Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 514–535 | Cite as

Can Archaeology Help Decolonize the Way Institutions Think? How Community-Based Research is Transforming the Archaeology Training Toolbox and Helping to Transform Institutions

  • Sonya AtalayEmail author
Research

Abstract

Engagement with communities is increasing within universities, museums, and other institutions, including state, federal, and local agencies. Scholarly literature is filled with case studies of the challenges and positive outcomes of community-based research projects. The next necessary step is systemic change within our discipline and our institutions to transform them toward more decolonized models and systems that are collaborative and sustainable in a world that’s in a time of tremendous crisis and change. I argue that, due to two decades of experience engaging with communities, community-based archaeologists have skills that can help transform institutions.

Key words

Decolonizing universities Community-based archaeology Indigenous knowledge 

Résumé

La collaboration avec les communautés s’accroît au sein des universités, musées et d’autres institutions, notamment les organismes de l’état, fédéraux et locaux. Les publications universitaires regorgent d’études de cas sur les défis et les résultats positifs des projets de recherche basés dans une communauté. La prochaine étape nécessaire est celle d’une réforme systémique au sein de notre discipline et de nos institutions afin de les faire évoluer vers des modèles et systèmes plus décolonisés, et qui se révèlent collaboratifs et durables dans un monde confronté à une crise et des modifications considérables. Mon argument, s’appuyant sur deux décennies d’expérience d’une collaboration avec des communautés, est que les archéologues basés dans une communauté ont des compétences pouvant contribuer à la transformation des institutions.

Resumen

El compromiso con las comunidades está aumentando dentro de las universidades, museos y otras instituciones, incluidas las agencias estatales, federales y locales. La literatura académica está llena de estudios de casos de los desafíos y resultados positivos de los proyectos de investigación basados en la comunidad. El siguiente paso necesario es el cambio sistémico dentro de nuestra disciplina y nuestras instituciones para transformarlas hacia modelos y sistemas más descolonizados que sean colaborativos y sostenibles en un mundo que está en un momento de crisis y cambios tremendos. Sostengo que, debido a dos décadas de experiencia en la interacción con las comunidades, los arqueólogos comunitarios tienen habilidades que pueden ayudar a transformar las instituciones.

