Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 85–114 | Cite as

Imagining Indigenous and Archaeological Futures: Building Capacity with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

  • Sara L. Gonzalez
  • Ian Kretzler
  • Briece Edwards
Research

Abstract

Collaborative archaeological research with indigenous communities, in addition to fostering culturally specific, community-centred research programmes, also encourages meaningful shifts in archaeological research on the ground. Field Methods in Indigenous Archaeology (FMIA), a community-based research partnership between the University of Washington and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, highlights these dual possibilities. The project seeks to strengthen the tribe’s capacity to care for cultural resources, to recover histories of survivance on the Grand Ronde Reservation, and to develop a low-impact, Grand Ronde archaeological methodology. These goals are realized through a summer field school, which joins comprehensive field instruction with overviews of tribal historic preservation and engagement with the Grand Ronde community. FMIA encapsulates the ethical imperative to work with, for, and by indigenous communities in archaeological research and the opportunities such work brings in transforming archaeological method, theory, and practice.

Key Words

Indigenous archaeology Community-based participatory research Tribal historic preservation Field school pedagogy 

Résumé

La recherche archéologique collaborative impliquant les communautés autochtones favorise non seulement la mise en œuvre de programmes de recherche à spécificité culturelle axés sur la communauté, mais elle encourage aussi la transition éclairée des études archéologiques sur le terrain. Le partenariat Field Methods in Indigenous Archaeology (FMIA) impliquant l’Université de Washington et les Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde met ses possibilités en valeur. Le projet tente de renforcer la capacité de la tribu à préserver ses ressources culturelles, recouvrir les récits de survie de la réserve de Grand Ronde et créer une méthodologie archéologique à faible impact pour Grand Ronde. Ces objectifs sont atteints dans le cadre d’un camp d’été qui offre des instructions complètes sur le terrain, ainsi qu’un aperçu des méthodes de préservation historique et de mobilisation de la communauté de Grand Ronde. Le FMIA intègre l’impératif moral du travail réalisé en collaboration avec les communautés autochtones, pour elles et par elles dans le cadre de la recherche archéologique, ainsi que les perspectives d’un tel travail en matière de transformation des méthodes, théories et pratiques archéologiques.

Resumen

La investigación arqueológica en colaboración con las comunidades indígenas, además de promover programas centrados en las comunidades y culturalmente específicos, también fomenta cambios significativos en la investigación arqueológica sobre el terreno. Field Methods in Indigenous Archaeology (FMIA), una asociación de investigación basada en la comunidad entre la Universidad de Washington y las Tribus Confederadas de Grand Ronde, pone de manifiesto estas dos posibilidades. El proyecto tiene como objetivo reforzar la capacidad de la tribu para cuidar los recursos culturales, recuperar historias de supervivencia en la Reserva de Grand Ronde y desarrollar una metodología arqueológica de bajo impacto para Grand Ronde. Estos objetivos se logran a través de una escuela de verano sobre el terreno, que aúna la instrucción integral sobre el terreno con apreciaciones generales sobre la preservación tribal histórica y el compromiso con la comunidad de Grand Ronde. FMIA engloba el imperativo ético de trabajar con, para y por las comunidades indígenas en la investigación arqueológica y las oportunidades que ese trabajo aporta para transformar el método, la teoría y la práctica arqueológica.

Notes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost we wish to thank the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon for allowing us the privilege of living and working on their homelands. This study received formal approval by the Grand Ronde Tribal Council, and permission to publish this article has been granted following review by the Grand Ronde Historic Preservation Office. Members of that office have contributed significantly to the development of FMIA and the work described herein. We specifically recognize David Harrelson, Jessica Curteman, Chris Bailey, Veronica Montano, Sibyl Edwards, Jordan Mercier, Bobby Mercier, and Eirik Thorsgard for their assistance with FMIA. Funding support for FMIA has been provided by the University of Washington’s Royalty Research Fund (eGC1 #101785), Nancy Weiss Malkiel Scholars Award, the Oregon Archaeological Society, and the Quaternary Research Center. All funding has been sought in collaboration with the Grand Ronde HPO.

References

  1. Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  2. Alcoff, L. M. (2010). Epistemic identities. Episteme, 7(2), 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atalay, S. (2006). No sense of the struggle: Creating a context for survivance at the NMAI. American Indian Quarterly, 30 (3/4), 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Atalay, S., Clauss, L. R., McGuire, R. H., & Welch, J. (2014). Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cipolla, C., & Quinn, J. (2016). Field school archaeology the Mohegan way: Reflections on twenty years of community-based research and teaching. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 3(2), 118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colwell, C. (2016). Collaborative archaeologies and descendant communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., Ferguson, T. J., Lippert, D., McGuire, R. H., Nicholas, G. P., Watkins, J. E., & Zimmerman, L. J. (2010). The premise and promise of indigenous archaeology. American Antiquity, 75(2), 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conkey, M. (2005). Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 1(1), 9–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cusick, J. G. (1998). Historiography of acculturation: An evaluation of concepts and their application in archaeology. In J. G. Cusick (Ed.), Studies in culture contact: Interaction, culture change, and archaeology (pp. 126–145). Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, B., & Thorsgard, E. (2012). Tell Me What It Isn’t: A Position Paper on Cultural Connection to Place. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Copies available from Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Tribal Historic Preservation Office.Google Scholar
  12. Ferris, N., & Welch, J. (2014). Beyond archaeological agendas: In the service of a sustainable archaeology. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. Welch (Eds.), Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects (pp. 214–237). Walnut Creek: Left Coast PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortmann, L. (editor) (2008). Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods: Doing science together. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Fricker, M. (2008). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., & Sunseri, K. U. (2007). Foodways on the frontier: Animal use and identity in early colonial New Mexico. In K. C. Twiss (Ed.), The archaeology of food and identity (pp. 260–287). Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez, S. (2011). Creating Trails from Traditions: The Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail at Fort Ross State Historic Park. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  18. Gonzalez, S. (2015). Of homelands and archaeology: Two indigenous, collaborative approaches to archaeology with California tribal communities. SAA Archaeological Record, 15(1), 29–32.Google Scholar
  19. Gonzalez, S. (2016). Indigenous values and methods in archaeological practice: Low-impact archaeology through the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Project. American Antiquity, 81(3), 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gonzalez, S. G., Modzelewski, D., Panich, L., & Schneider, T. D. (2006). Archaeology for the seventh generation. American Indian Quarterly, 30, 388–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graesch, A. P., Bernard, J., & Noah, A. C. (2010). A cross-cultural study of colonialism and indigenous foodways in western North America. In L. L. Scheiber, & M. D. Mitchell (Eds.), Across a great divide: Continuity and change in native North American Societies, 1400–1900 (pp. 212–238). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haber, A., & Gnecco, C. (2007). Virtual forum: Archaeology and decolonization. Archaeologies, 3(3), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunter, A. A. (2008). A critical change in pedagogy: Indigenous cultural resource management. In S Silliman (Ed.), Collaborating at the Trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology (pp. 165–187). Tucson: University of Arizona PressGoogle Scholar
  24. King, T. F. (2002). Thinking about cultural resource management: Essays from the edge. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  25. (2003). Places that count: Traditional cultural properties in cultural resource management. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kretzler, I. (2018). Archives of native presence: Land tenure research on the Grand Ronde Reservation. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 41 (4).Google Scholar
  27. Liebmann, M. (2012). The rest is history: Devaluing the recent past in the archaeology of the Pueblo Southwest. In M. Oland, S. M. Hart, & L. Fink (Eds.), Decolonizing indigenous histories: Exploring prehistoric/colonial transitions in archaeology (pp. 19–44). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lightfoot, K. L. (2005). Indians, missionaries, and merchants: The legacy of colonial encounters on the California frontiers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lightfoot, K., Cuthrell, R., Striplen, C., & Hylkema, M. (2013a). Rethinking the study of landscape Management practices among hunter-gatherers in North America. American Antiquity, 78(2), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lightfoot, K., Panich, L., Schneider, T., Gonzalez, S., Russell, M., & Blair, E. (2013b). The study of indigenous political economies and colonialism: Implications for contemporary tribal groups and federal recognition. American Antiquity, 78(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst: Center for International Education.Google Scholar
  32. Martindale, A., Nicholas, G. (2014). Archaeology as federated knowledge. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 38, 434–465.Google Scholar
  33. McGovern, A. M. (2015). Facing “the end”: Termination and survivance among the Montaukett of Eastern Long Island, New York. In C. N. Matthews, & A. M. McGovern (Eds.), The archeology of race in the northeast (pp. 215–231). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mills, B., Altaha, M., Welch, J., & Gerguson, T. (2008). Field schools without trowels: Teaching archaeological ethics and heritage preservation in a collaborative context. In S. W. Silliman (Ed.), Collaborating at the Trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology (pp. 25–49). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mrozowski, S. A., Gould, D. R., & Pezzarossi, H. L. (2015). Rethinking colonialism: Indigenous innovation and colonial inevitability. In C. N. Cipolla, & K. H. Hayes (Eds.), Rethinking colonialism: Comparative archaeological approaches (pp. 121–142). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murray, W. F., Laluk, N. C., Mills, B. J., & Ferguson, T. J. (2009). Archaeological collaboration with American Indians: Case studies from the western United States. Collaborative Anthropologies, 2, 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nicholas, G. (2008). Native peoples and archaeology. In D. M. Pearsall (Ed.), Encyclopedia of archaeology (pp. 1660–1669). Cambridge: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicholas, G., & Andrews, T. (1997) Indigenous archaeology in the postmodern world. In G. Nicholas, & T. Andrews (Eds.), At a crossroads: Archaeology and first peoples in Canada (pp. 1–18). Burnaby: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  39. Panich, L. M. (2013). Archaeologies of persistence: Reconsidering the legacies of colonialism in native North America. American Antiquity, 78(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubertone, P. E. (2000). The historical archaeology of native Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider, T. (2015). Placing refuge and the archaeology of indigenous Hinterlands in Colonial California. American Antiquity, 80(4), 695–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silliman, S. W. (2008). Collaborating at the Trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  43. (2014). Archaeologies of indigenous survivance and residence: Navigating colonial and scholarly dualities. In N. Ferris, R. Harrison, & M. V. Wilcox (Eds.), Rethinking colonial pasts through archaeology (pp. 57–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  45. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Surface-Evans, S. L. (2016). A landscape of assimilation and resistance: The Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial Boarding School. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 20(3), 574–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tamisari, F. (2006). “Personal acquaintances”: Essential individuality and the possibilities of encounters. In T. Lea, E. Kowal, & G. Cowlishaw (Eds.), Provoking ideas: Critical indigenous studies (pp. 17–36). Melbourne: Darwin University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Trafzer, C. E., Keller, J. A., & Sisquoc, L. (editors) (2006). Boarding school blues: Revisiting American Indian educational experiences. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  49. Vizenor, G. (2008). Aesthetics of survivance: Literary theory and practice. In G. Vizenor (Ed.), Survivance: Narratives of native presence (pp. 1–24). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  50. Watkins, J. (2000). Indigenous archaeology: American Indian values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  51. Welch, J., Altaha, M., Hoerig, K., & Riley, R. (2009). Best cultural heritage stewardship practices by and for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 11(2), 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Welch, J., & Ferris, N. (2014). “We have met the enemy and it is us”: Transforming archaeology through sustainable design. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire & J. Welch (Eds.), Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects (pp. 91–113). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  53. Zenk, H., & Johnson, T. A. (2010). A Northwest language of contact, diplomacy, and identity: Chinuk Wawa/Chinook Jargon. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 111(4), 444–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of OregonGrand RondeUSA

Personalised recommendations