in their identity and wellbeing. An excellent assessment of the current state of this topic.

Nicholas, G. P. 2008. Native peoples and archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Vol. 3. Edited by D. Pearsall, 1660–1669. New York: Academic Press.

The first full description of indigenous archaeology, including its multi-facted character, ranging from a collaborative engagement toexpressions of sovereignty, and from an expression of indigenous epistemology to a means of empowerment and cultural revitalization.Includes sections on historical development, the concept, and its theoretical foundations, including correspondence with otherarchaeological approaches (e.g., feminist).

Peck, T., E. Siegfried, and G. Oetelaar, eds. 2003. Indigenous peoples and archaeology. Calgary: Univ. of Calgary Press.

A selection of papers from the first major conference explicitly oriented to this topic in 1999, offers international and cross-culturalperspectives on its theoretical dimensions, educational opportunities, economics and benefits flow, and examples of practice.

Watkins, J. 2005. Through wary eyes: Indigenous perspectives on archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:429–449.

Written by a prominent Native American archaeologist, this article provides an overview of the history of indigenous archaeology,starting with the question of who is “indigenous,” and then its political nature, before providing a regional review of developments in theAmericas, Scandinavia, Africa, and the Pacific.

Handbooks and Encyclopedias

The following sources include important discussions of indigenous archaeology and the historical contexts in which it emerged and nowoperates, as found in Lydon and Rizvi 2010, an edited volume on postcolonial archaeology, of which indigenous archaeology is oneexpression. Examples of indigenous perspectives as they relate to archaeology are likewise represented in David and Thomas 2008, alandscape archaeology collection. Denzin, et al 2008 is particularly valuable for examining and illustrating key methodological issuesand offering examples of what constitutes good practice. Skeates, et al. 2012 offers examples of good, community-oriented initiatives.The major encyclopedic volumes, Silberman 2012 and Smith 2014, offer descriptive entries on indigenous archaeology and relatedtopics (e.g., community-based participatory research).

David, B., and J. Thomas, eds. 2008. Handbook of landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

A comprehensive examination of the theory and practice of landscape archaeology, with a strong orientation toward the socialdimensions of human-landscape relationships over time and space relevant to understanding Indigenous perceptions of theenvironment.

Denzin, N. K., Y. S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, eds. 2008. Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies.Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

A compendium of research methods appropriate for working with descendent communities, informed by indigenous epistemology,social justice, non-Western knowledge systems and local values.

Lydon, J., and U. Rizvi, eds. 2010. Handbook of postcolonial archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

An essential collection of contemporary writing on the postcolonial critique applied to archaeology, especially as it relates to Indigenous

and minority groups, including historical overviews, contemporary practice, and future directions.

Silberman, N. A., ed. 2012. The Oxford companion to archaeology. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

A 3-volume set that provides useful entries on major ideas, sites, concepts, and theories in archaeology, ranging from the scientific andtechnical to the social and applied. Includes entries on and related to indigenous archaeology.

Skeates, R., C. McDavid, and J. Carman, eds. 2012. The Oxford handbook of public archaeology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

An excellent introduction to public or community-oriented archaeology that includes the history of development, heritage managementapplications, educational opportunities, and community benefits.

Smith, C., ed. 2014. Encyclopedia of global archaeology. New York: Springer.

A massive and broadly conceived international effort in eleven volumes that surveys the breadth of archaeology through thematicentries, biographies, key issues, and debates, and which seeks to balance the usual domination of Western thinking with a more globalperspective. Multiple entries target topics related to indigenous archaeology and its practitioners, as well as related issues.

Journals

There is no journal dedicated to indigenous archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record and Archaeologies: Journal of the WorldArchaeological Congress frequently publish articles on the subject, while Public Archaeology focuses on such relating topics ascollaborative and participatory archaeology. Collaborative Anthropologies has published special issues on indigenous archaeology andcommunity-based research initiatives.

African Archaeological Review.

While oriented primarily to the culture history and interpretation of archaeological research from throughout Africa, this journal includesa growing number of articles on heritage values and legislation, as well as critical reviews of the politics and ideology of archaeology inAfrica.

American Indian Quarterly.

This journal has an outstanding reputation for publishing articles and book and film reviews, frequently written by Native Americans, onall aspects of multidisciplinary scholarship on Native Americans.

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress.

This journal is one of the best sources for articles relating to Indigenous peoples and archaeology. The World Archaeological Congressis strongly oriented to ensuring descendent communities worldwide are full and equal partners in archaeology.

Australian Archaeology.

Published by the Australian Archaeological Association, this is a strongly scientific journal that focuses on Australia and nearbycountries, and includes articles about collaborations with indigenous Australians.

Collaborative Anthropologies.

A relatively new journal, it focuses on collaborative research practices relating to all fields of anthropology.

Heritage and Society.

Previously known as Heritage Management, this important publication covers all aspects of heritage, from theoretical expositions tomanagement strategies, ethics, and legislation; many articles pertain to indigenous issues.

Public Archaeology.

This journal focuses on the interface of archaeology, heritage management, and public interests, with emphasis on such topics asindigenous archaeology, ethics, cultural tourism, ethics, and communicating heritage values to the public.

SSA Archaeological Record.

This quarterly publication of the Society for American Archaeology frequently publishes short articles relating to indigenousarchaeology, including the series “Working Together” and related articles pertaining to examples of collaborative and community-basedarchaeology.

Background and Historical Development

Indigenous archaeology is the product of both external and internal forces. The most visible external factors are, of course, the chargesthat Native peoples have made concerning the colonialist legacy of anthropology and the discipline’s failure to acknowledge them asthe rightful owners of their own heritage. Their influence on the fields of both anthropology and archaeology became most evident in thelate 1960s, with the rise of the American Indian Movement and other Native rights initiatives in North America and elsewhere, leading insome cases to federal legislation protecting some of their rights more fully at the expense of archaeological privileges. At the sametime, anthropology and archaeology were undergoing a series of theoretical shifts, with divisions emerging between positivist andrelativist trajectories. One expression of the latter was postprocessual archaeology, which came to include interpretive, Marxist, critical,feminist, and indigenous archaeologies. This section first offers resources that search out and discuss the historically skewed nature ofarchaeological practice as it affected Indigenous peoples, followed by a selection of entries that provide insight into the emergence ofindigenous archaeology.

Indigenous and Other Critiques of Archaeology

Deloria 1969 illustrates the wariness that Native peoples have had of archaeology and anthropology, and their dissatisfaction of suchendeavors, while the Australian-centered complaint in Langford 1983 captures the concerns of Indigenous peoples elsewhere. Habu, etal 2008 and Trigger 1984, both of which are global in scope, provide historical reviews of the impact of colonial and later nationalistarchaeology upon indigenous and other descendent populations. McGuire 1992 and Schmidt and Patterson 1995 follow a similar veinbut are more limited in scope. Layton 1989a and Layton 1989b offer important examples and commentaries on the state of relationsbetween archaeologists and Indigenous peoples up to that time and provide a touchstone for how things have progressed since then.

Deloria, V., Jr. 1969. Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto. London: Macmillan.

A highly provocative book on Indians in America by one of foremost Indian rights advocates of the day. Includes a cogent critique ofanthropology and ethnography.

Habu, J., C. Fawcett, and J. M. Matsunaga, eds. 2008. Evaluating multiple narratives: Beyond nationalist, colonialist,imperialist archaeologies. New York, Springer.

A set of fourteen chapters that explore the notion of multivocality in archaeology as a means to both counter the limitations of itstraditional, often-state-sanctioned practice and make it relevant to contemporary society.

Langford, R. 1983. Our heritage—Your playground. Australian Archaeology 16:1–6.

This article captures Rosalind Langford’s seminal presentation to the Australian Archaeological Association that injected an indigenousperspective on heritage and sovereignty into Australian archaeology and called for more productive dialogue between the variousparties.

Layton, R., ed. 1989a. Conflicts in the archaeology of living traditions. London: Unwin Hyman.

This volume in the One World Archaeology series examines controversies in the relationship between archaeology and contemporaryIndigenous peoples in Australia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas, including reburial and repatriation, ethnicity, culture contact andcolonialisim, and interpretation of the archaeological record.

Layton, R., ed. 1989b. Who needs the past? Indigenous values in archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.

Also in the One World Archaeology series, this landmark volume reveals the wide array of perceptions that Indigenous peoples haveregarding their heritage and how those values intersect—in terms of both shortcomings and opportunities—with the discipline ofarchaeology.

McGuire, R. H. 1992. Archaeology and the first Americans. American Anthropologist 94.4: 816–836.

A history of Indian-White relations in North America and of the social, political, and religious forces that influenced the emergence ofNative American activism and the challenges all of this has had for archaeology.

Schmidt, P. R., and T. C. Patterson, eds. 1995. Making alternative histories: The practice of archaeology and history in non-western settings. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.