Notes

References

  1. Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archibald, J., Lee-Morgan, J. B. J., & De Santolo, J. (2019). Introduction: Decolonizing research: Indigenous storywork as methodology. In J. Archibald, J. B. J. Lee-Morgan, & J. De Santolo (Eds.), Decolonizing research: Indigenous storywork as methodology. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  3. Atalay, S. (2006). Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. The American Indian Quarterly,30(3 & 4), 280–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atalay, S. (2007). Global application of indigenous archaeology: Community based participatory research in Turkey, archaeologies. Journal of the World Archaeological Congress,3(3), 249–270.Google Scholar
  5. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Atalay, S. (2019). Braiding strands of wellness: How repatriation contributes to healing through embodied practice and storywork. Public Historian,41(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atalay, S. and Dow, J. (forthcoming). Returning to ourselves: Reclaiming indigenous research and teaching through creative STEM and arts-based practices. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaser, M., & de la Cadena, M. (2019). Introduction: Pluriverse: Proposals for a world of many worlds. In M. de la Cadena & M. Blaser (Eds.), A world of many worlds (pp. 1–22). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brady, L. M., Bradley, J. J., & Kearny, A. J. (2016). Negotiating yanyuwa rock art: Relational and affectual experiences in the southwest gulf of Carpentaria. Northern Australia, Current Anthropology,57(1), 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cajete, G. (1999). Igniting the sparkle: An indigenous science education model. Skyland: Kivaki Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Anta Fe: Clear Light Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Cajete, G. (2015). Indigenous community: Rekindling the teachings of the seventh fire. St. Paul: Living Justice Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, B. J., & Amati, A. (2019). Powerful objects, difficult dialogues: Mobilizing archaeological exhibits for civic engagement. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(7), 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Country, B., Wright, S., Suchet-Pearson, S., Lloyd, K., Burarrwanga, L., Ganambarr, R., et al. (2015). Working with and learning from country: Decentering authority. Cultural Geographies,22(2), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dion, S. D. (2009). Braiding histories: Learning from aboriginal peoples’ experiences & perspectives. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dow, J. (2019) Abolition science praxis, part. 2. https://www.abolitionscience.org/home/2018/11/13/abolition-science-praxis-pt-1-judy-dow. Accessed 14 April 2019.
  18. Ellison, J., & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the Engaged University. Imagining America, 16. https://surface.syr.edu/ia/16.
  19. Escobar, E. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, R. (2018). Repatriation and decolonization: Thoughts on ownership, access and control. In F. Gunderson, R. Lancefield, & B. Woods (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of musical repatriation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (2016). Symbiogenesis, sympoiesis, and art science activisms for staying with the trouble. In A. L. Tsing, H. A. Swanson, E. Gan, & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Arts of living on a damaged planet: Ghosts and monsters of the anthropocene (pp. M25–M50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodgetts, L., & Kelvin, L. (2019). At the heart of the ikaahuk archaeology project. In K. Supernant, J. Baxter, L. Natasha, & S. Atalay (Eds.), Archaeologies of the heart (Vol. 7). New York: Spring Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hyatt, S., Shear, B. W., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (2015). Learning under neoliberalism: Ethnographies of governance in higher education. New York: Berghan Books.Google Scholar
  25. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kerber, J. E. (2006). Cross-cultural collaboration: Native peoples and archaeology in the northeastern United States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, J. T., & Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. (2017). Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: Framing promotion and tenure practices and policies. Research Policy,46, 1055–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuokkanen, R. (2007). Reshaping the university: Responsibility, indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  30. la Paperson, (2017). A third university is possible. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. La Porte, E., & Barton, E. (2017). Sowing good seeds. https://lsa.umich.edu/lsa/news-events/all-news/search-news/sowing-good-seeds.html, Accessed 17 June 2019.
  32. Marshall, Y. (2002). What is community archaeology? World Archaeology,34(2), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, K. L., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies,27(76), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDavid, C. (2002). Archaeologies that hurt; Descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology,34(2), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNaughton, D. A., Morrison, M., & Schill, C. (2016). ‘My Country is Like My Mother…’: Respect, care, interaction and closeness as principles for undertaking cultural heritage assessments. International Journal of Heritage Studies,22(6), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Alliance for Broader Impacts. (2018). The current state of broader impacts. Advancing Science and Benefiting Society. https://broaderimpacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/nabi-current-state-of-bi-011118.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2019.
  37. National Science Foundation. (2017). Perspectives on broader impacts. https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/publications/Broader_Impacts.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2019. Accessed 10 June 2019.
  38. Nicholas, G., & Andrews, T. (Eds.). (1997). At a crossroads: Archaeology and first peoples in Canada. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
  39. O’Meara, K., Eatman, T., & Petersen, S. (2015). Advancing engaged scholarship in tenure and promotion: A roadmap and call for reform. Liberal Education,101(3), 52–57.Google Scholar
  40. Rabinow, P. (2019). Anthropological research on the contemporary. http://anthropos-lab.net/. Accessed 4 April 2019.
  41. Schaepe, D. M., Angelbeck, B., Snook, D., & Welch, J. R. (2017). Archaeology as therapy: Connecting belongings, knowledge, time, place, and well-being. Current Anthropology,58(4), 502–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Settee, P. (2013). Pimatisiwin: The good life, global indigenous knowledge systems. Vernon: J. Charlton Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Simpson, A. (2007). On ethnographic refusal: Indigeneity, ‘voice’, and colonial citizenship. Junctures,9, 67–80.Google Scholar
  44. Supernant, K., Baxter, J., Natasha, L., & Atalay, S. (Eds.). (2019). Archaeologies of the heart. New York: Springer Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tsing, A. (2015). Mushrooms at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Branford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223–247). Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anthropology DepartmentUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations