Indigenous archaeology
This methodology came out of the global anti-colonial movements of the 1970s and 1980s led by aboriginal and indigenous people in settler-colonial nations, like the United States, Canada, and Australia.
[7] The modern science of archaeology involves the collection and study of material objects like human remains and culturally or historically significant items.
[8] In the case of human remains, there are many documented instances of indigenous bodies being removed from battlefields or from burial sites by researchers during this time period.
[11] The social disruptions of Native American cultures due to losses from disease, warfare and encroachment of colonization resulted in many cases in the severing of their traditions of history keeping.
By the time formal studies in archaeology began, several centuries of Indigenous history had been dismissed and/or distorted by the new settlers, who became the colonial custodians.
The means of correcting and recovering the indigenous narrative are thus further damaged, and the imperialist-aligned interpretation of history is codified in the academics and archaeological practice.
For instance, indigenous peoples pushed for passage by the US Congress of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), due to their strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of archaeologists.
Rossiter and Wood, and Windschuttle are among those who do not believe that Western enlightenment thought and "neo-liberal capitalist frameworks" can be applied in a blanket manner to Indigenous cultural heritage.
[17] Such scholars increasingly find fault with science's "universalizing myth" and its allegedly objective "view from nowhere",[18] its appeal to pan-human values and reliance on empirical modes of understanding.
Since the activism associated with the late twentieth century, Indigenous peoples have worked to develop strategies to use, protect, research and manage their cultural heritage.
Archaeological sites and objects may serve the philosophy and process of decolonization; for instance, being used to negotiate land claims or to promote cultural cohesion.
According to Kohl and Fawcett, as well as Trigger, such a relationship is "not necessarily corrupt or intrinsically suspect", any more than it was when European-Americans were making all the decisions about archeological sites and materials.
So while the care and management of heritage materials and sites is often among those areas first offered up by colonial governments at modern negotiating tables, few accommodations are made for the attendant financial demands and regulative license required for these transfers of responsibility (Mohs 1994).
Waves of globally and federally endorsed recognition of Aboriginal rights in general, and of heritage stewardship in particular, are pounding the shores of nominally post-colonial governments (see, for example, Ritchie [1994] on Australia, Watkins [2003] and Wylie [1999] on Canada and the United States, and Whitelaw [2005] on South Africa).
The contemporary historical sequence focuses on the fall of indigenous cultures as a result of the advent of empires, and portrays the end segment of their history as the only significant contribution.
The inclusion of spiritual, traditional use, linguistic and historical studies are influencing the direction of heritage research and management, just as anthropology's standard four-field approach has done for archaeology.
The practice of Indigenous archaeology provides non-Native people with a tool by which they may aid in the larger project of decolonization and reclamation of minority rights and identities.
Negotiating the difference in Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspective, of course, entails an "increasingly holistic engagement...with modern native peoples who are direct heirs to the traditions they are studying" (Trigger 1990: 781–782), which is changing the whole thrust of archaeological practice and stewardship.
A responsible and equitable account of indigenous history requires that the narratives of different cultures is taken into consideration by the parties involved (Croes 2010).
The late, eminent Canadian theoretician Bruce Trigger suggested archaeologists continue to rigorously evaluate each history based on "evidence of greater or lesser completeness and accuracy and on more or less sound reasoning" (1997: ix).
Advocating a continued use of careful, objective assessment of such qualities can help integrate different aspects of the past into a more complete, holistic picture of history (ibid).
"If archaeologists knowingly treat the beliefs of Indian differently from those of Euro-Canadians," writes Trigger, "there is a danger that the discipline will descend into mythography, political opportunism, and bad science" (x).
While he asserts that "the only morally defensible option" (x) in such cases is to report the truth (as far as it can be known), the real, social implications this could have on relationships predicated on goodwill and respect may be severe.
Trigger acknowledges the influence that both cultural relativism and the great white guilt have on archaeologists looking to do the right thing, but maintains that above all, archaeology must retain the scientific method if it can hope to "refute claims being made by fascists, sexists, racists, and Indian-haters" (x).
Where the Western mode is predicated on ideas of the public trust, the Indigenous stewardship paradigm is more often concerned with the care of living history (Smith and Burke 2003: 183–185; also Lawson 1997, Watkins 2003).
In Australia and New Zealand, Aboriginal peoples are using archaeology as part of their reclamation of heritage and assertion of indigenous rights, where it is increasingly used in support of land claims and repatriation issues (39).
Specific examples of unambiguously successful Canadian collaborative projects include the partnership in British Columbia between SCES and Simon Fraser University (SFU).
Another was the DNA and other studies associated with Kwaday Dan Ts’inchi, the 500-year-old remains called "Long Ago Man Found", "discovered by sheep hunters in 1999 at the foot of a melting glacier in Tatshenshini-Alsek Park in the Yukon".
The regions of Mesoamerica and South America are beginning the dialogue of indigenous interests in archaeology, which there as elsewhere takes a backseat to more pressing efforts to secure basic rights for First Peoples.
The nations of Scandinavia have made minimal progress in considering the archaeology of the Sami people as a field of study, let alone involving the descendent populations in projects (Watkins 2005:38).
