Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
THIEL, W. 2007. Untersuchungen zum hellenistischen
Siedlungswesen in Palästina und Transjordanien.
Munich: Verlag Dr. Hut.
WEBER, T.M. 2002. Gadara - Umm Qes I. Gadara
decapolitana. Untersuchungen zur Topographie,
Geschichte, Architektur und der Bildenden Kunst
einer “Polis Hellenis” im Ostjordanland. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
ZAYADINE, F. (ed.). 1986. Jerash archaeological project
1981-1983. Amman: Department of Antiquities.
Decolonization in Archaeological
Theory
Margaret M. Bruchac
Department of Anthropology, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Introduction
Decolonizing approaches in archaeology
emerged as a means to counter the dominance
of colonial ideologies and improve the accuracy
of Indigenous representations. Historically,
the routines of mainstream archaeological
practice have been shaped by Western (primarily
elite Euro-American) beliefs and categories.
Although Indigenous people have long been
used as informants, Western scientists have
exerted control over Indigenous property, and
Indigenous knowledges and concerns have been
pushed to the margins. Decolonizing has both
political and practical effects; it alters power
relations among scientists and subjects while
also expanding the volume and accuracy of
available Indigenous data.
Decolonization as archaeological theory has
been influenced by other critical research
approaches, including feminist theory, critical
race theory, postcolonial political theory, and
gender studies (e.g., Denzin et al. 2008;
Messenger & Smith 2010). Although Indigenous
people have been the most visible proponents and
beneficiaries of decolonization, decolonizing
methods can be applied to virtually any research
population. One might, for example, examine
2069
D
ethnic minorities, homeless people, diasporic
groups, or others whose perspectives and histories have been imperfectly represented by
mainstream archaeology. Increased communication with knowledge-bearers from formerly colonized communities improves the ethical
component of archaeological practice. It can
also improve the identification of collections,
the educational content of exhibitions, and the
relevance of archaeology to Indigenous and ethnic minorities (Merryman 2006; Nicholas 2010).
Definition
Decolonizing archaeologists seek to untangle
colonial influences by encouraging greater
collaboration with Indigenous peoples,
reconsidering foundational knowledges, and
paying closer attention to the ethics of handling
other
peoples’
heritage.
Decolonizing
approaches are explicitly intended to recover
materials and knowledges that were lost or
made invisible during generations of living
under colonial domination. In political contexts,
decolonizing efforts have enabled formerly
dependent or colonized Indigenous peoples, ethnic communities, and small nations to gain independence and local control (Smith 1999;
Maybury-Lewis 2002). In archaeological contexts, decolonizing similarly shifts the power
balance by liberating collections and interpretations from the presumed exclusivity of colonial
control (Wobst 2005). This is accomplished, in
part, by encouraging better collaborations with
communities impacted by colonization (e.g.,
Smith & Wobst 2005; Bruchac et al. 2010; Nicholas 2010). Key strategies for decolonizing
include critical analysis of social and political
relations, collaborative consultation and
research design, reclamation of cultural property, restoration of cultural landscapes and heritage sites, repatriation of human remains, cocuration of archaeological collections, and
devising more culturally accurate museum representations. For examples of decolonizing projects and practitioners in different regions of the
D
D
2070
world, see Atalay (2012), Bruchac et al. (2010),
Nicholas (2010), and Smith and Wobst (2005).
Research pursued from a decolonizing
perspective typically focuses not only on potentially important scientific finds but also on the
power dynamics and impact of practicing science
among a particular research population. The
emphasis on collaboration makes this an inherently activist and applied approach to practicing
science. Members of descent communities and
local stakeholders can be enlisted as partners in
collecting material and data concerning the
past and in crafting visions for the sustainable
use of significant heritage sites in the future
(Colwell-Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2008; Atalay
2012). Community members can provide diverse
streams of evidence that crosscut disciplines,
using such techniques as ethnographic interviews
and linguistic analysis. Archaeological data is also
typically embedded in oral traditions, ritual activities, and place names that evoke evidence of older
human interactions with the landscape over time
(Schmidt & Patterson 1995; Watkins 2000).