A cutting-edge collection of articles on alternative and richly rewarding forms of archaeological practice and historical scholarship thathave emerged in Africa, India, Europe, and the Americas and that challenge traditional practices.

Trigger, B. G. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19:355–370.

A key early assessment of the political nature of archaeology within the context of changing world order, as expressed by theemergence of this set of alternative archaeological practices and their respective agendas

Emergence of Indigenous Archaeology

Indigenous archaeology has had a long gestation period. Aboriginal peoples have been involved, to varying degrees, in archaeologysince the 1970s in some regions, especially Australia and the United States. However, their participation in archaeology may extendmuch earlier in some instances, as Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2009 documents. Both Trigger 1980 and Zimmerman 1994, relatively earlyarticles, anticipate an enlarging role for Native Americans in archaeology, with later developments covered in Ferguson 1996. Theseare followed by two significant edited volumes on archaeology and Indigenous peoples, coincidentally published the same year—Nicholas and Andrews 1997 covers Canada; Swidler, et al. 1997, the United States. A comparable set of publications is available forAustralia, with Allen 1983 offering an assessment of the nascent relationship and Davidson, et al. 1995 offering examples ofconsiderable involvement of Aboriginal Australians not long after.

Allen, J. 1983. Aborigines and archaeologists in Tasmania. Australian Archaeology 16:7–10.

A critical assessment of the state of relations between indigenous Australians and archaeologists in Tasmania, and the reaction toRosalind Langford’s 1983 critique of archaeology as it was practiced then and earlier.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2009. Inheriting the past: The making of Arthur C. Parker and indigenous archaeology. Tucson:Univ. of Arizona Press.

This biography of Arthur Parker, of Seneca descent, illuminates the emergence of archaeology as a discipline at the end of the 19thcentury and situates his contributions in the context of that phase of American history and of indigenous archaeology today. Notably,Parker was the first president of the Society for American Archaeology.

Davidson, I., C. Lovell-Jones, and R. Bancroft, eds. 1995. Archaeologists and Aborigines working together. Armidale, NSW,Australia: Univ. of New England Press.

One of the earliest collections of papers, written by indigenous and non-indigenous authors, to explore the role of communities in thepractice of archaeology in Australia. A key volume.

Ferguson, T. J. 1996. Native Americans and the practice of archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:63–79.

This review focuses on the impact of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the opportunities itand other factors had in promoting new opportunities for Native Americans and archaeologists to work together.

Nicholas, G. P., and T. D. Andrews, eds. 1997. At a crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Burnaby, BC:Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.

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

Swidler, N., K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, and A. S. Downer, eds. 1997. Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones tocommon ground. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

This collection of twenty-five articles examines the changing nature of American archaeology in the 1990s, focusing on issues and casestudies relating to cultural and natural resource ownership, reburial and repatriation, and the relationship between science and oral

traditions.

Trigger B. 1980. Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45.4: 662–676.

An insightful review of the influence of racism and Eurocentrism on the development of American archaeology, and the discipline’sgradual shift to acknowledging its colonial history and to beginning to accommodate the needs of Native Americans.

Zimmerman, L. J. 1994. Sharing control of the past. Archaeology 47.6: 65, 67–68.

A prescient statement by a key individual regarding the need for, and contributions of, indigenous involvement in archaeology, writtensoon after the passage of NAGPRA.

Contemporary Regional Perspectives

Initially, the literature on indigenous archaeology was dominated by articles that discussed and theorized about the need for such anapproach, but today there are as many, if not more, examples of it in actual practice. This section provides, by region, a starting list ofreadings that covers general articles on indigenous archaeology and case studies. Some time depth is intentionally included in theselection.

Africa

Although the term “indigenous archaeology” is absent from African archaeology, many examples of community-based initiatives fallwithin its general definition. Of course Africa is an immense continent populated by many distinct groups whose interactions have beenaffected by centuries of both Western and intra-African colonialism, which has had profound effects upon archaeology, as explored inSchmidt 2009, Lane 2011, and Shepherd 2002. Many tribal and small-scale societies have been disenfranchised and/or lost access toand control over their heritage, but efforts are underway to address the latter through community-based archaeology, of which Almansa,et al. 2011 is an excellent example. In addition, the importance of integrating local values into heritage management strategies is beingrecognized, as noted in Ndoro and Pwiti 2001. At the same time, existing heritage legislation in some regions constrains communityparticipation in decision making, and so needs to be revised or reinterpreted, as evidenced in the South African study Ndlovu 2009.

Almansa, J., B. Gashaw, D. Tibebu, et al. 2011. The Azazo project: Archaeology and the community in Ethiopia. PublicArchaeology 10.30: 159–179.

An example of an innovative, multi-faceted, community-oriented archaeology project that addresses community interests and needsrelating to education, capacity building, cultural tourism, and sustainable economic development, all the more impressive given itslimited funding.

Lane, P. 2011. Possibilities for a postcolonial archaeology in sub-Saharan Africa: Indigenous and usable pasts. WorldArchaeology 43.1: 7–25.

Lane teases apart the two different approaches to “postcolonialism” in archaeological practice in the region—the “usable past” modeland the “indigenous epistemologies” model—and discusses why there has been limited interest in promoting an “indigenousarchaeology” there despite the incorporation of local heritage values.

Ndlovu, N. 2009. Transformation challenges in South African archaeology. South African Archaeological Bulletin 64:91–93.

A brief but detailed account of the challenges encountered in southern Africa regarding the need for archaeological organizations torecognize and accommodate the changing demographics and increasing community interest, and to provide much neededopportunities for local capacity building and mentorship in archaeology.

Ndoro, W., and G. Pwiti. 2001. Heritage management in southern Africa: Local, national and international discourse. PublicArchaeology 2:21–34.

The authors examine the historical legacy of colonialism in Zimbabwe and its impact upon local and national heritage, reviewarchaeological heritage legislation, and demonstrate the effectiveness of one model of local community involvement in sitemanagement.

Schmidt, Peter R., ed. 2009. Postcolonial archaeologies in Africa. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.

A very important collection, dominated by African contributors, that provides a critical assessment of archaeology, both past andpresent, on that content, while also promoting—in theory and practice—examples of ethical and responsible applications ofarchaeology that directly benefit communities through new heritage management strategies, capacity building, and more accuratehistories.

Shepherd, N. 2002. The politics of archaeology in Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 31.1: 189–220.

An engaging but disturbing history of African archaeology in the context of European colonialism and subjugation, indigenousresistance and growing nationalism, and finally postcolonialism; an essential, politically astute assessment.

Australia

While in Australia “indigenous archaeology” refers explicitly to pre-contact period archaeology, the more familiar meaning of the termworldwide is very much represented. In fact, Aboriginal Australians have had a history of engagement in archaeology since at least the1980s, both as critics and practitioners (see Langford 1983 cited under Indigenous and Other Critiques of Archaeology). Both Colley2002 and Du Cros 2002 provide excellent reviews of the impact of colonialism on Aboriginal peoples and their heritage, along with theirinteractions with anthropologists and archaeologists and their eventual participation in those fields, as illustrated in Davidson, et al.1995. In recent years, archaeology has become an important tool for strengthening communities’ connections to their heritage, and itoffers important opportunities for education of young and old, as Brady, et al. 2003 and Clarke 2002 illustrate. Field, et al. 2000 andWilson 2007 are especially valuable in revealing personal and community motivations for involvement in archaeology.

Brady, L. M., B. David, L. Manas, and Mualgal (Torres Strait Islanders) Corporation. 2003. Community archaeology and oraltradition: Commemorating and teaching cultural awareness on Mua Island, Torres Strait. Australian Journal of IndigenousEducation 31:41–49.

An exemplary model of a community-originated archaeological project that combined oral histories and archaeological research topromote inter-generational knowledge sharing that strengthened cultural identity and ancestral connections through participation.

Clarke, A. 2002. The ideal and the real: Cultural and personal transformations of archaeological research on Groote Eylandt,northern Australia. World Archaeology 34.2: 249–264.

A case study in community-based archaeology that reveals how personally transformative this approach may be both to the descendentcommunity involved and to the researcher(s); the detailed account of the methods used and decisions made reflect how researcherscan successfully negotiate cultural boundaries in mutually satisfying ways.

Colley, S. 2002. Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, indigenous people, and the public. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution.

An important overview of the relationship between Aboriginal Australians and archaeology as of the early 2000s; provides a solidfoundation for understanding the nature of heritage and heritage management from both Indigenous and colonial interests.

Davidson, I., C. Lovell-Jones, and R. Bancroft, eds. 1995. Archaeologists and Aborigines working together. Armidale,Australia: Univ. of New England Press.

One of the earliest collections of papers, written by indigenous and non-indigenous authors, to explore the role of communities in thepractice of archaeology in Australia. A key volume.

Du Cros, H. 2002. Much more than stones and bones: Australian archaeology in the late twentieth century. Melbourne:Melbourne Univ. Press.

While ostensibly a history of Australian archaeology in the last twenty-five years, Du Cros reveals the initial absence and later stronginfluence of indigenous values and concerns about heritage (including human remains) on its development.

Field, J., J. Barker, R. Barker, et al. 2000. “Coming back”: Aborigines and archaeologists at Cuddie Springs. PublicArchaeology 1:35–48.

A rich, multi-voiced account of a collaborative project in which Brewarrina community members were active participants and decisionmakers in a major excavation. This account offers indigenous perspectives on archaeology and concludes with a set of valuableinsights and recommendations.

Wilson, C. L. 2007. Indigenous research and archaeology: Transformative practices in/with/for the Ngarrindjeri community.Archaeologies 3.3: 320–334.

As a Ngarrindjeri man and archaeologist, Wilson offers recommendations as to how to improve archaeological research practices withand within Indigenous communities, offering a personal account of his growth as a professional archaeologist and university professor.

Central and South America

This is one of the most important areas today where relations between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists and governments arerapidly evolving, with considerable diversity in the issues, opportunities, and history of engagement, as the essential volume Gneccoand Ayala 2011 illustrates. The region has received far too little attention, due in part to language barriers, but the number ofpublications in English has increased substantially in recent years. As Coitji 2006 notes, the colonial legacy remains very strong, withnationalist interests claiming heritage sites for cultural tourism, often leaving out local communities. Yet there have been, and continueto be concerted efforts to address such inequities by first acknowledging the skewed power structure and then challenging it, asevidenced by case studies offered for Argentina in Endere 2005; for Brazil in Funari and de Carvalho 2011; Colombia, in Gnecco andHernández 2008; and the Amazon basin in Heckenberger 2004.

Coitji, A. C. 2006. Maya archaeology and the political and cultural identity of contemporary Maya in Guatemala. Archaeologies2.1: 8–19.

As a Mayan archaeologist, Coitji brings attention to a nationalist agenda that has promoted Mayan heritage for cultural tourism at theexpense of distancing contemporary Mayan communities from that heritage. She notes that archaeologists have a responsibility to helpcontemporary Indigenous peoples address injustice under existing codes of ethical conduct of the organizations they belong to.

Endere, M. L. 2005. Talking about others: Archaeologists, Indigenous peoples and heritage in Argentina. Public Archaeology4:155–162.

In the wake of dispossession of land and heritage, Endere provides a series of examples of the positive impact of indigenousparticipation in archaeological projects, and of restored access to heritage sites and repatriated human remains; while clear progresshas been made, significant challenges remain, especially due to recent economic and social pressures.

Funari, P. P., and A. V. de Carvalho. 2011. Inclusion in public archaeology in Brazil: Remarks on collaborative practices.Archaeologies 1:239–243.

The question of who benefits from archaeology is the focus of this article that examines the nationalist ideology and indigeneity in thecontext of cultural tourism, the antiquities market, and media representations; the authors promote public archaeology as a means toensure at least some benefits flow to the communities.

Gnecco, C., and P. Ayala, eds. 2011. Indigenous peoples and archaeology in Latin America. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

This collection of eighteen papers introduces the history and practice of archaeology by indigenous archaeologists and scholars inCentral and South America, and the social and political context in which it has emerged, along with an introductory chapter, all of whichprovide an entry point for scholars elsewhere into this very important but often overlooked region.

Gnecco, C., and C. Hernández. 2008. History and its discontents: Stone statues, Native histories, and archaeologists. CurrentAnthropology 49.3: 439–466.

An intriguing study (and set of commentaries) on the nature of colonialism, the processes of decolonialization, and the politics ofarchaeology that have affected, and continue to affect, the Nasa people of Colombia in terms of identity, conceptions of heritage,materiality, and the construction of history. The authors promote a re-envisioned archaeology that shifts the flow of benefits from theacademy to the Nasa.

Heckenberger, M. 2004. Archaeology as indigenous advocacy in Amazonia. Practicing Anthropology 26.3: 35–39.

A short but very rich article that demonstrates archaeology can, because it has no colonial history in the region, have a very positiverole in assisting communities in addressing their heritage-related needs in relation to their encounters with the state, includingprotecting their cultural and intellectual property rights.

Europe and Western and Northern Asia

Although most attention has been devoted to the Americas, Australia/Pacific region, and Africa, Indigenous peoples are foundelsewhere, particularly (but not exclusively) in the northern parts of Europe and Asia. In addition to broadening the category of

“indigenous,” such groups as the Ainu and the Sámi have endured different trajectories of colonialism than their counterpartselsewhere. The Ainu are the indigenous population of northern Japan and the Sakhalin Peninsula. The elegant Fitzhugh and Dubreuil1999 is an essential introduction to this society, while Kato 2009 discusses the challenges the Ainu face in archaeology and heritagemanagement. Mulk and Bayliss-Smith 1999 and Ucko 2001 offer insights into Sámi culture in northern Scandinavia and Russia, and therole of archaeology in protecting their identity, heritage, and well-being. Grøn 2005 provides a glimpse of indigenous Siberians. Incontrast to these, Atalay 2007 is an important example of the broad appeal and applicability of indigenous research methods, in thiscase focused on the author’s work in Turkey.

Atalay, S. 2007. Global application of indigenous archaeology: Community based participatory research in Turkey.Archaeologies 3.3: 249–270.

Atalay demonstrates that indigenous archaeological methods and goals are not restricted to initiatives involving Indigenous peoples andsites. They have far greater applicability than often assumed, as she demonstrates at Çatalhöyük in Turkey, where her collaborativeinitiative resulted in increased community interest and satisfaction.

Fitzhugh, W. W., and C. O. Dubreuil, eds. 1999. Ainu: Spirit of a northern people. Washington, DC and Seattle: SmithsonianInstitution and Univ. of Washington Press.

A landmark publication that explores the anthropology, archaeology, and history of the Ainu, the indigenous people of Japan; the historyof their conquest and impact of colonialism provides a backdrop for their recent efforts to regain control over their heritage, includingparticipation in archaeology in their traditional lands.

Grøn, O. 2005. Archaeology and the study of Indigenous peoples in Siberia. Public Archaeology 4:155–162.

A short but informative history of Soviet archaeology in Siberia and its social, political, and economic impact upon Siberian peoples, butwith very limited attention to developments since the 1950s.

Kato, H. 2009. Whose archaeology? Decolonizing archaeological perspective in Hokkaido Island. Journal of the GraduateSchool of Letters. Hokkaido University. 4:47–55.

An overview of indigenous archaeology and its contributions to the Ainu of northern Japan, focusing on Kato’s efforts to ensure Ainuparticipation in research on, and heritage management of, Shiretoko, a UNESCO World Heritage site in their traditional lands.

Mulk, I.-M., and T. Bayliss-Smith. 1999. The representation of Sami cultural identity in the cultural landscapes of northernSweden: The use and misuse of archaeological knowledge. In The archaeology and anthropology of landscape. Shaping yourlandscape. Edited by P. J. Ucko and R. Layton, 358–396. London: Routledge.

The authors examine how Sámi identity, closely linked to their landscape, has been misrepresented and oversimplified byarchaeologists and influenced by national politics, which has subsequently constrained Sámi access to and control over their land andheritage.

Ucko, P. J. 2001. “Heritage” and “Indigenous peoples” in the 21st century. Public Archaeology 1:227–238.

The Sámi have faced many of the same challenges as other Indigenous peoples, including land rights, repatriation, and control ofheritage, but have often been excluded from discussions about indigenous archaeology; Ucko reviews Sámi cultural identity and theirefforts to regain control over their own affairs, focusing on heritage matters.

North America

This is perhaps the most visible stage on which to track the development and applications of indigenous archaeology both before andfollowing its development. Ferguson 1996 and Watkins 2000 provide broad overviews that also incorporate case studies, legal cases,and legislation that have prompted change in archaeological practice. Important sets of successful (or challenging) tribal-developedinitiatives and collaborations are found in Dongoske, et al. 2000; Nicholas and Andrews 1997; and Swidler, et al. 1997. Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2010 and Kerber 2006 provide regional perspectives for the Southwest and the Northeast, respectively. Bernard, et al.2011 showcases an example of a very successful integration of traditional and scientific knowledge about an important Paleo-Indiansite, providing a model for dialogue between groups often far removed from each other as to the proper care of heritage sites.

Bernard, T., L. Morine Rosenmeier, and S. Farrell, eds. 2011. Ta’n Wetapeksi’k: Understanding from where we come.Proceedings of the 2005 Debert Research Workshop. Truro, NS: Eastern Woodland.

The volume captures a unique workshop that brought together geological and environmental scientists, anthropologists andarchaeologists, and Mi’kmaw community members and elders to discuss the ten thousand-year-old Debert site in the context ofWestern and indigenous ways of knowledge about the past.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2010. Living histories: Native Americans and southwestern archaeology. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

A history of Southwestern archaeology that foregrounds the impact of exploration and scientific study of the region and its peoples, andthe contributions of Native peoples in the region to illuminating the relationship of archaeological record to contemporary communities.

Dongoske, K. E., M. Aldenderfer, and K. Doehner, eds. 2000. Working together: Native Americans and archaeologists.Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.

A collection of short essays compiled from the “Working Together” column in the SAA Archaeological Record publication, whichhighlights community-oriented archaeological projects.

Ferguson, T. J. 1996. Native Americans and the practice of archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:63–79.

This review focuses on the impact of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and the opportunities itand other factors have had in promoting new opportunities for Native Americans and archaeologists to work together.

Kerber, J. E., ed. 2006. Cross-cultural collaboration: Native peoples and archaeology in the northeastern United States.Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press.

A collection of twenty chapters that examine the historical and contemporary relations between Native Americans and the discipline ofarchaeology both today and in the past, focusing on the practical, theoretical, and ethical aspects of collaborative practice through aseries of case studies from throughout the Northeast.

Nicholas, G. P., and T. D. Andrews, eds. 1997. At a crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Burnaby:Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.

The twenty papers in this volume, written by both native and non-native authors, examine the complex interactions between

archaeologists and contemporary Indigenous peoples of Canada in regard to working together, interpretation of the past, ownership ofthe past, and the relationships between traditional knowledge and archaeological fact.

Swidler, N., K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, and A. S. Downer, eds. 1997. Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones tocommon ground. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

This collection of twenty-five articles examines the changing nature of American archaeology in the 1990s, focusing on issues and casestudies relating to cultural and natural resource ownership, reburial and repatriation, and the relationship between science and oraltraditions.

Watkins, J. 2000. Indigenous archaeology: American Indian values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

One of the most widely cited books on the subject, Watkins explores in detail some of the most contentious issues affecting NativeAmericans; the volume is split between discussion on the board issues of repatriation, heritage management, and ethics, and a seriesof case studies (and discussion) including NAGPRA, the “Ancient One” (Kennewick Man), and other topics.

Pacific

Often eclipsed by developments in nearby Australia, the Pacific region is a vibrant area of indigenous involvement in archaeology andinnovative heritage management, including educational and capacity-building initiatives, as Smith 2007 makes evident. Kawharu 2009and O’Regan 2006 examine Maori perspectives on their cultural landscape and some of the key challenges faced in ensuring Maoriparticipation in, if not control over, Maori heritage. The examples of community-based approaches to heritage management provided byin Crosby 2002 for Fiji, and by Byrne 2011 and Leavesley, et al. 2005 for New Guinea, deserve careful scrutiny for the lessons theyprovide.

Byrne, S. 2011. Community archaeology as knowledge management: Reflections from Uneapa Island, Papua New Guinea.Public Archaeology 11.1: 26–52.

Byrne makes the cogent argument that community archaeology is as much about knowledge management as it is heritagemanagement, involving as it often does more than one knowledge system. This study exemplifies the challenges involved inoperationalizing the notion of “communities of practice” and also how local values transform an archaeological project.

Crosby, A. 2002. Archaeology and Vanua development in Fiji. World Archaeology 34.2: 363–378.

A case study in collaborative archaeology in which disenfranchised local communities seek economic interdependence and socialwellbeing through archaeology, while also protecting their heritage sites and contributing to scientific knowledge about the past.

Kawharu, M. 2009. Ancestral landscapes and world heritage from a Māori viewpoint. Journal of the Polynesian Society 118.4:317–338.

A review of how the term “ancestral landscape” encapsulates Maori heritage and serves as a means to protect and promote localvalues, in comparison to guidelines created by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee to identify and protect “cultural and naturalheritage of outstanding universal value.”

Leavesley, M. G., B. Minol, J. Kop, and V. H. Kewibu. 2005. Cross-cultural concepts of archaeology: Kastom, community,education and cultural heritage management in Papua New Guinea. Public Archaeology 4:3–13.

The authors argue that the need to identify and incorporate indigenous perspectives of the past is essential in archaeological initiativesand heritage management practices in Papua New Guinea, and they describe a training program that helped to obtain suchinformation. Notably, co-authors Minol, Kop, and Kewibu are university-educated Papua New Guineans.

O’Regan, G. 2006. Regaining authority: Setting the agenda in Maori heritage through control and shaping of data. PublicHistory Review 13:95–107.

For Maori, “heritage” is both the material traces of past activities and the intangible values and information associated with things andplaces, all of which must be acknowledged for heritage management to be successful, as illustrated by this study involving ancestralhuman remains and rock art.

Smith, A. 2007. Building capacity in Pacific island heritage management: Lessons from those who know best. Archaeologies3.3: 335–352.

A case study illustrating the application of a UNESCO-funded training program in cultural heritage management, based on anAustralian-developed program that was modified for a Pacific island context and incorporates local community participation andcapacity building.

Theory and Praxis

The theoretical foundation of indigenous archaeology is strongly oriented to indigenous epistemology and worldview, as manifested indifferent expressions of cosmology, materiality, cultural landscapes, and connections to ancestral and spiritual beings. It alsoincorporates or connects to aspects of Marxist, critical, and feminist archaeology, acknowledging power imbalances betweendescendent communities and the dominant society, as well as promoting alternative modes of research and benefit sharing that areless hierarchical and more flexible than most mainstream archaeological approaches. This section provides resources that inform onindigenous epistemology, identify culturally appropriate research methods, and offer a series of case studies in which both are put intopractice.

Indigenous Epistemology

Often central to the nature of indigenous archaeology is a knowledge system that differs from, sometimes radically, scientific knowledgeand Western epistemology, as Stump 2013 notes. These systems are not necessarily incompatible but may require considerable effortto bridge. Bernardini 2005 and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006 provide examples of such efforts in the American Southwest, and howrewarding they are in providing insights into non-Western ways of thinking and doing These works reveal similarities and differencesbetween traditional knowledge, worldview, and heritage issues within the same region. Green, et al. 2003 demonstrates the value ofincorporating indigenous ways of knowing into archaeological practice. For Australia, Ross, et al. 2010 illustrates how incorporatingsuch perspectives into heritage management strategies yields mutually rewarding results, while the very ambitious David 2002 attemptsto use rock art and other archaeological means to trace aspects of contemporary indigenous worldview and belief into the distant past.Finally, Watson, et al. 2013 provides a very informative comparison between indigenous and Western conceptions of time.

Bernardini, W. 2005. Hopi oral tradition and the archaeology of identity. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press.

Bernardini demonstrates the necessity of incorporating traditional knowledge into the interpretation of the archaeological recordassociated with select areas within the Hopi homelands, and the contributions of such knowledge to refining our understanding ofarchitecture, rock art, demographic change and migration models, social structure, and group identity.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. 2006. Dreams at the edge of the world and other evocations of O’odham history. Archaeologies 2.1:20–44.

A fascinating article that reveals how deeply engrained ancient and ancestral places are in the worldview and lived experiences of theO’odham of Arizona, exposing significant gaps in archaeological knowledge, as well as community concerns about the contemporarytreatment of objects and places by outsiders.

David, B. 2002. Landscapes, rock-art and the Dreaming: An archaeology of preunderstanding. London: Leicester Univ. Press.

An ambitious albeit challenging volume that explores the antiquity of the Dreaming—the timeless and multidimensional worldview ofindigenous Australians; this richly nuanced concept is responsible for and integrated into sacred places, objects, and beings so centralto Aboriginal lifeways there.

Green, L. F., D. R. Green, and E. Góes Neves. 2003. Indigenous knowledge and archaeological science: The challenges ofpublic archaeology in the Reserva Uaçá. Journal of Social Archaeology 3.3: 366–398.

This Brazilian study explores the intersection of archaeological practices and indigenous knowledge systems, stressing thatparticipatory archaeology is not an add-on to traditional archaeological practice but rather a starting point. The authors detail the criticalimportance of community involvement in formulating the research questions and identifying appropriate methods, and they provide adeep and honest assessment of the challenges and rewards of indigenous archaeology.

Ross, A., J. Prangnell, and B. Coghill. 2010. Archaeology, cultural landscapes, and indigenous knowledge in Australiancultural heritage management legislation and practice. Heritage Management 3.1: 73–96.

In this northern Queensland study, the incorporation of local community values and customary law into a collaborative heritagemanagement project demonstrates both the limitations of traditional measures of success (e.g., number of sites found; theirsignificance) and the necessity of integrating a cultural landscape/traditional knowledge-based approach.

Stump, D. 2013. On applied archaeology, indigenous knowledge, and the usable past. Current Anthropology 54.3: 268–298.

A provocative study (with commentaries) that explores the convergences and divergences of traditional knowledge, archaeologicalinterpretations, and community needs in the context of indigenous and applied archaeology. Stump critically reviews the nature ofknowledge manifested in oral histories and scientific process and then seeks to determine whether Western archaeologists cansuccessfully incorporate local values and address local concerns in heritage research and management.

Watson, N. H., L. J. Zimmerman, and P. M Peterson. 2013. The present past: An examination of archaeological and NativeAmerican thinking about law and time. In Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking. Edited byD. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, and V. N. Kobayashi. New York: Routledge.

A sensitive, cross-cultural comparison of the essential concepts of “law” and “time” within Native American societies, and theconsequences of misunderstanding these by archaeologists, heritage managers, and others in the context of the reburial issue.(Originally published in 1989, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).

Decolonizing and Culturally Appropriate Methods

One of the most important goals of indigenous archaeology is to address the significant inequalities that exist between descendentcommunities and archaeologists, with the flow of benefits often being away from the source communities. McGuire 2008 addresses thisthrough a praxis-based approach, while Hollowell and Nicholas 2009 does so by using ethnographic data to promote communityvalues. Spector 1993 is an excellent example of a hybrid community-informed feminist methodology, an approach that Conkey 2005expands on by perceptive examination of the points of connection between indigenous and feminist archaeology. Smith 1999 presentsexcellent review and discussion of indigenous research methodology and is an essential source, as is Atalay 2012, a morearchaeologically oriented guide. Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008 presents a strong discussion and numerous examples ofcollaborative approaches involving indigenous communities, while Silliman 2008 explores opportunities to bring indigenousarchaeological methods into field schools.

Atalay, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: Univ.of California Press.

Atalay distills the lessons learned through her extensive research into and experience with community-based research to demonstrateits broad utility and practical applications for working with descendent communities, ensuring they are direct beneficiaries of theresearch while also improving and expanding considerably archaeological method and theory. This volume is essential reading, as itlays out a solid framework for ethical and mutually rewarding archaeological practice for years to come.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., and T. J. Ferguson, eds. 2008. Collaboration in archaeological practice: Engaging descendantcommunities. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

An exploration of collaborative archaeological practice illustrated by a series of notable case studies and personal experiences drawnfrom the Americas, Africa, and Australia. The editors’ introductory chapter provides a valuable discussion on collaboration and how itdiffers from other types of engagement, along with valuable examples and recommendations for initiatives developed with and byindigenous communities.

Conkey, M. 2005. Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies. Archaeologies1.1: 9–59.

This insightful article explores the parallels between feminist and indigenous archaeologies, which are both efforts to address the needsof marginalized groups and employ similar non-hierarchical methods. Conkey draws attention to the sociopolitics of archaeologicalpractice.

Hollowell, J., and G. P. Nicholas. 2009. Using ethnographic methods to articulate community-based conceptions of culturalheritage management. Public Archaeology 8.2–3: 141–160.

This article demonstrates how ethnographic methods can be employed to bring forward community values to create meaningful andeffective heritage policies, rather than their more usual application in aid of archaeological interpretation; the utility of a combinedethnographic/ participatory research approach is illustrated by initiatives undertaken by indigenous groups in Michigan, BritishColumbia, and the Chatham Islands, New Zealand.

McGuire, R. 2008. Archaeology as political action. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.

The history of archaeology reveals it to be a political and seldom neutral enterprise, a position that provides the backdrop to McGuire’sexplicitly Marxist approach that promotes praxis (theoretically informed action) as a means to know the world and ultimately change it.He provides a well-argued strategy for an archaeology that benefits, not oppresses, descendent communities, with examples drawnfrom Native Americans, Mayan communities, and others.

Silliman, S. W. ed. 2008. Collaborating at the trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. Tucson: Univ. ofArizona Press.

The contributors to this valuable collection on indigenous archaeology field schools and related initiatives offer clear and provenexamples of successful (albeit often challenging) pedagogies that address community needs and also educate non-indigenousarchaeologists and students. The focus is on North America, and the examples presented include field schools developed incollaboration with Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, Mohegan, Pequot, and Cayuga Tribes, among others.

Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.

One of the most cited books in the indigenous studies oeuvre, Smith provides a cogent discussion on the need for, and means of,culturally appropriate research methods that respect and benefit Indigenous peoples. Her focus is Maori, but her insights andrecommendations extend to indigenous and other marginalized peoples everywhere.

Spector, J. 1993. What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota village. Saint Paul: Minnesota HistoricalSociety Press.

This landmark volume illustrates a novel approach to community-based archaeology, guided by local values and feminist methods,presented in a first-person narrative. Without abandoning science, Spector humanizes the archaeological record by crafting a tale of thebone-handled awl and of the young woman who once used it.

Case Studies

Examples of indigenous archaeological initiatives, developed by or with communities, have increased substantially in the last twodecades, as illustrated in the publications listed here. Peck, et al. 2003, Smith and Wobst 2005, and Bruchac, et al. 2010 provide anarray of case studies worldwide, as well as more theoretically oriented writings. Tackling the challenge of decolonization is the focus ofAtalay 2006. Collaborative practices, which are frequently an element of indigenous archaeology, are highlighted in Lassiter 2009,which focuses more on methodological issues than on the political challenges of addressing the needs of descendent communities.

Atalay, S., ed. 2006. Special issue: Decolonizing archaeology. American Indian Quarterly 30.3–4.

A collection of eleven thought-provoking essays by indigenous and non-indigenous scholars and practioners on the need to decolonizethe discipline, what that really means, and ways to do so. Along with Atalay’s introductory essay that scopes out the nature ofindigenous archaeology as a decolonizing practice, contributors provide in-depth accounts of their work in Mexico, Canada, the UnitedStates, and Australia, on topics ranging from the legacy of historic period mission sites to race and identity.

Atalay, S., L. R. Claus, R. H. McGuire, and J. R. Welch, eds. 2014. Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

The twelve contributors offer strong arguments for promoting community-based initiatives using archaeology as a means to address

pressing social, political, and environmental needs of descendent communities. Each author offers a personal account of their owntransformation to activist, as well as practical advice for collaborative practice.

Bruchac, M. M., S. M. Hart, and H. M. Wobst, eds. 2010. Indigenous archaeologies: A reader on decolonization. Walnut Creek:Left Coast.

This reader of fifty-one reprinted and some original articles samples the purpose, historical development, breadth, and applications ofindigenous archaeology worldwide (including Asia and Europe), with many entries by indigenous scholars and practioners. It providesboth broad overview and specific examples of what is found under the umbrella of “indigenous archaeology,” although some importantitems are not included.

Lassiter, L. E. 2009. Special issue: Collaborative archaeologies. Collaborative Anthropologies 2:1–108.

A collection of five articles on archaeology with and by Indigenous peoples in South America, Australia, and the United States, alongwith a thoughtful essay on the value of collaborative archaeological research.

Peck, T., E. Siegfried, and G. Oetelaar, eds. 2003. Indigenous peoples and archaeology. Calgary, AB: Univ. of Calgary Press.

This selection of papers from the first major conference explicitly oriented to this topic in 1999 offers international and cross-culturalperspectives on its theoretical dimensions, educational opportunities, economics and benefits flow, and examples of practice.

Smith, C., and H. M. Wobst, eds. 2005. Indigenous archaeologies: Decolonizing theory and practice. New York and London:Routledge.

This important collection explores the breadth of indigenous archaeology and its historical development and contemporary practice inAfrica, Australia, and the Americas. The authors (the majority of whom are indigenous) explore the contributions of indigenousarchaeology to theory and methods, and examine such topics as the treatment of human remains, indigeneity, and responsible andethical research methods, to illustrate what a decolonized archaeology might look like.

Identity, Indigeneity, and Racialism

Indigenous archaeology is both a concept and a set of methods defined in reference to a particular group of people—those considered“indigenous” by outsiders. Yet the broad anthropological retrospectives Béteille 1998 and Merlan 2009 reveal that how the term isdefined and who is included has been problematic historically and continues to be so. The term is very much a legacy of colonialism,which continues to affect communities, as Haber 2007 illustrates. Sillar 2005 pursues these themes from a more archaeologicalperspective. Echo-Hawk and Zimmerman 2006 take a more provocative approach by challenging archaeologists to recognize that thenotion of race, long eschewed by anthropologists, is still very much present and continues to have an adverse effect on Indigenouspeoples.

Béteille, A. 1998. The idea of indigenous people. Current Anthropology 39.2: 187–191.

A critical review of the history of the concept of “indigenous” in historical context that reveals how problematic its application may be,despite the fact that it is widely used by both anthropologists and Indigenous peoples today.

Echo-Hawk, R., and L. Zimmerman. 2006. Beyond racism: Some opinions about racialism and American archaeology.American Indian Quarterly 30.3–4: 461–485.

A valuable exposition on the concepts of “race” and “racialism” in which the authors contend that, though the use of the former hasnecessarily been abandoned in anthropology and elsewhere, race continues to figure prominently in the sociopolitics of archaeology,illustrated not only by such examples as the Moundbuilder race and Kennewick Man, but also “indigenous archaeology.” They urgearchaeologists to be aware of the continued pervasiveness of race and its implications, and call for “a new discourse about race” (p.482).

Haber, A. F. 2007. This is not an answer to the question “Who is indigenous?” Archaeologies 3.3: 213–229.

A provocative essay on “indigenous” and “indian” as terms of colonial categorization in Argentina, but very relevant to understanding thepolitics of identity in other colonial contexts.

Merlan, F. 2009. Indigeneity: Global and local. Current Anthropology 50.3: 303–333.

A broadly framed review of various debates over the concept and application of indigeneity, followed by a more politically orienteddiscussion of it in nationalist and internationalist contexts, with key examples drawn from Australia and Norway.

Sillar, B. 2005. Who’s indigenous? Whose archaeology? Public Archaeology 4.2–3: 71–94.

An excellent examination of this surprisingly complex question and how it applies to archaeology. Sillar reviews various legal and otherdefinitions of “indigenous,” reviews the various terms (and their implications) employed over the past several centuries, discusses bloodquanta and other means of tracking ancestry and descent, and examines assimilation policies and state control, and various issuesrelating to representation and the control of tangible and intangible heritage.

Indigenous Stewardship and Heritage Management

Indigenous control over indigenous heritage, or at least meaningful input into decisions made about the preservation of that heritage, isconsidered essential to a society’s well being, as explained in Stapp and Burney 2002 and Watkins and Beaver 2008. Klessert andDowner 1990 presents evidence of the desire for such involvement in heritage management from the beginning of Native Americaninvolvement in archaeology. This is illustrated as well in the more recent initiatives of Ndlovu 2013, on Africa; Mitchell, et al. 2013, onAustralia; and Budhwa 2005, on Canada. In the United Sates, Dowdall and Parrish 2003 provides an exemplary model of theintegration of indigenous values in heritage management strategies at the local level, while Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006demonstrates this at a larger and multi-tribal level.

Budhwa, R. 2005. An alternative model for First Nations involvement in resource management archaeology. Canadian Journalof Archaeology 29.1: 20–45.

An example of an innovative tribal initiative in which one First Nation in British Columbia inserted itself into a consultation process thathad otherwise neglected their needs; in seeking to protect their own heritage, the nation assumed a central role, involving itself in initialsurveys through to site evaluation and final recommendations.

Dowdall, K., and O. Parrish. 2003. A meaningful disturbance of the earth. Journal of Social Archaeology 3.1: 99–133.

This essential article documents the collaboration established between the Kayasha Pomo Tribe and the California Department ofTransportation and demonstrates how indigenous values can be incorporated into archaeological resource management in ameaningful and respectful way.

Ferguson, T. J., and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh. 2006. History is in the land: Multivocal tribal traditions in Arizona’s San PedroValley. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press.

An exemplary contribution that reveals the multi-layered, multi-cultural landscape of the San Pedro Valley through a collaborativearchaeological, ethnographic, and historical research initiative that involved the Hopi, Zuni, Tohono O’odham, and San Carlos Apachetribes. This is a key example of rewarding and mutually informative research that also guides effective heritage management.

Klessert, A. L., and A. S. Downer, eds. 1990. Preservation on the reservation: Native Americans, Native American lands, andarchaeology. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 26. Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department.

A landmark publication stemming from a 1988 conference organized by the Navajo Nation that brought together tribal archaeologists,tribal and federal representatives, and corporations to explore Native American and federal heritage legislation and the relationshipbetween Native Americans and archaeologists. The conference and this volume herald the opening of discussions on the efficacy ofheritage legislation, reburial and repatriation, sovereignty, research protocols and data access, and more.

Mitchell, M., D. R. Guilfoyle, R. D. Reynolds, and C. Morgan. 2013. Towards sustainable community heritage management andthe role of archaeology: A case study from Western Australia. Heritage & Society 6.1: 24–45.

An excellent example of alternative heritage management strategies that place local communities at the center, demonstrating the utilityof such an approach, as well as the challenges of collaborative practices involving Traditional Owners, academics, governmentagencies, and developers.

Ndlovu, N. 2013. Ownership of heritage resources in South Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Internet Archaeology 33.

A thoughtful essay on the nature, and ownership, of heritage resources in South Africa that contextualizes the issues historically andpolitically, noting that “ownership” is always political, and always contentious. Ndlovu reviews key sections of the National HeritageResources Act and recommends a new way to classify heritage sites that identifies and better protects spiritually significant locales.

Stapp, D. C., and M. S. Burney. 2002. Tribal cultural resource management: The full circle to stewardship. Lanham, MD:AltaMira.

An essential introduction to tribally based heritage management practices in the United States, demonstrating the deep connectionbetween land, heritage, and identity. The first half of the book traces the history of tribal cultural resource management; the latter half,its practice today.

Watkins, J., and J. Beaver. 2008. What do we mean by “heritage”? Whose heritage do we manage, and what rights have we todo so? Heritage Management 1.1: 9–36.

A broadly framed examination of “heritage,” which begins with a set of definitions and acknowledgement of both its tangible andintangible aspects, and then explores the nature (and challenges) of managing heritage (especially indigenous) at the local, national,and global levels.

Sacred Sites and Living Landscapes

For many descendent communities, archaeological sites and heritage locales are not part of the past; ancestral spirits are part of thecontemporary landscape, a notion that has profound significance for culturally appropriate archaeological practice. Guilliford 2000provides an excellent overview of the nature of sacred sites in North America, and the challenges in protecting them; Johnston 2006also addresses the topic in terms of the impact of cultural tourism. Reeves and Kennedy 1993 offers both general discussion of andspecific case studies on sacred sites and their protection and “management.” A landscape-level approach is illustrated in the Layton1989 account of Uluru, both in terms of traditional beliefs about it and the development of a co-management strategy to protect it. Theaccount of repatriation in Merrill, et al. 1993 reveals the continuing importance to contemporary peoples of “ancient” objects, includingthose that embody sacred beings. Finally, Hall 1997 demonstrates that traces of very old belief systems may still be found through acombination of oral history and archaeological inference.

Guilliford, A. 2000. Sacred objects and sacred places: Preserving tribal traditions. Boulder: Univ. Press of Colorado.

An essential review of the tangible and intangible aspects of Native American worldview and heritage expressed as sacred places andobjects; case studies are presented and discussed on such topics as repatriation and reburial of ancestral remains, proper curation ofsacred objects in museums, the nature of sacred places, and the perpetuation of living traditions.

Hall, R. 1997. An archaeology of the soul: North American Indian belief and ritual. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

A fascinating set of essays on the multi-dimensional nature of Native American worldviews in the American Midwest through which Hallconnects contemporary and historic beliefs and ritual practices to those of millennia past through linguistic, archaeological, and geneticdata, and traditional knowledge.

Johnston, A. M. 2006. Is the sacred for sale? Tourism and Indigenous peoples. London: Earthscan.

An overview of the opportunities and challenges faced by Indigenous peoples worldwide as they seek to both promote and protect theircultural ways, lands, and heritage—including archaeological sites—with outsiders.

Layton, R. 1989. Uluru: An Aboriginal history of Ayers Rock. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies.

A history of this culturally significant heritage site that illustrates the indigenous belief of the timelessness of the landscape and theinseparable nature of people and place; the volume culminates with the author’s insightful review of Aboriginal rights, the specific Uluruland claim, and the management scheme subsequently established.

Merrill, W. L., E. Ladd, and T. J. Ferguson. 1993. The return of the Ahayu:da: Lessons for repatriation from Zuni Pueblo and theSmithsonian Institute. Current Anthropology 34.5: 523–567.

A detailed, case-based account of a major repatriation of sacred Zuni objects by the Smithsonian Institution, along with commentarieson the authors’ description of the importance of the Ahayu:da’s role in Zuni worldview and their interpretation of the events thattranspired.

Reeves, B. O. K., and M. A. Kennedy, eds. 1993. Kunaitupii: Coming together on native sacred sites, their sacredness,conservation, and interpretation: A native and non-native forum. Calgary: Archaeological Society of Alberta.

This collection captures the proceedings of a 1990 forum on sacred sites involving native and non-native participants, with contributionson conceptions of sacredness, treatment of the dead, archaeology and heritage management, and local values and religious traditions.

Ancestral Remains

Arguably the most contentious issues that emerged in 20th-century archaeology have related to the repatriation of human remains andassociated mortuary objects. Mihesuah 2000 is a good starting point for identifying both the range of issues and different perspectiveson them. Cove 1995 and Fforde 2004 provide histories of the collection and study of human remains by antiquarians andarchaeologists over the last several centuries. Bray and Killion 1994 provides a multi-faceted account of an early landmark repatriation,while Turnbull and Pickering 2010 offers a more recent and comprehensive exploration of the many different aspects of repatriation.Accounts of “Kennewick Man” are numerous, but the perhaps the best set of essays is found in the comprehensive Burke, et al. 2008.Bruning 2006 focuses on this case in the larger context of NAGRPA. Killion 2008 moves the discussion about ancestral remainsforward in significant ways.

Bray, T. L., and T. W. Killion, eds. 1994. Reckoning with the dead: The Larson Bay repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

A comprehensive account of one of the largest repatriations ever conducted in North America, providing an excellent review of thehistorical and social contexts in which the ancestral remains were collected, the negotiations conducted, the repatriation itself, and thelessons learned in this long, ethically challenging, but transformative event.

Bruning, S. 2006. Complex legal legacies: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, scientific study, andKennewick Man. American Antiquity 71.3: 501–521.

Writing as both a lawyer and archaeologist, Bruning provides a measured assessment of NAGPRA relative to the Kennewick Man caseand outlines the need to refine such wide-sweeping legislation to take into account legitimate but competing interest by descendentgroups and other stakeholders.

Burke, H., C. Smith, D. Lippert, J. E. Watkins, and L. J. Zimmerman, eds. 2008. Kennewick Man: Perspectives on the ancientone. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.

A balanced and relatively comprehensive set of forty-one chapters that explore the historical, scientific, ethical, and cultural dimensionof one of the most challenging archaeological discoveries in North American history, with strong representation by indigenous scholarsand commentators.

Cove, J. 1995. What the bones say: Tasmanian aborigines, science and domination. Ottawa, ON: Carleton Univ. Press.

A critical history of the scientific study of Tasmanians, the political rationale for the initiative, and the consequences it has had uponhistoric and contemporary communities—an important example of the continuing legacy of scientific colonialism.

Fforde, C. 2004. Collecting the dead: Archaeology and the reburial issue. London: Duckworth.

Drawing on her experiences with Indigenous groups, Fforde explores contemporary perspectives on reburial by returning to why humanremains were collected in the first place, and the contemporaneous responses to this by the communities affected.

Killion, T. W., ed. 2008. Opening archaeology: Repatriation’s impact on contemporary research and practice. Santa Fe, NM:School for Advanced Research Press.

A carefully conceived collection that examines the impact of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and theNational Museum of the American Indian Act upon both Native Americans and North American archaeologists, with thoughtfulassessment of changes and yet-unresolved challenges in museum policies, archaeological practice, and ethics, among other topics.

Mihesuah, D., ed. 2000. Repatriation reader: Who owns American Indian remains. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press.

This collection of sixteen entries contains some of the most essential readings on the subject to that date, including reviews of some ofthe different dimensions of the repatriation debate, the legal and ethical issues that ensure, and examples of efforts to resolve it at bothlocal and federal levels.

Turnbull, P., and M. Pickering, eds. 2010. The long way home: The meaning and values of repatriation. New York and London:Berghahn.

This is a solid set of essays, written by museum specialists, indigenous knowledge holders, philosophers, and others, that movesforward the discussion about repatriation in its many guises. The focus is strongly but not exclusively Australian, and the examplesprovided illustrate the legal and ethical complexities of achieving respectful treatment of ancestral remains with the realities of themuseum world.

Access to, Control of, and Benefits from Indigenous Heritage

Much attention has been devoted to greater involvement of Indigenous peoples in archaeology, which is mainly about process, butthere has been relatively little concern about the products of archaeological and heritage-based research until recently. Brown 1998,Fforde, et al. 2002, and Geismar 2013 demonstrate how pervasive the marketing or exhibition of indigenous culture is, and the harmscaused by cultural appropriation and commodification. Both Isaac 2011 and Nash and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2011 explore some of theissues in museum settings. Smith 2004 is very useful for providing “big picture” exposition on the nature of heritage.

Brown, M. 1998. Who owns native culture? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

A seminal review of issues relating to who owns and benefits from Native American culture, in terms of both physical objects and placesand the intellectual property they contain, including such archaeological examples as medicine wheels, rock art, sacred sites, andgenetic information.

Fforde, C., J. Hubert, and P. Turnbull, eds., 2002. The dead and their possession: Repatriation in principle, policy, and practice.London and New York: Routledge.

An essential collection of twenty-eight essays by indigenous and other scholars on the wide array of religious, political, and ethicalaspects of human remains and associated cultural objects, identifying harms incurred and solutions sought, with examples drawn fromAfrica, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and elsewhere.

Geismar, H. 2013. Treasured possessions: Indigenous interventions into cultural and intellectual property. Durham, NC and

London: Duke Univ. Press.

A work of great clarity and depth about the inseparable nature of cultural objects, intellectual property, and identity in South Pacificcommunities. Geismar’s examples and insights resonate strongly with, and lend themselves to, understanding comparable aspects oftraditional knowledge, heritage, and the role of archaeology elsewhere.

Isaac, G. 2011. Whose idea was this? Museums, replicas, and the reproduction of knowledge. Current Anthropology 52.2: 211–233.

In this important article on the nature and reproduction of (indigenous) knowledge, Isaac demonstrates that, according to Zuniprinciples, there is no practical difference between an original and replica object, which leads to deep insight into Zuni (and perhapsother) societies, and indicates the importance of working with groups to develop effective heritage management and museum policies.

Nash, S. E., and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, eds. 2011. The deafening silence: NAGPRA, repatriation, and the pages of museumanthropology. Museum Anthropology 33.2.

An important collection of eighteen articles marking the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act, and the responses to it (or lack thereof) and lessons learned by museums, archaeologists, and indigenouscommunities. It includes broad overviews, personal reflections, discussions of case studies and legislative practice, and an epilogue.

Smith, L. 2004. Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London: Routledge.

Focusing on Australia and the United States, Smith examines how different conceptions of “heritage” held by Indigenous peoples andothers (e.g., archaeologists) translate into the political realm, including who has control over and benefits from the heritage of others bypromoting particular interpretations of “significance” and “stewardship.”

Treaty Rights, Land Claims, and Legal Challenges

Arguably, access to one’s own heritage is a basic human right. Ormond Parker 2005 describes the efforts of Indigenous peoples tohave their rights honored, traditional lands restored, and control ceded to their heritage. Knafla and Westra 2010 and Ferris 2003provide excellent historical reviews of some of the legal challenges they have faced. Lilley 2000 offers a broad array of perspectives onnative title as it relates to archaeology. Bell and Napoleon 2008 and Bell and Paterson 2009 provide examples of cutting-edgecommunity-based research on customary legal regimes as they relate to cultural heritage. Ross 2005 and Miller 2012 are highlyrecommended for explaining the challenges of supporting indigenous claims in the Western legal system, including whenarchaeological evidence is given in court proceedings as part of land claims cases.

Bell, C., and V. Napoleon, eds. 2008. First Nations and the law: Respect, reconciliation, and reform. Vancouver, BC: UBCPress.

An essential volume that brings forward and explores an array of Canadian indigenous perspectives on cultural heritage relating torepatriation, intangible heritage, protection of human ancestral remains, heritage legislation and site protection, and indigenousworldview and legal regimes. The discussions and case studies are of relevance to an international audience.

Bell, C., and R. Paterson, eds. 2009. Protection of First Nations cultural heritage: Laws, policy, and reform. Vancouver, BC:

UBC Press.

A companion volume to Bell and Napoleon 2008, this collection focuses on the legal aspects of indigenous heritage protection inCanada, examining in detail existing national and international policies, laws, codes of conduct, research protocols, with discussions oftraditional knowledge, archaeological materials and human remains, repatriation and trade, and much more. Also of interest to aninternational audience.

Ferris, N. 2003. Between colonial and indigenous archaeologies: Legal and extra-legal ownership of the archaeological past inNorth America. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 27:154–190.

A valuable review of the historical context of heritage legislation in North America that explains the rise of state control over indigenousheritage and the “privileged trust” archaeologists have to manage archaeological sites, all of which has worked to exclude indigenousNorth Americans from controlling their own heritage.

Knafla, L. A., and H. Westra, eds. 2010. Aboriginal title and Indigenous peoples: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

An excellent overview and detailed discussions of various aspects of the doctrine of aboriginal title in these three colonialist countries,beginning with the historical circumstances in which aboriginal title was extinguished and then shifting to ongoing attempts byindigenous groups to have their land title and rights restored.

Lilley, I., ed. 2000. Native title and the transformation of archaeology in the postcolonial world. Oceana Monographs 50.Sydney, Australia: Univ. of Sydney.

An exploration of issues relating to native title and land rights in Australia and implications for archaeology and heritage management,coupled with perspectives drawn from southern Africa, Canada, the Pacific, and elsewhere. [Reprinted by Left Coast Press, 2008.]