Decolonizing archaeologists can build collaboration directly into their research plans via a process
identified as community-based participatory
research (CBPR). The working principles of
CBPR emphasize a participatory, “communitybased, partnership process” that builds “community capacity,” encourages “a spirit of reciprocity,”
and recognizes contributions from “multiple
knowledge systems” (Atalay 2012: 63).
Decolonization is an essential aspect of Indigenous archaeology, broadly defined as archaeological practice directed by, in collaboration with,
representative of, and relevant to Indigenous
people and Indigenous goals (Nicholas 2010: 11).
The term Indigenous is used here, not just as
a descriptive, but as a proper noun, to emphasize
the sovereignty and agency of Indigenous peoples
vis-à-vis the colonial states that have long
attempted to dominate them (e.g., Watkins 2000;
Wobst 2005; Nicholas 2010). Indigenous groups
largely trace their identities and attachments to
land through historical continuities with societies
that predate colonization; they often maintain
unique systems of cultural and political organization. Historically, Indigenous knowledge-bearers
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
have long participated as scientific informants,
gatekeepers, and field workers. These site
monitors and informants have improved the identification of material in the field and inspired new
modes of curation and interpretation in the
museum (Oland et al. 2012). More recently,
some Indigenous people have become professional
archaeologists (see examples in Nicholas 2010);
their inclusion in the discipline has stimulated
more culturally complex understandings of
material and ephemeral relations over time
(Smith & Wobst 2005).
Indigenous communities living in the aftermath of (or still influenced by) colonization are
sometimes hesitant, if not opposed, to the conduct
of scientific research in ancestral sites. Applied
sciences are never neutral; scientific discoveries
can provoke or complicate understandings of the
complex intersections among identity, nationalism, and social justice. Archaeologists may be
placed in positions where they are expected to
construct and interpret Indigenous identities and
relationships, with or without the presence and
consent of those communities (Bruchac et al.
2010: 55). Decolonizing archaeologists, regardless of their personal origins, have thus found it
necessary to consider the political impacts of
their own social relations, in the discipline and
in the field. They pay particularly close attention
to the relations between present and past
populations and to the impacts of their research.
By carefully weighing ethics and relations with
the communities they study, they hope to replace
colonial habits of appropriating knowledge with
more culturally sensitive means of recovering
knowledge. Indigenous people who choose to
practice archaeology typically express a double
consciousness that recognizes their unique
(and sometimes fraught) positions as both
scientific archaeologists and Indigenous activists
(see, e.g., the individual contributors to
Nicholas 2010).
Historical Background
Colonialism – which can be defined as the forced
occupation by large nation-states of lands
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
belonging to smaller state and non-state societies – has constituted a relatively limited but
influential era within the long stream of human
history. Colonialism is not a single process, but
a “series of policies, processes, and relations that
exploited people and resources in diverse ways
and locales,” for widely varying reasons and
lengths of time (Oland et al. 2012: 2). Indigenous
peoples have been particularly hard-hit by colonization; they are routinely defined as being
“dominated by the states that claim jurisdiction
over them” (Maybury-Lewis 2002: 7). In North
and South America, colonization by multiple
European nations resulted in steadily increasing
losses of Indigenous land and sovereignty over
the course of 500 years. In Australia and New
Zealand, English colonial dominance over
aboriginal territory was effected within only
a few generations (Smith 1999). In many regions
of the world, Indigenous communities are still
colonized and still struggling to reassert control
over their lands and histories (Maybury-Lewis
2002; Bruchac et al. 2010). Many of the peoples
impacted by colonization have been in existence
for millennia; colonial occupation is only a small
part of their history.
Colonialist thought and nationalist ideologies
have long been intertwined with the politics and
practice of scientific archaeology (Schmidt &
Patterson 1995). During the emergence of the
discipline, anthropologists exerted almost
unquestioned power over the ownership of sites
and collections, without regard for the cultural
concerns and property rights of Indigenous
peoples, ethnic minorities, or other marginalized
groups; archaeology was often a “strategy in
support of the state” (Wobst 2005: 28). Since
the seminal proponents and practitioners of
anthropology were privileged white male scientists with roots in white settler populations, inequities of gender and class were also in play. Until
quite recently, few Indigenous people benefitted
directly from archaeological research conducted
in their midst (Smith & Wobst 2005;
Nicholas 2010).
During the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, salvage archaeologists engaged in the
widespread collection of material objects,
2071
D
cultural heritage, and human remains belonging
to colonized subjects, operating under the
assumption that many of these populations were
near extinction (Swidler et al. 1997; Mihesuah
2000). Scientists from Euro-American nations
(predominantly England and America) mounted
grand expeditions seeking evidence of past civilizations and collecting materials for museums.
They routinely disturbed and destroyed heritage
sites and collected thousands of human remains
and items of cultural patrimony for scientific
study, display, and sale (Merryman 2006). This
research inspired the production of classifications, typologies, exhibitions, and educational
materials that supported the historical dominance
of European social classes and belief systems and
the political marginalization of Indigenous people (Smith 1999; Wobst 2005). In museums and
in print, the archaeological records of state societies were promoted as evidence of successful
development, and the records of non-state
societies were distorted to stand as failures
(Wobst 2005: 28).
Mainstream archaeologists promoted these
distortions by theoretically dividing time and
geography, with colonial nations located at the
“core” and Indigenous nations located at the
“periphery” of knowledge and development
(Smith 1999; Habu et al. 2008). Western academics also mined Indigenous knowledges and
claimed possession of Indigenous property, while
conceptualizing modern Indigenous peoples as
philosophically disconnected from their
premodern forebears (Smith 1999). Scientific
research conducted from a universalist and
positivist perspective can, even inadvertently,
tend to legitimize and reinforce these
misrepresentations.
During the mid-twentieth century, as the
cannibalistic nature of the salvage enterprise
became increasingly apparent, Indigenous people
demanded the recovery of sacred objects, communal property, and human remains disturbed by
archaeologists (Mihesuah 2000). The emerging
repatriation movement provoked serious contests
over the ownership and appropriate disposition of
archaeological collections and Indigenous cultural material. As regional and ethnic
D
D
2072
communities around the world have increasingly
asserted their distinct identities in resistance to
forces of colonialism and globalization
(Maybury-Lewis 2002), they have also sought
control over the archaeological sites and materials that locate and validate these identities
(Bruchac et al. 2010). Around the world, nationstates have been forced to contend with Indigenous peoples who demand, “tribal recognition,
national sovereignty, cultural revitalization, economic independence, and control over heritage
matters” (Nicholas 2010: 11).
Key Issues/Current Debates
Professional archaeologists have long claimed
nearly exclusive ownership of materials from
the past. During the twentieth century, they
moved to police the profession by implementing
guidelines (e.g., the American Antiquities Act of
1906 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979) that prohibited illicit looting
and trading by amateurs. During this same era,
ancient heritage sites located in regions claimed
by colonial states were set aside for protection
and preservation under the control of the state
(e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966). The ethos of preservation embodied in
these actions did not essentially change conceptions of privileged ownership by scientists. State
control is, in essence, a paternalistic extension of
colonial control. For Indigenous and ethnic communities around the world, the reclamation of
Indigenous rights to property and culture is key
to recovering from colonial domination.
Assertions of claims to ancestral remains in
archaeological collections have, however, provoked fierce debates (e.g., Mihesuah 2000;
Merryman 2006). Some of the most heated of
these are rooted in differing constructions of
property rights.
Decolonizing archaeologists have been especially influential in encouraging the repatriation
of human remains and items of cultural patrimony to affiliated communities and descendants
(Mihesuah 2000; Smith & Wobst 2005). Claims
have also been lodged for the recovery of
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
archaeological and artistic items removed from
classical European sites (Merryman 2006).
Opponents to repatriation have argued that repatriation threatens the integrity of significant
museum collections. Arguments like these are
losing ground in light of increasing protections
for Indigenous intellectual and cultural property
and increasing world recognition of the nationalist dimensions of cultural heritage (Mihesuah
2000; Merryman 2006). Archaeologists and
museums can no longer claim undisputed ownership of their collections, and they have been compelled by state laws and statutes (such as the
United States’ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990) to recognize
the validity of many of these claims. As a result,
museums of anthropology, natural history, art,
and science around the world now routinely
engage in decolonizing activities that include
consulting with descent communities, inventorying Indigenous remains and artifacts housed in
museum collections, supporting protection for
heritage landscapes, establishing cultural affiliations and tribal identities, and otherwise contextualizing material and ephemeral relations in the
past. Given the sheer volume of archaeological
materials resting in museum collections, and the
number of Indigenous sites under exploration,
these debates are likely to continue for some time.
From a practical level, colonial perspectives
can cloak on-the-ground data; Indigenous perspectives may be visible, but overlooked, in site
contexts (Watkins 2000). For example, archaeologists have long used standardized types and
categories to suggest that human society and
materiality can be separated into clear-cut
divisions. The same evidence, however, when
considered from a decolonizing perspective, suggests that human geographies, relationships, and
materialities are far more fluid and flexible
than popular boundaries and categories imply
(Wobst 2005). By shifting Indigenous knowledges from the periphery to the center, one can
better recognize and envision alternatives to
colonialist constructions of time, place, and
narrative (Smith 1999).
At the most basic level of analysis,
decolonizing questions the relevance of binary
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
choices that have long been used to categorize
and classify archaeological finds. Eurocentric
constructions of societal development have
employed paired terms like savage/civilized and
primitive/developed to located Indigenous
peoples in a state of imagined opposition to European nations and modernity (Schmidt &
Patterson 1995; Wobst 2005). Archaeological
dichotomies have typically judged non-state
sites and societies as prehistoric (compared to
historic) and undeveloped (compared to European models of development). Yet, archaeological evidence is rarely this clear-cut. A more
effective way of envisioning past lives would be
the use of conceptual “transitions” that suggest
both continuity and change (Oland et al. 2012: 3).
The postmodern concept of multivocality,
a visioning process that devises multiple possible
narratives for underrepresented groups, can also
be a useful method for exploring alternative interpretations (Habu et al. 2008).
Collaborations among Indigenous scholars
and archaeologists have inspired reconsideration
of many of the routine assumptions that underlie
archaeological practices (Smith & Wobst 2005;
Nicholas 2010). Decolonizing archaeologists
(e.g., Wobst 2005) have called attention to the
historical distortions caused by extending modern and colonialist theories into the distant pasts
of precolonial societies (see case studies from
multiple venues in Schmidt & Patterson 1995).
They suggest that colonial approaches to scientific study should be recast as a body of situational theory and practice emerging from colonial
expansion rather than as a universal framework
for interpreting all human societies over time.
Feminist theorists have leveled similar critiques,
arguing that positivist research, which aims to
predict outcomes based on scientific thoughts
and evidence, is, in itself, a form of colonialism
(Smith 1999; Mihesuah 2000). Post-positivist
research, which recognizes the importance of
phenomenological, naturalistic, relational, and
praxis-oriented perspectives and values, can
enable intellectual emancipation from colonization (Smith 1999: 167).
By questioning the notion of a universal science, and drawing attention to human rights
2073
D
issues, decolonizing archaeologists trend
toward social activism. They consider how
worldviews, nationalist agendas, conceptions
of social justice, human rights, and territorial
boundaries are likely to be affected by scientific
research. Efforts to include multiple voices and
perspectives can reveal deep philosophical differences over the relative veracity of different
modes for recording knowledge. For example,
mainstream archaeologists may consider traditional Indigenous beliefs and modern scientific
opinions to be polar opposites, as though one is
unverifiable folklore and one is unquestionable
hard data. Yet, oral traditions and written traditions both constitute strategies for recording
and transmitting narratives and knowledges.
When revisited from a decolonizing perspective, these strategies can be employed and interwoven in multiple ways to generate increased
understanding. More holistic interpretations
can allow for greater variability and flexibility
in reconstructing past populations and can
inspire more accurate representations of the
past (Smith 1999; Smith & Wobst 2005;
Wobst 2005).
International Perspectives
During the salvage era of archaeology, scientists
collected and transported materials into museums
around the world, with little regard for Indigenous property rights, but the ethics of the practice
have shifted. Scientists can no longer assume
exclusive control of their collections, and some
foundational assumptions – most notably, that
scientific excavation is a service to the common
good and that archaeological sites around the
world are common property – have been called
into question (Smith & Wobst 2005; Merryman
2006). Indigenous and ethnic communities have
asserted their rights to lands, to history, and to
archaeological finds housed in museums around
the world. Contests over the ownership of
cultural property, the repatriation of human
remains, and the protection of cultural landscapes
now have national and international implications
(Merryman 2006).
D
D
2074
Decolonizing efforts in various parts of the
world reflect the particular histories of colonization and the complexities of defining indigeneity.
In Africa, for example, although Indigenous peoples constitute the dominant populations, there
are serious struggles over control of ancestral
territories, and some Indigenous groups are
subjugated or marginalized by others (MayburyLewis 2002). Archaeological research in Africa
has also been influenced by the search for ancient
evidence of human origins, conducted by
Western scientists who have treated the entire
continent as a research site (Bruchac et al.
2010: 241). These inequities of access and representation can be addressed through decolonizing
methods that make archaeology more representative of, and relevant to, local concerns.
Archaeological research in Mesoamerica and
South America, conducted in the wake of Spanish
colonization, has been shaped by an emphasis on
monumental architecture, high-value objects, and
pre-Columbian state formation. Decolonizing
efforts in this region have focused on the
reclamation and reappropriation of Indigenous
heritage sites, materials, and histories subsumed
by colonialist interpretations (Bruchac et al.
2010: 201).
Across Asia, in the region stretching from
Palestine to Japan, archaeology has been
a largely nationalist endeavor serving the interests of powerful nation-states (e.g., China and
Israel). Here, as in Africa, some Indigenous
populations dominate others. Disempowered
nations (e.g., Tibet and Palestine) have been
physically forced out of their traditional territories. Decolonizing approaches in this region
must grapple with questions of power, privilege,
and resources in the effort to secure protections
for the cultural heritage of these disenfranchised
populations (Bruchac et al. 2010: 290).
Europe is an interesting locale for decolonizing
archaeology, given its history of driving colonizing research among Indigenous peoples around the
world. Decolonizing archaeologies in Europe are
being shaped by the resurgence of Indigenous
identities (e.g., Basque, Saami, Scots) and by
efforts to reclaim representations of cultural
heritage in museums (Bruchac et al. 2010: 323).
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
The British Museum, for example, currently
holds the Elgin Marbles taken from Greece,
antiquities from Babylon and Assyria, and
the Pergamon Altar from Turkey (Merryman
2006: 1). Some museums have resisted returning
these great works of antiquity, arguing that they
are safest and most accessible to an international
public in the museum (Merryman 2006: 13). Each
of these cases requires international negotiations
and reexaminations of older archaeological
practices.
In Australia and New Zealand, Aboriginal
people have been imagined as outliers in the
production of human history and have struggled
to overcome colonial European perceptions
that identified their traditional territory as “terra
nullius” (an uninhabited “no-man’s land”)
(Bruchac et al. 2010: 109). In recent years,
some Aboriginal communities in Oceania have
embraced archaeology as a tool that can support
self-determination by providing “a material
basis for the reclaiming of Indigenous
cultural identity” (Smith & Wobst 2005: 13).
The Australian Archaeological Association’s
Code of Ethics requires archaeologists to protect
community claims to cultural heritage, recognize
the importance of repatriation, and “acknowledge
the special importance to Indigenous peoples of
ancestral remains and objects and sites associated
with such remains” (Australian Archaeological
Association 1994). The 1995 ICOMOS New
Zealand charter for the conservation of cultural
heritage (called, in Maori, Te Pumanawa
o ICOMOS o Aotearoa Hei Tiaki I Nga Taonga
Whenua Heke Iho o Nehe) takes a similar
approach by encouraging the identification, preservation, maintenance, and restoration of Indigenous cultural heritage places. The ICOMOS
guidelines have been adopted by the Historic
Places Trust/Pouhere Taonga, the Ministry of
Culture and Heritage, and the Department of
Conservation and have also been used in reckoning deeds that restore traditional lands (ICOMOS
New Zealand 1995).
Around the world, state and institutional
regulations and protocols have emerged that
explicitly address the rights of Indigenous
peoples vis-à-vis archaeologists. In 1991, for
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
example, the World Archaeological Congress
disseminated a new code of ethics that acknowledges Indigenous peoples as stakeholders by
unambiguously stating that, “indigenous cultural
heritage rightfully belongs to the descendants of
that heritage” (World Archaeological Congress
1991). Articles in the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted
by the General Assembly on September 13, 2007,
similarly and explicitly assert Indigenous rights
to identity, culture, and property.
Future Directions
Decolonizing approaches have already proven
influential in world archaeology, by encouraging
collaboration with Indigenous and local communities to improve the identification and
understanding of significant traditional heritage
sites. Legal protections for cultural heritage and
resource management policies have evolved to
address the practical protocols and the social
dimensions of practicing Indigenous archaeology; as a result, heritage organizations are
producing less colonial and more culturally
nuanced interpretations of the past (Messenger
& Smith 2010). Decolonizing archaeologists
have also worked to avoid reproducing the inequities inherent in colonial practices in the field. In
Australia and New Zealand, for example, archaeologists are increasingly expected to negotiate
with Indigenous communities before, during,
and after excavating cultural heritage sites (Australian Archaeological Association 1994). In
some regions, these negotiations have recovered
evidence of older cultural practices that can be
repurposed to ensure the conservation and regeneration of local flora and fauna over time (e.g.,
Colwell-Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2008; Atalay
2012). Meetings facilitated by the World
Archaeological Congress and other organizations
have brought together archaeologists from disparate locales to share common cause and form
global alliances focused on decolonizing (Smith
& Wobst 2005: 13).
Future students of archaeology can learn from
and build upon these strides to uncover new
2075
D
intersections among past and present identities
and cultures. They will find that Euro-colonial
concepts of race, kin, and identity do not easily
mesh with non-Western visions of modernity.
Decolonization must be viewed as a “long-term
process involving the bureaucratic, cultural,
linguistic, and psychological divesting of colonial power” (Smith 1999: 98). Archaeologists
have found it necessary to renegotiate and redefine terms (e.g., post-racial, intercultural, transnational) that attempt to define complex
expressions of Indigenous and ethnic identities
in the postcolonial, postmodern world (Smith &
Wobst 2005; Bruchac et al. 2010). Standardized
terms and approaches (e.g., processual and postprocessual, distinct temporal eras, social evolution) may no longer be universally applicable.
Even the terms “postmodern” and “postcolonial”
are problematic since these perpetuate the illusion that colonial domination of the Indigenous
has ended.
Just as there is no single colonial model that
encompasses all of colonialism, there is no single Indigenous model and no single
decolonizing approach. The inclusion of nonscientists as research partners has revealed cultural and procedural differences that are not
always easy to bridge. By engaging with living
communities, archaeologists have improved
popular understandings of Indigenous peoples
and local communities in the present-day,
postcolonial modern world. Processes of consultation and collaboration have been transformative, but they have also been difficult, given
the inherent power imbalances among scientists
(as apparent agents of colonial nation-states)
and archaeological subjects (as recovering victims of colonization). Indigenous peoples and
other colonized communities have expressed
needs that do not always match with archaeological goals, categories, and routines. Better
attention must be paid to the handling of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, with consideration for the spiritual, ephemeral, and
experiential relations of Indigenous peoples
with the natural world (Atalay 2012). These
interactions will require careful, patient
communication.
D
D
2076
Future efforts in decolonizing archaeology
will require situationally specific, carefully negotiated approaches that attend to social contingencies as well as scientific concerns (Bruchac et al.
2010; Messenger & Smith 2010). Many Indigenous communities (in common with other
marginalized peoples) still suffer from the
impacts of colonization, including persistent poverty and political marginalization. Teams of
stakeholders – including archaeologists, museum
staff,
descent
communities,
traditional
knowledge-bearers, developers, and representatives of state societies – can decolonize their own
social relations and share common cause by coming together to protect locales that house unique
histories (Messenger & Smith 2010).
The environmental effects of colonialism
are most obvious in patterns of land use and
development that resulted in the wholesale
extraction of natural resources and destruction
of cultural landscapes. Decolonizing projects
that explicitly involve and empower Indigenous and local communities are likely to have
an impact on long-term land use. Some archaeologists have sought to preserve endangered
cultural heritage sites by including both site
preservation and social justice as a desired
goal (e.g., Smith & Wobst 2005; Bruchac
et al. 2010; Messenger & Smith 2010; Oland
et al. 2012). Collaborations with Indigenous
knowledge-bearers can inspire projects that
draw upon traditional knowledges to shape
new approaches. Rather than subject their
lands and ecosystems to commercial development and resource extraction, formerly colonized communities might explore forms of
sustainable development (such as heritage tourism and seasonal hunting) that can generate
income and encourage site preservation.
Archaeologists can assist in these efforts by
conceptualizing and implementing projects
that dovetail scientific research with historical
preservation and community needs. International organizations (e.g., the United Nations,
UNESCO, and the World Archaeological Congress) can support such initiatives by continuing to promote protocols that explicitly link
cultural preservation with sustainability.
Decolonization in Archaeological Theory
Cross-References
▶ Community Engagement in Archaeology
▶ Ethics in Archaeology
▶ Historical Archaeology: Indigenous
Perspectives and Approaches
▶ Holographic Epistemology: Native Common
Sense
▶ Indigenous Archaeologies in Archaeological
Theory
▶ Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional
Knowledge
▶ Multicultural Archaeology
▶ Postcolonial Archaeologies
▶ Repatriation and Restitution of Cultural
Property: Relevant Rules of International Law
▶ Repatriation of Cultural Property in the United
States: A Case Study in NAGPRA (USA)
▶ Repatriation: Overview
▶ Sacred Sites in Indigenous Archaeology
▶ Stakeholders and Community Participation
▶ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (2007)
References
ATALAY, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology:
research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley (CA): University of California
Press.
AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. 1994. Australian
Archaeological Association code of ethics. Available
at: http://www.australianarchaeology.com/about-2/
code-of-ethics/#indigenous (accessed 15 October
2012).
BRUCHAC, M.M, S.M. HART & H.M. WOBST. (ed.) 2010.
Indigenous archaeologies: a reader on decolonization.
Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.
COLWELL-CHANTHAPHONH, C. & T. J. FERGUSON. (ed.)
2008. Collaboration in archaeological practice:
engaging descendant communities. Lanham (MD):
AltaMira.
DENZIN, N.K., Y.S. LINCOLN & L.T. SMITH. (ed.) 2008.
Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies.
Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
HABU, J., C. FAWCETT & J.M. MATSUNAGA. (ed.) 2008.
Evaluating multiple narratives: beyond nationalist,
colonialist, imperialist archaeologies. New York:
Springer.
ICOMOS NEW ZEALAND. 1995. ICOMOS New Zealand
Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
DeCorse, Christopher
Heritage Value. Available at: http://www.icomos.org.
nz/nzcharters.htm (accessed 15 October 2012).
MAYBURY-LEWIS, D. 2002. Indigenous peoples, ethnic
groups, and the state. Boston (MA): Allyn and
Bacon.
MERRYMAN, J.H. (ed.) 2006. Imperialism, art, and restitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MESSENGER, P.M. & G.S. SMITH. (ed.) 2010. Cultural heritage management: a global perspective. Gainesville
(FL): University Press of Florida.
MIHESUAH, D.A. 2000. Repatriation reader: who owns
Native American Indian remains. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska Press.
NICHOLAS, G.P. 2010. Being and becoming indigenous
archaeologists. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.
OLAND, M., S.M. HART & L. FRINK. (ed.) 2012.
Decolonizing indigenous histories: exploring prehistoric/colonial transitions in archaeology. Tucson
(AZ): University of Arizona Press.
SCHMIDT, P.R. & T.C. PATTERSON. (ed.) 1995. Making
alternative histories: the practice of archaeology and
history in non-Western settings. Santa Fe (NM):
School of American Research Press.
SMITH, C. & H.M. WOBST. (ed.) 2005. Indigenous archaeologies: decolonizing theory and practice. London:
Routledge.
SMITH, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research
and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
SWIDLER, N., K.E. DONGOSKE, R. ANYON & A.S. DOWNER.
(ed.) 1997. Native Americans and archaeologists:
stepping stones to common ground. Walnut Creek
(CA): AltaMira Press.
WATKINS, J. 2000. Indigenous archaeology: American
Indian values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek
(CA): AltaMira Press.
WOBST, H. M. 2005. Power to the (indigenous) past and
present! Or: The theory and method behind archaeological theory and method, in C. Smith & H.M. Wobst
(ed.) Indigenous archaeologies: decolonizing theory
and practice: 17-32. London: Routledge.
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS. 1991. World
Archaeological Congress code of ethics. Available at:
www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_
ethi.php#code1 (accessed 30 March 2010).
Further Reading
ATALAY, S. 2006. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing
practice. The American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):
280-310.
CASSMAN, V. N. ODEGAARD & J. POWELL. (ed.) 2007.
Human remains: guide for museums and academic
institutions. Oxford: AltaMira Press.
CONKEY, M.W. 2005. Dwelling at the margins, action at
the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 1(1): 9–59.
DONGOSKE, K. E., M. ALDENDERFER & K. DOEHNER. (ed.)
2000. Working together: Native Americans and
archaeologists. Washington (DC): Society for
American Archaeology.
2077
D
FFORDE, C., J. HUBERT & P. TURNBULL. (ed.) 2002. The dead
and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy,
and practice. London & New York: Routledge Press.
KERBER, J.E. (ed.) 2006. Cross-cultural collaboration:
Native peoples and archaeology in the Northeastern
United States. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska
Press.
KOVACH, M. 2009. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto University
of Toronto Press.
LONETREE, A. 2012. Decolonizing museums: representing
Native America in national and tribal museums.
Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina Press.
PYBURN, K.A. 1999. Native American religion versus
archaeological science: a pernicious dichotomy
revisited. Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics
5: 355–66.
SULLIVAN, L.E. & A. EDWARDS. 2004. Stewards of the
sacred. Washington (DC): American Association of
Museums and Harvard University Center for the
Study of World Religions.
WOBST, H. M. & C. SMITH. 2003. “Unothering”: theory and
practice in archaeology, in T. Peck & E. Siegfried (ed.)
Indigenous people and archaeology: proceedings of
the 29th Annual Chacmool Conference: 211–25. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of
Calgary.
DeCorse, Christopher
Natalie Swanepoel
University of South Africa, Pretoria,
South Africa
Basic Biographical Information
Professor Christopher R. DeCorse was born in
New York in 1956 but grew up in New Hampshire. As an undergraduate at the University of
New Hampshire, he worked on a number of historic period sites and published papers dealing
with glass analysis (DeCorse 1984). After graduating with a B.A. in Anthropology in 1978, he
joined the Peace Corps where he worked with the
Sierra Leone Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for two years. While in Sierra Leone, he
conducted an archaeological survey of and excavations at defensive sites in the Koinadugu District in the northeastern part of the country
D