Miller, B. 2012. Oral history on trial: Recognizing aboriginal narratives in the courts. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Archaeological data have figured prominently in land claims in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere; this volume examines the broadertopic of the incorporation of oral histories in court, including a careful review of the nature and expressions of knowledge in bothWestern and non-Western societies.

Ormond Parker, L. 2005. Indigenous peoples’ rights to their cultural heritage. Public Archaeology 4:127–140.

An informative review of a rights-based approach to indigenous cultural heritage that is oriented to those conventions and policiesdeveloped by the United Nations and European Union. Parker introduces and explains such foundational concepts as cultural andintellectual property, informed consent, and collective rights, and discusses issues relating to benefits sharing, ownership of humanremains, and sustainable justices, as well as the substantial challenges that exist in implementing existing international policiesdesigned to protect indigenous interests.

Ross, M. L. 2005. First Nations sacred sites in Canada’s courts. Law and Society Series. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

An assessment of the overall failure of the Canadian legal system to deal fairly with sacred sites, based on a detailed review ofdecisions rendered in a variety of cases brought before the court, but includes recommendations for a more effective approach tosacred sites.

Critiques and Responses

Indigenous archaeology is but one response by Native peoples (and others) to the lack of access to, and control over their land andtheir heritage. The most articulate and forceful critic of anthropology and archaeology in this regard was Vine Deloria, Jr. (seeIndigenous and Other Critiques of Archaeology). Biolsi and Zimmerman’s 1997 explores and responds to Deloria’s earlier work. Deloria1997, one of the author’s final publications, focuses a new round of criticism on the archaeology of the North American continent.Ironically, Deloria fails to acknowledge not only anthropologists’ and archaeologists’ efforts to redress the legacy of colonialism, but alsothe increasing role of Indigenous peoples in this realm. Criticism of indigenous archaeology has taken different forms over the years.The first reaction was in response to repatriation and reburial, as Meighan 1992 illustrates, and was later extended to traditionalknowledge and oral history, which Mason 2006 contends are highly subjective and thus of limited value. More recently, McGhee 2008calls into question the theoretical premise, political agenda, and overall goals of indigenous archaeology. While these examples allpertain to North America, comparable critiques can be found elsewhere.

Biolsi, T., and L. J. Zimmerman, eds. 1997. Indians and anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the critique of anthropology.Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press.

An essential companion to the critical and often provocative works of Deloria, as well as a measure of the progress archaeologists andanthropologists had made (as of the mid-1990s) in addressing his broad critiques of those disciplines; the authors also explore thenature and impact of Deloria’s work. The volume concludes with a chapter by Deloria. The editor’s introductory chapter on the broadissues that frame Deloria’s critiques still has great relevance today.

Deloria, V. Jr. 1997. Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.

A sharp but problematic critique of scientific practice, including archaeology, that offers an alternative history of North America. Thework is informative as an expression of Deloria’s perspective but flawed by use of outdated sources and failure to even acknowledgeindigenous archaeology.

Mason, R. J. 2006. Inconstant companions: Archaeology and North American Indian oral traditions. Tuscaloosa: Univ. ofAlabama Press.

An examination of the nature of oral traditions and their utility in archaeological research, focusing on the limitations of non-textualaccounts of past events and of non-Western knowledge systems.

McGhee, R. 2008. Aboriginalism and the problems of indigenous archaeology. American Antiquity 73.4: 579–597.

In this strong critique, McGhee argues against indigenous archaeology, which he sees as grounded in the problematic notion of“aboriginalism” (or “indigenous exceptionalism”) that promotes a less-than-rigorous approach to interpreting the archaeological recordwith the inclusion of oral histories and other subjective approaches. The July 2010 issue of the same journal presents fourcommentaries on this article, by C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh and six co-authors; D. Croes; S. Silliman; and M. Wilcox, along with aresponse by McGhee.

Meighan, C. W. 1992. Some scholar’s views on reburial. American Antiquity 57.4: 704–710.

The author captures the anxiety and concerns of many of his colleagues soon after the passage of the Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act, and the then not-uncommon view that our understanding of the past would be radically and irreparablyharmed by the repatriation and reburial of human remains and associated mortuary materials.

New Directions

Indigenous archaeology is in a state of flux. It has become a relatively familiar part of the archaeological landscape, but it is sometimesdifficult to identify what is or is not “indigenous archaeology.” This is due, in part, to the expansion of such complementary approachesas collaborative and public archaeology, but also to ongoing discussion by Indigenous peoples as to the role of archaeology in theirlives, as explored in Watkins 2012 and in Allen and Phillips 2010. In addition, Nicholas 2010a discusses the uncertainty over the futureof indigenous archaeology: should it be incorporated into a more accommodating “mainstream” archaeology, or should it continue toreside outside, and thus remain a distinctive entity that benefits Indigenous peoples first and foremost? Atalay 2012 describes how, ineither mode, community-based participatory research methods have grown in importance. Thompson 2011 illustrates the new modes ofarchaeological practice and heritage management at the tribal level. Bernard, et al. 2011 attempts to bridge the span between hardscience and traditional knowledge and values, and studies like Oland, et al. 2012 challenge the traditional research methods. The futuredirection of archaeology, indigenous or otherwise, will be very much influenced by the diversity of those practicing it. Nicholas 2010boffers up a collection of autobiographies of indigenous archaeologists worldwide, demonstrating there is much to look forward to.

Allen, H., and C. Phillips, eds. 2010. Bridging the divide: Indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st Century.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

An engaging international collection of essays that explore the need to acknowledge new types of relations and benefits flow betweenindigenous communities engaged in or affected by archaeology, foregrounding not only the challenges faced in overcoming the legacyof colonialism and understanding different conceptions of “heritage,” but also the successes achieved; includes five appendices, aglossary, and other useful additions.

Atalay, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: Univ.of California Press.

Atalay distills the lessons learned through her extensive research into and experience with community-based research to demonstrate abroad utility and practical applications for working with descendent communities, ensuring they are direct beneficiaries of the research,while also improving and expanding considerably archaeological method and theory. This volume is essential reading as it lays out asolid framework for ethical and mutually rewarding archaeological practice for years to come.

Bernard, T., L. Morine Rosenmeier, and S. Farrell, eds. 2011. Ta’n Wetapeksi’k: Understanding from Where We Come.Proceedings of the 2005 Debert Research Workshop. Truro, NS: Eastern Woodland.

The volume captures a unique workshop that brought together geological and environmental scientists, anthropologists andarchaeologists, and Mi’kmaw community members and elders to discuss the 10,000-year-old Debert site (Canada) in the context ofWestern and indigenous ways of knowledge about the past.

Nicholas, G. P. 2010a. Seeking the end of indigenous archaeology. In Bridging the Divide: Indigenous communities andarchaeology into the 21st century. Edited by H. Allen and C. Phillips, 233–252. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

An exploration of the dualistic nature of indigenous archaeology today—on the one hand it is a distinct approach highlighting andproviding support for indigenous interests (albeit marginalized from mainstream archaeology), while on the other hand, working tochange archaeology sufficiently to accommodate it fully, and ultimately to eliminate the need for its distinction.

Nicholas, G. P., ed. 2010b. Being and becoming indigenous archaeologists. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.

This collection of thirty-seven autobiographical entries written by indigenous persons from around the world reveals how and why theycame to be involved in archaeology, some as community practioners, others as now senior academics; highlights the challenges theyhave faced in their journey; shares their very personal and deeply moving perspectives and hopes for the future; and offers a glimpseinto this rapidly expanding group of archaeologists.

Oland, M., S. M. Hart, and L. Frink, eds. 2012. Decolonizing indigenous histories: Exploring prehistoric/colonial transitions inarchaeology. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press.

The contributors to this volume broaden the frame of research by moving away from the usual prehistoric/historic dichotomy, replacing itwith a multi-disciplinary and multi-scalar approach incorporating archaeology, ethnohistory, and other perspectives that foregroundindigenous perspectives within a robust set of theoretical reference points, including materiality and agency.

Thompson, K. F. 2011. The Navajo Nation, Diné archaeologists, Diné archaeology, and Diné communities. Archaeologies 7.3:502–516.

In this insightful article, the author highlights the realities of archaeological practice both for and within the Navajo Nation as it tries tobalance tribal needs, politics, and heritage legislation with the promotion and protection of local values; many of the same types ofissues are emerging elsewhere around the world as tribal organizations and indigenous communities engage more fully and frequentlyin archaeology.

Watkins, J. 2012. Public archaeology and indigenous archaeology: Intersections and divergences from a Native Americanperspective. In The Oxford handbook of public archaeology. Edited by R. Skeates, C. McDavid, and J. Carman, 659–672.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Eschewing the usual “how can indigenous perspectives improve archaeology?”, Watkins turns the question around to explore howarchaeology can benefit Indigenous peoples and then reviews the strengths and limitations of both indigenous and public-orientedarchaeologies, and ponders the development of hybrid approaches.

back to top

Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved.