Archaeology and decolonization

Virtual Forum: Archaeology and

Decolonization

Alejandro Haber, Universidad National de Catamarca, Catamarca,

Argentina

Cristobal Gnecco, Universidad del Cauca, Cauca, Colombia

ABSTRACT________________________________________________________________

In this forum, patiently achieved through months of cyber-work, participants

Nayanjot Lahiri (India), Nick Shepherd (South Africa), Joe Watkins (USA) and

Larry Zimmerman (USA), plus the two editors of Arqueologıa Suramericana,

Alejandro Haber (Argentina) and Cristobal Gnecco (Colombia), discuss the

topic of archaeology and decolonization. Nayanjot Lahiri teaches

archaeology in her capacity as Professor at the Department of History,

University of Delhi. Her books include Finding Forgotten Cities: How the

Indus Civilization was Discovered (2005) and The Archaeology of Indian

Trade Routes (1992). She has edited The Decline and Fall of the Indus

Civilization (2000) and an issue of World Archaeology entitled The

Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick Shepherd is a senior lecturer in the

Center for African Studies at the University of Cape Town, where he

convenes the program in public culture in Africa. He sits on the executive

committee of the World Archaeological Congress, and is co-editor of the

journal Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. In

2004 he was based at Harvard University as a Mandela Fellow. He has

published widely on issues of archaeology and society in Africa, and on

issues of public history and heritage. Joe Watkins is Choctaw Indian and

archaeologist Joe Watkins is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the

University of New Mexico. He is 1/2 Choctaw Indian by blood, and has been

involved in archaeology for more than thirty-five years. He received his

Bachelor’s of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of Oklahoma

and his Master’s of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Anthropology

from Southern Methodist University, where his doctorate examined

archaeologists’ responses to questionnaire scenarios concerning their

perceptions of American Indian issues. His current study interests include

the ethical practice of anthropology and the study of anthropology’s

relationships with descendant communities and Aboriginal populations, and

FORUM

Originally published in Spanish in Arqueologıa Suramericana 3(1), 2007ARCHAEOLOGIES

Volume3Number

3December2007

390 � 2007 World Archaeological Congress

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (� 2007)

DOI 10.1007/s11759-007-9045-5

he has published numerous articles on these topics. His first book

Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice

(AltaMira Press, 2000) examined the relationships between American Indians

and archaeologists and is in its second printing His latest book, Reclaiming

Physical Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites (Chelsea House Publishers

2005) is aimed toward creating an awareness of Native American issues

among high school students. Larry J. Zimmerman is Professor of

Anthropology and Museum Studies and Public Scholar of Native American

Representation at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the

Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. He is Vice President

of the World Archaeological Congress. He also has served WAC as its

Executive Secretary and as the organizer of the first WAC Inter-Congress on

Archaeological Ethics and the Treatment of the Dead. His research interests

include the archaeology of the North American Plains, contemporary

American Indian issues, and his current project examining the archaeology

of homelessness.________________________________________________________________

Resume: Partiellement realise grace a des mois de travail sur Internet, ce

forum a implique la participation de Nayanjot Lahiri (Inde), Nick Shepherd

(Afrique du Sud), Joe Watkins (Etats-Unis) et Larry Zimmerman (Etats-Unis),

en plus de deux editeurs de Arqueologıa Suramericana, Alejandro Haber

(Argentine) et Cristobal Gnecco (Colombie). Dans cette perspective, les

discussions et echanges de points de vue etaient amples. Nayanjot Lahiri

enseigne a l’Universite de Delhi. Parmi les livres qu’elle a publies, on

retrouve Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization was Discovered

(2005) et The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes (1992). Elle a edite le livre

The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization (2000) et une publication du

World Archaeology intitulee The Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick

Shepherd est professeur au Centre d’etudes africaines de l’Universite de

Cape Town, ou il organise un programme public sur la culture africaine. Il

est sur le comite executif du Congres mondial de l’archeologie et coediteur

du journal Archaeologies : Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. En

2004, il etait base a l’Universite Harvard comme boursier Mandela. Il a

largement publie sur les questions de l’archeologie et de la societe africaine

et sur des questions d’histoire publique et du patrimoine. Joe Watkins est

professeur associe en anthropologie a l’Universite du Nouveau-Mexique.

Metis avec un parent amerindien Choctaw, Watkins a ete implique en

archeologie depuis plus de 35 ans. Il a une maıtrise et un doctorat en

anthropologie de l’Universite Sud-Methodiste. Son doctorat etait base sur

l’examen de reponses d’archeologues au sujet de scenarios traitant de la

perception sur les questions relatives aux amerindiens. Aujourd’hui, son

sujet principal de recherche est la pratique etique de l’anthropologie et

l’etude des relations anthropologiques avec les populations aborigenes,

Virtual Forum 391

theme sur lequel il a publie plusieurs articles. Son premier livre, Indigenous

Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice (AltaMira Press,

2000), examine les relations entre les amerindiens et les archeologues et en

est a sa seconde reimpression. Son dernier livre, Reclaiming Physical

Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites (Chelsea House Publishers 2005), a

pour objectif de porter l’attention des etudiants de niveau du secondaire

sur les questions concernant les amerindiens. Larry J. Zimmerman est

professeur d’anthropologie et attache au Museum Studies and Public

Scholar of Native American a Indiana University-Purdue University

Indianapolis et au Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. Il

est vice-president du Congres mondial de l’archeologie. Il a aussi servit le

CMA comme secretaire executif et comme organisateur du premier inter-

congres du CMA qui portait sur l’archeologie ethique et le traitement de la

mort. Ses interets de recherche incluent l’archeologie des plaines nord-

americaines, les questions concernant les amerindiens d’aujourd’hui et son

projet actuel concerne l’archeologie du phenomene des sans-abri.________________________________________________________________

Resumen: En este foro, pacientemente logrado en meses de trabajo

cibernetico, participan Nayanjot Lahiri (India), Nick Shepherd (Sud Africa),

Joe Watkins (USA) y Larry Zimmerman (USA), mas los dos editores de

Arqueologıa Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentina) y Cristobal Gnecco

(Colombia). Es, por lo tanto, bastante amplio el espectro de contextos de

discusion y puntos de vista. Nayanjot Lahiri ensena arqueologıa desde su

cargo de Profesora del Departamenmto de Historia de la Universidad de

Delhi. Sus libros incluyen ‘‘Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus

Civilization was Discovered’’ (2005) y ‘‘The Archaeology of Indian Trade

Routes’’ (1992). Ha editado ‘‘The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization’’

(2000) y un numero de World Archaeology titulado The Archaeology of

Hinduism (2004). Nick Shepherd es profesor titular en el Centro de Estudios

Africanos de la Universidad de Cape Town, donde dirije el programa de

cultura publica en Africa. Es miembro del comite ejecutivo del Congreso

Mundial de Arqueologıa, y es co-editor de la revista Archaeologies: Journal

of the World Archaeological Congress. En el ano 2004, estuvo en la

Universidad de Harvard con la Beca Mandela. Ha publicado extensamente

en temas de arqueologıa y sociedad en Africa, y en cuestiones de historia

publica y patrimonio. Joe Watkins es indıgena Choctaw y arqueologo. Joe

Watkins es Profesor Asociado de Antropologıa en la Universidad de New

Mexico. Es mitad indıgena Choctaw de sangre, y ha estado relacionado con

la arqueologıa por mas de treinta y cinco anos. recibio su tıtulo de

Bachelor’s of Arts en Antropologıa en la Universidad de Oklahoma y sus

tıtulos de Master’s of Arts y Doctor en Filosofıa en Antropologıa en la

Universidad Metodista del Sur, su tesis doctoral indago sobre las respuestas

de los arqueologos/as a cuestionarios sobre escenarios acerca de sus

392 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTOBAL GNECCO

percepciones de las problematicas de los aborıgenes norteamericanos. Sus

intereses de estudio actuales incluyen las practicas eticas de la antropologıa

y el estudio de las relaciones de esta con las comunidades descendientes y

las poblaciones aborıgenes, ha publicado numerosos artıculos sobre esos

temas. Su primer libro ‘‘Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values

and Scientific Practice’’ (AltaMira Press, 2000) examino las relaciones entre

los Aborıgenes norteamericanos y los arqueologos y esta en su segunda

impresion. Su libro mas reciente, ‘‘Reclaiming Physical Heritage: Repatriation

and Sacred Sites’’ (Chelsea House Publishers 2005) esta dirigido a crear

conciencia de las problematicas de los indıgenas de norteamerica en los

estudiantes de bachillerato. Larry J. Zimmerman es Profesor de Antropologıa

y Estudios sobre Museos e intelectual publico de representacion de nativos

norteamericanos en la Universidad de Indiana, en la Universidad de Purdue,

Indianapolis y en el Museo Eiteljorg de Indıgenas norteamericanos y Arte

Occidental. Es Vice-Presidente del WAC. Tambien ha servido como su

Secretario Ejecutivo y fue organizador del Inter Congreso del WAC sobre

Etica Arqueologica y Tratamiento de los muertos. Sus intereses de

investigacion incluyen la arqueologıa de las llanuras de Norteamerica y

asuntos sobre los indıgenas norteamericanos contemporaneos. Su proyecto

de investigacion actual examina la arqueologıa de las personas sin hogar._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Archaeology, Decolonization, Indigenous, Colonialism, World archaeological

congress, Ethics_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AS: What are the Mechanisms of Colonial Reproduction of Archaeology in

the Geopolitical South?

Zimmerman: There is a strong tendency in former colonies to believe

that everything of value comes from the colonizer. The reasons for this are

many, but for archaeology it takes the form of believing that worthwhile

methodologies, theoretical approaches, and epistemologies must not be

good if they are developed locally. I recall in the days in which I wastrained (1960–70s) that my professors saw England as the source of impor-

tant methodological and epistemological developments. This was reflected

in most of my classes where Petrie was said to have ‘‘invented’’ scientific

methodology in archaeology and others most of the important ideas in the

discipline. Even as the New or Processual Archaeology came into existence,

there was recognition of the importance of British scholars like David

Clarke. Only when Binford became the loudest voice did that begin to

change. Similarly, I recall being invited to a conference in Australia on theFuture of Archaeology in the 1990s in which an Australian archaeologist

Virtual Forum 393

lamented to the audience that ‘‘Australia never had its own theory and

probably never will. Everything worthwhile comes from America or

England.’’ This said, I think the primary mechanism for colonial reproduc-

tion of archaeology is our educational system whereby many of the excel-

lent students in a colonized country eventually go to university or seekpost-graduate degrees in the countries of the colonizers. They are taught a

master narrative about archaeology that co-opts them. When the student

goes home, they teach the master narrative instead of seeking to build or

contribute to a national, regional, or local archaeological narrative. This is

exacerbated by our publication system, wherein key and respected journals

are venerated by these students and controlled from colonizing countries.

Students seek to publish in these journals, often neglecting local and regio-

nal journals. Similarly, major professional organizations and their academicconferences tend to be held in the colonizing countries, and if papers from

former colonies are to be accepted, they must tie themselves to the master

narrative in some way. Finally, archaeologists in colonial countries have

defined themselves as the primary stewards of the archaeological past,

declaring that the past is a public heritage. They see themselves as those

who can best protect and interpret sites. Archaeologists in colonized coun-

tries seem to ‘‘buy into’’ this idea. All of this is reflected in the World Her-

itage Site system, which is at least at some levels a commodification of thepast. Archaeo-tourism brings in revenue, so for economic reasons, coun-

tries and their archaeologists accept the system. There also are nationalistic

reasons, an attempt by the country and its archaeologists to say ‘‘our sites

are as important as these other world sites.’’

Shepherd: First of all I think we need to distinguish between two sets of

effects when we talk about the mechanisms of the colonial reproduction of

archaeology in the global South (and I hope that we will talk about the global

North as well!). The first of these is the set of practical arrangements and thekinds of power geometries and global division of labor which work to perpet-

uate a certain, broadly ‘‘colonialist’’ state of affairs in the discipline. We are

all familiar with the practical features of this, so I will not elaborate here.

Rather, I want to draw attention to what I would understand to be a second

aspect of this colonial reproduction of archaeology, which is epistemological

in nature and is deeply rooted in a set of specific pasts (of colonialism, apart-

heid, imperialism, and so on). In fact, of course, these two aspects are linked,

but it is worth separating them in as far as contemporary discussions around‘‘decolonizing’’ archaeology almost always address themselves to the first set

of concerns, through arrangements around the more equitable distribution

of resources, and through what I like to call ‘‘intellectual aide’’ arrangements

(the provision of textbooks and bursaries, and so on). These are all fine and

welcome as far as they go, but they leave open the bigger and to my mind

more interesting and complex issue of what has been termed ‘‘epistemic


decolonization’’. This necessarily involves addressing oneself to the question

of how the experience of colonialism (and apartheid in the case of South

African archaeology) marked the discipline in fundamental ways, in terms of

its forms of practice and its guiding ideas—and here I mean not only the dis-

cipline as practiced in the so-called periphery, in the colonies and formercolonies, but the discipline as it is practiced and understood in the metro-

poles as well. There is a sense in which the experience of colonialism was for-

mative for the discipline as a whole. We see this in the surface signifiers -in

the Land Rovers and khaki clothing, and the kind of safari style in which

much of archaeology is practiced- but we also see this in deep ways, in the

kinds of categories that emerge, in conceptions of world prehistory, in the

kinds of professional arrangements that pertain, in the model of centre and

periphery, in the kinds of hierarchies and valuations that exist, and so on.Above all, we see it in the notion of ‘‘the field’’, which is so central to the dis-

cipline. There is a sense in which all of Africa and all of South America

becomes the field for archaeologists in the metropolis -just as there is the

sense that for these archaeologists archaeology is often something that hap-

pens elsewhere, in the far-flung and exotic parts of the globe. So the question

arises for scholars who themselves are situated in what has been constructed

as the field: How do we relate to these traditions of archaeology? What, epis-

temologically-speaking, is our role within this particular, colonially-basedconception of knowledge production? Do we act as intermediaries? Or do we

constitute ourselves within our institutions as mini ‘‘centers’’, which them-

selves stand in an ambiguous relation to ‘‘the field’’ which is out there? A lot

more needs to be said on each of these questions. The point that I want to

make by way of an opening sally is that the questions of the mechanisms of

the colonial reproduction of archaeology is a complex one with profound

epistemological consequences and implications. Also, that prevailing discus-

sions around ‘‘decolonizing’’ archaeology have, in my experience, only justbegun to grapple with these consequences and implications.

Lahiri: The nature of archaeology in the high era of colonialism and the

issue of mechanisms of colonial reproduction of archaeology today are

helix-like, in that one cannot discuss one without also drawing attention to

the other. So, I shall spell out how I understand both these issues. My

observations are largely based on my knowledge of the field in South Asia

and I shall inevitably be turning to examples from India. In South Asia, as

in many parts of the world, a systematic documentation of archaeologicalsites and antiquities was integrally connected with the needs of British

rule—the empire’s need to gather and order information on its newly

acquired territories. Generally speaking, (1) because archaeology was estab-

lished in this historical context, it came to be practiced by people who

were part of the colonial structure. These were not people who were histor-

ically rooted in either the land or the communities they were studying;

Virtual Forum 395

(2) archaeology was a government enterprise. The premier authority doing

archaeology in India was the Archaeological Survey of India, a government

department of archaeology, created in 1871.The achievements of this orga-

nization were considerable, especially in giving the landscape of early India

its topographical bearings, through a documentation and survey of archae-ological sites and monuments. At the same time, the Survey was very much

an arm of the British Raj, and this influenced, at various levels, the ways in

which different groups of people perceived it, in relation to themselves and

others. The need to make archaeology and archaeological research an inte-

gral part of institutions of higher learning was also never a priority;

(3) archaeology was central to other kinds of institution building in the

colonies and in the metropolis. For instance, it was archaeologists who

played a formative role in the creation of museums in India by the physicalremoval of structural remains and antiquities from their original settings.

A classic instance is the history of the Buddhist stupa at Amaravati (And-

hra Pradesh) where the dismemberment of its magnificent structure was

aided by repeated archaeological excavation and, eventually, by the removal

and assemblage of sculptural pieces in the Government Museum in Chen-

nai (Tamil Nadu) and the British Museum in London; (4) several of the

dominant paradigms that structured knowledge and understanding about

the Indian past in colonial India were deeply tinged by the character ofcolonial relations. For instance, an enduring image at the heart of many

archaeological tracts penned by British scholars of colonial India was of

themselves as resurrectors of India’s past and the sharp contrast between

them and the inhabitants of India. British explorers, for instance, in the

work of Alexander Cunningham (the first director general of the Archaeo-

logical Survey of India) on the stupas of Bhilsa, are described as ‘‘curious

Saxons, from a distant land’’ who ‘‘unlock’d the treasure of two thousand

years.’’ On the other hand, Indians appear as ‘bigoted’ and ‘avaricious’ andare represented by him as vandals. Even starker are those discourses that

reconstructed the Indian past in terms of an opposition between the races.

The most influential approaches were inevitably refracted through such a

prism. According to this racial model, the invading Indo-European Aryans,

with a distinctive cultural and linguistic identity, came to be seen as the

fountainhead of Indian culture and history. It was obvious, as Edmund

Leach among others pointed out, this also happened to provide a moral

justification —a mythical charter—for the latest wave of Europeans inIndia, her colonial rulers who, in the same way as the original Aryans, were

now establishing themselves as an elite aristocracy under the banner of a

morally pure religion—Christianity. Over the past fifty years in India, it

has become more than evident that, as in many other parts of the southern

hemisphere, the disappearance of colonialism has not resulted in as effec-

tive an internal decolonization as one imagined there would be. At a purely


formal level, it was decided that independent India would continue with

the structures of many institutions that were created during British times

ranging from those concerning fields like geology and census operations to

law and railways. The Archaeological Survey of India was one such institu-

tion. On the face of it, there is nothing especially wrong with this sinceseveral elements of the institutional scaffolding of British India were rea-

sonably sound. At the same time, the fact that archaeology continues to be

centrally controlled is far more serious and this too is very much a part of

the pre-independence approach. There were those who were interested in

making Indian archaeology more broad based by taking it beyond the con-

fines of a government department into corridors of learning. However, very

much in line with the strong centrist approach which gave primacy to gov-

ernment agencies, it was decided that the Archaeological Survey wouldhave overall and visible control of research and conservation. Till today,

the Archaeological Survey of India is involved directly and indirectly in vir-

tually all aspects of archaeology. The structure of government control is in

some ways more extensive because virtually all states and union territories

have their own directorates and state departments of archaeology. Simulta-

neously, while the presence of archaeology is highly visible in government

corridors, it cannot be said to have a dynamic and strong presence in uni-

versities. New Delhi, the capital of India, boasts of several universities, butnot one of them offers a Masters degree in Indian archaeology. The situa-

tion in my own university where archaeology is taught as part of a history

program and not as an academic subject in its own right is fairly represen-

tative of the Indian situation. Similarly, India’s current monument policy

is very similar to the monument policy of the British Raj. As before, while

there are all kinds of rules and acts in place, within them, there is no

acknowledgement of the possibility that people at the grassroots level can

be incorporated as active collaborators. This contrasts visibly with certainother spheres of governance where people at the grassroots level are now

institutionally treated as stake holders. At the level of ideas, the fact that

influential groups of Indian academics continue to be fascinated with and

invest great scholarship into putative groups like the Aryans and the ques-

tion of their possible homeland reminds me of the longevity of paradigms

that were spawned in the colonial era. Certainly, there is scholarship and

sophistication in ‘Aryan’ research. At the same time, why should a group

of people—outsiders or indigenous—be so central to the past of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation state like India which also has a rich

multi-lineal archaeological heritage? Finally, a subject which must be

debated and unraveled in the public domain is the nature of foreign

archaeological missions in different parts of the world. In situations where

large segments of the archaeological landscape of nation states are being

researched primarily by foreign missions, the question of whether they have

Virtual Forum 397

re-inscribed the older colonial imbalances needs to be especially addressed.

An example of this is the Arabian Peninsula where, if we accept what has

been said by the Australian archaeologist Daniel Potts in 2001, there are

few nationals pursuing careers in archaeology since more can be earned

through business and through the civil service. Foreign teams dominatearchaeology being carried on there and, in turn, they are used as an arm of

foreign policy: ‘‘the presence of a team from a given foreign country in a

particular Arab state is viewed as beneficial by the foreign power, as its

presence helps to spread goodwill, heighten awareness of that country, con-

tribute to local heritage interests, and ultimately, sell the products of that

country in a foreign market’’! Potts himself feels that there is nothing

objectionable in foreign teams taking over Arabian archaeology and com-

pares their situation to that of any other foreign technical specialist: ‘‘Ifnon-Arabs from the West have the particular expertise needed to investi-

gate the past that is lacking locally, then there is no harm in letting such

work be done by them’’. What Potts has suggested sounds much like the

agenda of ‘global warriors’ who in another context, without any deep

knowledge or interest in the region they target, support and impose

(through force and/or funding) systems of governance that are likely to be

politically useful to them. The invasion of Iraq is the most recent tragic

example of this political approach. Such ‘global warriors’ in the field ofarchaeology can be equally dangerous. This is because such people are gen-

erally interested in a particular part of the world only to the extent that it

helps them answer some of their theoretical queries. Also, if research does

not in turn proactively help in training the nationals of such countries in

archaeological research, it would certainly perpetuate old imbalances. One

would, for instance, want to know if any Pakistani archaeologist has pur-

sued his/her doctoral research on sites like Mehrgarh and Harappa in Paki-

stan where excavations have been directed by French and Americanarchaeological missions.

Watkins: Lahiri’s Indian example is certainly thought provoking as it

outlines the development of archaeology in the south Asian realm. With

the codependency of archaeological projects on the development of muse-

ums, and the development of museums as institutions for not only storage

of material but also as a means of influencing the representation of local

populations (when compared to the ‘‘colonial powers’’), both museums

and archaeology became handmaidens of colonialism. As Lahiri notes (andas has been repeated in various forms throughout the ‘‘conversations’’ con-

cerning archaeology’s relationships to the Indigenous and local populations

it studies), the view of the archaeologists working in the colonies was one

of ‘‘resurrectors’’ of a sometimes forgotten (historically, perhaps) past: it

somehow became the self-appointed role of the archaeologist to ‘‘save’’ the

past before it crumbled and caved off into the river of time, whether that


past needed saving or whether that past was known by local groups. It

became a sort of scholarly egotism to assume that one person (or group of

people) could so serve ‘‘humanity’’ by plucking the historic narrative out

of a slow death. And with the development of this idea of scholarly owner-

ship, the influence of local populations waned. Shepherd’s discussion ofthe mechanisms of colonial reproduction within the epistemological struc-

tures of the science itself brings to mind the questions that often go

unasked, let alone unanswered: Why does the Western scientific method

continue to be considered to be so far advanced over other ways of know-

ing? While Shepherd lists such issues as the impact of colonialism and

apartheid on ‘‘other’’ areas outside of the mainstream, noting the khaki

and Land rover aspects of archaeological ‘‘expeditions’’, he also draws

attention to the continued perception that archaeological knowledgesprings from learned areas and then only grudgingly seeps out to outliers.

How do we assure that the flow of knowledge moves both directions

equally -some of this is definitely reliant upon economic and social com-

munication systems, but we must also be aware that such thoughts can

come form all areas and not just from ‘‘us’’ to ‘‘them’’. This also relates to

Zimmerman’s discussion concerning the idea that the only good theory

comes from somewhere else, especially with his example from Australia in

the 1990s. How much do we as archaeologists buy into the idea that weare important saviors of the past rather than purveyors of the scientific

story of the past? We must find other ways of getting the information out,

rather than merely within the various scientific journals that serve only to

reinforce our ideas about the importance of reporting to like-minded indi-

viduals about similarly held believes. Public education concerning the local

(and social) importance of the archaeology of a particular region is neces-

sary if we are to actually provide relevant information concerning the

archaeological record.As: Can the Colonial Overtones of Archaeology be Transformed? If So,

Which Would be Locus of such a Transformation?

Lahiri: As I’ve mentioned above, the transformation of colonial over-

tones in archaeology have to be addressed in multiple ways—in interna-

tional forums and within our own academic and government set ups.

Shepherd: from my discussion above it will be clear that I would contest

your language here. Not ‘‘colonial overtones’’ but deep colonialist

roots—undamentals—in the sense of a set of categories and structuringdevices, as well as in the content and forms of practice of the discipline.

The locus of such a transformation needs to be the post-colony, or it needs

to come from Indigenous minorities in the North (whose position can

itself be conceptualized as a kind of internal colonization). At the same

time, if we consider the experience of fields like Postcolonial Studies and

Subaltern Studies, it is clear that the idea of the postcolonial is itself a

Virtual Forum 399

dispersed phenomenon, and that many influential commentators are situ-

ated in institutions in the North as part of a process of intellectual migra-

tion. There is nothing about being ‘‘of the South’’ or ‘‘of the North’’ per

se which either qualifies of disqualifies you for this set of discussions,

rather it is about a certain experience of the world, a certain set of politicalpositions, a certain cosmopolitanism if you will—the ability to see beyond

the particularity of ones’ own situation, and to interrogate certain domi-

nant construction in the West or the North.

Watkins: The colonial overtones of archaeology are deeply entrenched

within the discipline currently. In order for those to be overturned, it

appears it might be up to Native archaeologists or at least non-empowered

archaeologists to initiate the change. These non-empowered archaeologists

must not necessarily be native, but certainly be seen as standing outside ofthe power structures that operate to ensure archaeology is used to maintain

some perceived status quo. In North America, most practitioners of the so-

called ‘‘Indigenous archaeologies’’ have expanded the discussion beyond

culture histories and ‘‘discovered’’ pasts and have acted to include the local

histories that are present within the archaeological deposits under study.

New practitioners of archaeology in both the training phases of their

careers (students; untenured employees; entry-level practitioners) and in

the early phases of their professional lives are faced with trying to circum-navigate the mistakes and shoals earlier practitioners might have wrecked

at, and now must try to find safe passage around these blockages. In North

America, I see the greatest hope for transforming archaeology to be

through some aspects of the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer program

and through an applied archeology program intended to train archaeologist

ways of better including non-empowered voices in the enterprise so that

an additional perspective might be realized. I also would like too offer the

idea that, perhaps, we should be focusing on local archaeologies as a meansof better suiting the needs of local (and smaller regional) groups, sciences,

epistemologies, and then develop some super-structures to deal with the

epistemological questions that with over-riding relevance. We can ask local

questions (what is the first appearance of domestication within such-and-

such an area?) and look at implications, but then also look at the meta-

archaeological questions such issues identify on a global scale. Worldwide

organizations such as WAC (if it can only gain more acceptance among

the ‘‘academy’’) could go a long way toward making such separation/organizational structure possible.

Zimmerman: The colonial overtones of archaeology probably will always

be there, at least for the foreseeable future. Undoing the damage of scien-

tific colonialism will take a long time. If the transformation is to happen,

the place will be at the local or regional level where archaeologists from

those places and archaeologists from the colonial countries recognize the


primacy of control over heritage by descendent communities. They will

need to work together to make the tools of archaeology useful to those

people. This may mean that even such things as excavation techniques will

need to be changed to better meet local customs or symbolic structures (an

example comes from Tara Million, a Canadian First Peoples archaeologist,who did her excavation in circles, not squares, to better meet the needs of

her people). More important, the epistemological approaches must be

adapted to local ways of knowing. As an example, this may include the

incorporation of oral tradition into archaeological interpretation.

As: Can a Non-Colonial Archaeology be Produced?

Lahiri: If by non-colonial archaeology we imagine that all that was done

and created in the colonial era must be jettisoned, it is unlikely because the

archaeology was born and established in a colonial set up. Certainly, therewere situations where larger political agendas explicitly and implicitly

manipulated archaeological research to suit colonial interests. At the same

time, there is no point in denying that there were very real advances in

our knowledge of India’s monuments, mounds, prehistoric sites and so on

and so forth. That body of knowledge provided a solid base for India’s

post-independence archaeological research. On the other hand, if a non-

colonial archaeology is seen to be a set of institutional practices and

research programs which are not imbued with colonial overtones, yes thatshould be possible. In India, this will involve dismantling ethnic-racist

frameworks within which archaeological knowledge gets frequently

squeezed to making archaeology more broad based and less stifled by

bureaucrats and government departments. It would also involve research

collaboration with other nations in terms of our own needs.

Zimmerman: A non-colonial archaeology can be produced, but it will

take a redefinition of archaeology as a discipline. The discipline must

become more humanistic, but at least maintain the general structures ofscience, whereby assumptions and even hypotheses can be offered and

tested in ways that are negotiated between those whose past is being stud-

ied and archaeologists. To do this, archaeologists will need to incorporate

different kinds of data than they are used to and figure out how to best

put them to use.

Shepherd: I prefer to talk of a postcolonial archaeology (in essays in

Archaeological Dialogues and Public Archaeology). Since you have intro-

duced the notion of a ‘‘non-colonial’’ archaeology, let us consider it. Ithink that it is not a case of negating or overcoming the colonial roots of

the discipline, so much as it is a case of working through them to find

something new on the other side. This is not about ‘‘cleansing’’ or ‘‘puri-

fying’’ the discipline of bits and pieces of a tainted past. Rather it is about

creating the discipline anew, and the image of that ‘‘newness’’ is not yet

clear, remains inchoate to the extent that I think we are only beginning

Virtual Forum 401

to work through the question of epistemic decolonization. What I hope is

that it will inspire and energize us, even as we work to bring it into

being.

Watkins: In its truest sense, I do not believe a non-colonial archaeology

can be produced merely until the prevalence of the Western scientificmethod has been supplanted with some other system that does not rely on

‘‘scientific objectivity’’ to discuss such issues. The colonialist aspect of

archaeology is part and parcel of a Western scientific thought that requires

‘‘evidence’’ to be able to make assessments, one that requires alternatives as

a means of hedging one’s bets, and one that places a premium on remov-

ing humanism from the discussion rather than focusing on the aspects of

humanity that we hope to find and discuss. Having read over the responses

of my esteemed colleagues, I wonder whether an archaeology done by aChoctaw archaeologist for a Choctaw program for totally Choctaw sensibil-

ities and uses would still be a colonialist archaeology if it used current and

contemporary methods to do its work? Is it the roots of archaeology or the

use to which archaeology has been consistently put in the past that makes

it a colonialist enterprise? Can the ‘‘colonies’’ use it to further their own

interests without having to totally change it?

As: Which is the Role (and the Limits) of an Academic Archaeology in

the Process of Decolonizing Knowledge?Lahiri: By definition academic archaeology is rooted in universities and

research institutions. It can certainly be shown that at the academic level it

has helped and will continue to play a role in decolonizing knowledge. For

instance, French-speaking African nations have debated, for a long time,

the need to respect local priorities more than to remain attached to para-

digms that are central to European archaeology. Apparently, this was the

stimulus for a conference of Francophone African and French archaeolo-

gists in 1978 which resulted in France agreeing to a range of demandsincluding funding programs to better train African students and establish

cooperative research budgets. There is apparently still a sense, though, that

the core African demand ‘‘to respect local priorities’’ remains to be prop-

erly implemented. At the same time, the fact that there are archaeologists

in Africa who do not want the archaeological pasts of their nation states to

function as arenas where foreign archaeologists view through the prism of

their own traditions of research and their own paradigms, rather than in

relation to the lands where they work, is significant. At the same time, aca-demic archaeology also needs to seriously address the question of an inter-

nal decolonization. Implicit in colonial discourses of different kinds in

India was a sense of the innate inferiority of Indians as ‘agents’ of knowl-

edge. Today, we need to ask ourselves whether those of us who form part

of an academic university elite, have initiated a meaningful dialogue which

engages the larger populace that is deeply interested in the past. To put it


another way, is there an ‘us versus them’ attitude inherent in the manner

in which we perceive our discipline as also the inputs that people outside

the academy can theoretically make? My own sense is that in India a great

deal still needs to be done to further this process of decolonizing knowl-

edge. The limits to what academic archaeology can do, at the level of thenature and dissemination of research are largely self imposed. These range

from an overwhelming tendency to publish in English language journals to

a reticence about addressing and integrating local consciousness of histori-

cal landscapes and phenomena. With vision and commitment, these can be

overcome. What is not self imposed, though, and which does limit the role

of academic archaeology is the organizational framework within which it

functions. The mainstream framework of the Indian past in the colonial

era was a framework based on religious literature, prehistory formed partof sidelined scholarship. If today prehistoric archaeology is not integral to

the education system and it is largely a textual image of ancient India

which is taught at schools, colleges and universities, this has to do with the

importance of historians rather than archaeologists in the realm of public

policy. The extent to which archaeologists can influence policy and pro-

grams has very little to do with their ‘academic’ role and everything to do

with their lack of political clout in the public arena.

Watkins: It appears that academic archaeology has much to answer forin its role as a contributor to the continuation of more colonialistic

archaeology. The idea of academic archaeology as a more ‘‘pure’’ research

filed continues to remain the predominate paradigm within which aca-

demic archaeology operates. While such is not always the case it is some-

how perceived that academic archaeology is one that operates within the

research paradigm that allows the researcher to have freedom to choose the

topic of research, the questions to be researched, and the manner in which

that research will be conducted. Other aspects of archaeology in NorthAmerica such as cultural resource management or applied archaeological

programs, on the other hand, are tied by federal laws and policies that

limit the scope of research to project oriented goals, to particular areas of

impact, or to questions around which the researcher must work. Within

that background, academic archaeology can better serve to decolonize

knowledge by informing students and colleagues alike of the limiting per-

spectives that the current academic paradigm reinforces. ‘‘Pure, objective

research’’ is neither ‘‘pure’’ nor ‘‘objective’’ in the sense that science neverfails to operate within a political milieu: the very questions we ask are a

part of the political body within which we exist. Archaeology of the histori-

cal period might have the possibility of framing a non-colonial perspective,

but that too would depend upon the subjects of its study. If we can show

students the ways that the scientific data are derived based on colonialist

attitudes and perspectives, we might be able to influence the next

Virtual Forum 403

generation of scientists to move beyond our current meager steps. We are

definitely limited by the existing paradigms within which we operate and

must therefore continue to strive for newer perspectives as those found

within indigenous archaeology and other post-colonialist archaeologies.

Some authors are certainly demonstrating the role archaeologists haveplayed in working with ‘‘collusion’’ with government agencies as part of

the cultural resource management aspects of archaeology, but this has not

been nearly developed enough to tie with academic archaeology and its

impact on training future archaeologists. Zimmerman makes an important

point, emphasizing that archaeology is politics. Perhaps the post-processu-

alist in Larry’s example was finally waking up to the reality of the situation:

Archaeology has always been about politics, in one form or another, and

has never been apolitical or asocial (although its practitioners might havebeen). Too few people have actually recognized the political aspects of

archaeology, and not just the political uses to which archaeology have been

put. For example, the Dine (Navajo) Nation uses archaeology to be certain

it lives up to requirements under the US heritage preservation laws that

allow federal or federally-funded projects to proceed. Politics plays a role

not only in the manner by which projects are funded and allowed to pro-

ceed, but also in the way that archaeology can and does get used. Politics

between partners notwithstanding, local groups see a need not necessarilyfor the actual archaeology for the project as much as the need to do

archaeology so that the project can proceed. Politics also plays a role in

determining which populations will be impacted or ignored by such pro-

jects. Shepherd draws attention to what is also perceived to be an on-going

problem here in the United States concerning the self-appointed primacy

of the scientist (not just the archaeologist) as the protector of knowledge,

especially in relation to the information available within human remains.

The conflicts concerning the human remains known as Kennewick Manand Spirit Cave Man are on-going examples of the idea that ‘‘science’’

must actively exercise its role as producers of knowledge for the benefit of

all humanity at the expense of one group or another—scientific colonial-

ism run rampant, perhaps. It does create an issue, however: would future

populations hold us responsible for ‘‘lost’’ information? What do we owe

the ‘‘greater humanity’’? Who should ‘‘own’’ or ‘‘control’’ access to sci-

ence? All these issues speak not just to archaeology, but to all producers/

gatherers of knowledge, however defined.Shepherd: Academic archaeology must lead epistemic decolonization to

the extent that it is not achieved through practice and negotiation but

through reflexivity in the historical and political contexts of disciplinary

production of knowledge. In my case this project takes place in the archive,

more precisely in the colonial archive. We need to understand what we

have been, and the forces and contexts that have made us what we are,


before we can fully understand or appreciate where we might go or what

we might become. In a Foucaldian sense we must do an ‘‘archaeology’’ of

archaeology, which I understand as a specific academic contribution to the

decolonization of the discipline. That said, academic archaeologists have

tended vastly to overestimate their own importance and authority, and inmy own context have operated largely without accountability outside of

the closed ranks of the discipline. There needs to be a sense of humility

and an epistemic openness in acknowledging the contribution of compet-

ing local and indigenous conceptions of deep time. In South Africa recently

there have been a number of disastrous cases in which archaeologists have

insisted on the primacy of archaeology as a ‘‘science’’ in gaining access to

human remains, over the heads of community groups and descendant

communities. For much of the history of archaeology in this country, an‘‘academic’’ notion of archaeology has been a way of insulating the disci-

pline against broader social and political concerns. Without mincing

words, I want to say that this is damaging and unviable. Archaeology needs

to be understood as a form of social and political practice in a contested

present. We are not in the business of taking dictation from God, ascer-

taining the facts of the past via a kind of hotline with the hereafter. We are

in the business of constructing knowledge in the politically contested pres-

ent of (in my case) the postcolony, with all of the kinds of entanglementsand ambiguities that go along with this process. My final point: it is pre-

cisely through a close engagement with these entanglements that we renew

the discipline, that we ‘‘decolonize’’ it, if you like.

Zimmerman: Academic archaeology must learn to live in the real world

and recognize that not everyone thinks of the past as public heritage. Many

non-archaeologists think of archaeological heritage as their own, not

archaeology’s. They want to protect it, and they want to interpret it them-

selves, or with a stronger sentiment, they want it left alone. At a recentSociety for American Archaeology meeting many of these ideas were being

discussed, and one archaeologist expressed his joy to me that these issues

were surfacing and that colleagues were paying attention. When I saw him

later that day, after he had participated in a symposium on archaeological

theory, he was very upset and reported that in the session several processu-

al archaeologists had said something like, ‘‘You aren’t doing archaeology;

you are doing politics!’’ This attitude is profoundly unrealistic and unfor-

tunate and lies at the heart of what academic archaeology must do todecolonize the discipline. To alter an earlier definition of archaeology,

archaeology is politics or it is nothing. Academic archaeology must recog-

nize this, stop promoting the idea that the past is a public heritage, and

work with people who seek to protect their own heritage to give them the

tools they need to do it. This must be done without conditions or control

on the part of archaeologists. Archaeologists should seek to become

Virtual Forum 405

partners, not the ‘‘bosses.’’ Archaeologists also need to recognize that the

stories about the past generated by these people can be as valid as those

generated by academic archaeologists. What becomes as important as the

stories is how the people generate the stories. This creates an added dimen-

sion for archaeology, and a far richer one about what the past means topeople. As for limits, there are some. If archaeologists are to be cut off

from dealing with the heritage of colonized people, there is no reason for

them to try to do archaeology on that heritage. In the early days of the

repatriation issue in America, many American Indians said they wanted

archaeologists to have no part in the excavations of remains or their inter-

pretation. At they same time, they demanded that archaeologists help them

to protect remains and excavate skeletons as needed. But they wouldn’t

allow study of the remains. My response was that if they wanted us to haveno role in their heritage, they should not expect us to assist them. What

was the point if the excavation could not add to knowledge about the past?

If people wish us to stay out of their way, if they don’t want to use our

tools, and if they don’t want help in the interpretation of the remains, we

should not interfere. Certainly information that archaeology can use will be

lost to us, but as we have discovered, our scientific colonialism can come

at a high cost to our profession. We lose information every day in archae-

ology for other reasons (development, defense, etc.), and usually don’t pro-test, so why do we do so when a descendent community wants no

involvement with us?

AS: Larrys rephrasing of Willey and Phillips’ dictum resonates in Nick’s

suggestion for the creation of the discipline anew, one in which a political

commitment (almost heretical for the scientific apparatus) would be prom-

inent. Such a commitment, however, can be of many kinds, not necessarily

on the service of decolonization. For instance, it is often the case that

political commitment is realized in practice in concordance with State andglobal multiculturalism. If archaeologists are not ‘‘bosses’’ any more but

partners in joint ventures with other parties, and if the importance of sto-

ries about the past shifts from their very content to the way they are told,

circulated and received, How can the political commitment of archaeology

best serve the decolonizing agenda? What should this mean for a global

organization as WAC? Which would be the role, if any, of south-south

dialogues within archaeology?

Zimmerman: This is always a dangerous realm for archaeology. Archae-ology is at least partly about social justice and community-building. Social

justice issues are the most difficult because they involve an assessment on

the part of the archaeologist about matters of morality and ethics. Com-

munity-building is less problematic and possibly more ‘‘optimistic’’ in that

archaeology can work with partners to develop ‘‘social capital.’’ That is,

archaeologists can work to improve the quality of social networks for a


community, which ultimately may incorporate the archaeologist. Finding

partnerships with social movements is first a matter of identifying a move-

ment with which an archaeologist seeks a partnership then providing its

members with a proposal outlining the archaeologist’s vision of what

archaeology can offer to the movement. Neither partner should be naıveabout the contribution, and they need to negotiate as many conditions as

they can foresee. None of this is easy, and much depends on ‘‘good faith’’

and the honesty of the partners. Archaeology, as my colleagues here point

out, in both the academy or in the heritage management ‘‘industry,’’ needs

decolonization and epistemological shifts. However, the partners who help

us develop them must also be willing to work at the boundaries of their

own ways of knowing. If they aren’t willing to do so, any partnership is

bound to fail. The first south-south dialogue should be about the kinds ofapproaches that work best for the regions represented. This may need to

be about fundamental questions such as how people in the region see their

own pasts. At the same Australian conference I mentioned earlier, my

response when told that they had no theory except from America or Eng-

land was that they easily could. Much more interaction between archaeolo-

gists and an Indigenous people was happening there than anywhere else in

the world, least more than in America. I was impressed (and still am) at

the kind of archaeology-community interactions I saw there. The potentialI saw for redefining archaeology in ways I’ve outlined in these comments

was stunning! Another dialogue certainly is about the colonial experience

itself, and how it has altered investigation of the past and its interpretation.

How have the structures of capitalism pushed people to accept a notion

that the past is public heritage? The questions can be many. They can really

be addressed only by people who have experienced it and archaeologists

who work with them.

Lahiri: A south-south dialogue is crucial in producing more inclusivecomparative perspectives on archaeology and material culture in at least

two ways. First, this would inspire and result in a serious engagement with

the ideas and research traditions of nation states that do not form part of

the Western academy. Secondly, it would encourage an awareness of how a

shared history of colonization has created a plethora of similar challenges

in present day contexts. This convergence and articulation, in turn, would

also eventually feed into more equable ways of proceeding in a dialogue

with the Anglo-American World.Shepherd: I think that South-South dialogue is key to this process. In

addition, I would want to see archaeologists in the South engaging in sets

of conversations with archaeologists and Indigenous representatives from

amongst Indigenous minorities in the North (as well as with community

representatives and concerned persons locally). In a quite specific way, I

would like to see an organization like the World Archaeological Congress

Virtual Forum 407

take this on as part of its core mandate. I think that there is a sense in

which WAC has become stuck in an ‘‘intellectual aide’’ mode of operation,

and is perhaps losing its political edge. To the extent that decolonizing

archaeology is a political undertaking we need organizations which are able

to intervene politically, and which are founded on a clear analysis of themechanisms of the colonial reproduction of archaeology. I know that I can

make these comments about WAC because I am a loyal member of the

organization in conversation with other loyal members—so there can be

no question of disloyalty. But I have long wanted to see a more vigorous

discussion within WAC around its political commitments and the manner

in which it negotiates the sharply divided political contexts of the present

moment, caused in part by the unilateralism of the United States. These

form a sharp challenge to the multilateralism of an organization like WAC.I think what I am doing here is to invite others to join in this debate, in

this forum or elsewhere.

Watkins: I see the importance of south-north dialogues to be one of

increasing the discussion of aspects of our discipline that we do not hear

enough of as it is. In North America, ‘‘Indigenous’’ is a matter of biologi-

cal kinship (i.e., ‘‘Native American’’, ‘‘First Nation’’, Choctaw, Kiowa),

whereas in South America it might be biological kinship (Ache) as well as

a cultural one (‘‘peasants’’). While ‘‘Indigenous archaeology might bedefined as the practice of archaeology by, for, and under the control of

Indigenous groups, the way those Indigenous groups are defined (or define

themselves) influences the way that Indigenous archaeology is carried out

and perceived by others. Perspectives on South American archaeology

operating under the social constraints present there today can only help

influence the actions of social archaeologists in North America. One thing

we haven’t addressed (at this point any way) is the massive explosion of

the ability not only to communicate immediately but broadly. I can com-municate with someone in the northern hemisphere rather rapidly, and

can also communicate with someone in a different day than I. We can

converse across seasons as well. We have the ability to influence a great

number of people when we adequately use the resources we have, but

many of those resources are not available to enough of our colleagues.

AS: Nick has brought up an important issue. The self-overestimation of

the importance and authority of archaeologists, alongside their lack of

accountability, brings to the fore the fact that one of the most importantloci of decolonization is that of the social movements, especially indigenous

communities; yet, it has been largely underestimated by academics. If

mainstream archaeology keeps ignoring the challenges posed by other par-

ties interested in a decolonized past is risking its legitimacy, relevance,

and, ultimately, its role in the social production of meaning. How can


archaeologists establish (or further) a partnership with social movements

in the joint search for a decolonized archaeology?

Shepherd: I will address the questions about the political commitments

of archaeologists, and the questions about the relation between archaeology

and social movements together. I also want to scaffold my own responseon the thoughtful comment made by Larry on the relation between archae-

ology and social movements by saying that this is always a dangerous

realm for archaeology. In part, he says, this is because it involves ‘‘an

assessment on the part of the archaeologist of matters of morality and eth-

ics’’. It also, of course, involves questions of politics. I want to repeat a

comment that I made in the first round about the sharply divided nature

of the present political moment. More and more we are confronted by our

need as archaeologists to take political positions, and by the impossibilityof an archaeology without politics. How we do this within the frame of a

global discipline, and within the frame of a multilateral organization like

WAC, for example, is a huge challenge. What I want to offer by way of a

guiding principle is the absolute importance of sticking close to the partic-

ularity of social and political concerns in a given local context. In many

ways, colonialist archaeologies were about the denial of ‘‘the social’’ and

‘‘the local’’, to the extent that they worked over the heads of indigenous

societies, and to the extent that they deferred to the metropolis and repro-duced a broadly colonial division of labor. It follows that if we are serious

about decolonizing archaeology, then our route to achieving this is through

close attention to the political expressions and priorities of social move-

ments in a given local context. It is precisely by working through these

movements, by thinking of archaeology in relation to these movements

rather than over and against them, that we arrive at the forms of practice

and the guiding ideas which serve to decolonize the discipline. There is no

mystery here, and neither is there a grand recipe which applies uniformlyacross all contexts. If anything, there are a set of general principles for

decolonizing the discipline which might include the following:

• An epistemic openness in considering competing local and indigenous

conceptions of deep time as systems of through in their own right;

• Reflexivity in terms of acknowledging and working through the for-

mative contexts of one’s own disciplinary practices in colonialism,

imperialism, apartheid, or whatever;• Creativity in challenging power geometries and political economies in

the discipline that favor the West or the North;

• And a politics which challenges dominant political discourses and

normative constructions around history, development, democracy,

and so on as being sovereign to the West.

Virtual Forum 409

If we take these principles then the danger that Larry was referring to

becomes a moment of opportunity and potentiality. Certainly, it makes it

an incredibly exciting time to be an archaeologist, not just heading for the

trenches with trowel in hand, but having to theorize one’s own practice in

relation to social processes and the contemporary world. The final com-ment that I want to make concerns our need in the discipline to find new

languages through which to theorize and express these engagements. The

general conceptual tools that we have at hand are mainly drawn from heri-

tage management discourse, with its somewhat delimited and denatured

notions of ‘‘stakeholders’’, ‘‘interest groups’’, ‘‘consultations’’, ‘‘heritage

value’’, and so on. If we inhabit the postcolony then we need to think

about the multiple and competing publics that constitute the public sphere,

and of the kinds of necessary entanglements that ensue when we begin toaddress questions of legacies, origins, memory, indigeneity, cultural rights,

and so on. When we think of archaeology in this way then it opens up a

whole series of debates and discussions happening across a range of disci-

plines and fields around questions of citizenship, rights, entitlements, resti-

tution, and so on, and in terms of a range of theoretical discourses and

registers. These are debates and discussions that are literally remaking con-

ceptions of society and of who we are, and it is exciting to think about a

kind of archaeology which is a part of these discussions.AS: Are decolonizing, indigenous, and postcolonial approaches to

archaeology new ways of reframing (and reinforcing) theoretical depen-

dence from the north?

Shepherd: Only if we let them be.

Watkins: I don’t believe that the various aspects of decolonizing, indige-

nous, and postcolonial approaches to the archaeology are dependent on

the north, but rather are actions and reactions to particular aspects of

archaeology in all areas where archaeology is practiced. The importance ofdecolonizing archaeology in New Zealand is tied up with the practice of

archaeology as it currently occurs in New Zealand not to the way archaeol-

ogy is practiced in the United States or any other country. As such, it

becomes an extremely localized enterprise. The same is true in Canada.

The cultural and historical context within which archaeology is practiced

within each particular country creates a particular trajectory through which

archaeology must arc. While there will be many similarities about which

we can write and around which local populations can build, each countrycontributes to a regional perspective on the ways that archaeology is

practiced in that region.

Lahiri: When postcolonial approaches are couched in prose that is more

at home with what forms the language of discourses in North America or

Europe but is completely alien to the mundane materiality of the discipline

in their own nation states, this does tend to happen. An inclusive


postcolonial approach must be one in which not only are problems that

are meaningful in the contexts of each nation state rather than a distant

metropolitan academy, come to be posed. These must also be posed in a

language which practitioners in that nation state understand and compre-

hend.Zimmerman: Without question, decolonizing, indigenous, and postcolo-

nial approaches are reframing the theoretical relationships with the north.

The impetus comes from the general recognition that processual archaeol-

ogy, for all its theoretical power, can be alienating, even cruel, when it

claims to provide stories about the past that are more feasible or true than

those offered by descendent communities. A basic recognition that pasts

are constructed, not reconstructed, brought with it a willingness to look at

pasts in a broader economic and political context than processual archaeol-ogy ever could. Along with this came an understanding that the process of

constructing pasts is constantly ongoing, with the past being a tool for

adaptation like any other element of culture (although this may be denied

by the descendant community). From this we recognize that knowing how

people ‘‘process’’ their pasts may be as important as the stories about it

they tell. These newer forms of archaeology stress creation and usage of

pasts rather than seeing the past as something that happened and is done

with. In other words, the past is as much now as it is ‘‘back then.’’ Thisview is much more akin to traditional views of time and past that one sees

in many traditional or Indigenous cultures. It also recognizes the impor-

tance of pasts for peoples’ cultures, not in some cliche sense, but in a lived

sense where the past is always nearby and immanent. An understanding of

this kind can only come from Indigenous or colonized peoples, and the

archaeologists who deal with them regularly.

AS: Although it seems to be no definitive ‘‘south’’ from where to build

south-south relationships, but relative positions regarding archaeologicalpractice in local/regional contexts, it seems to be both a lack of horizontal

communication of decolonizing archaeological practices and a perceptions

that though something new is possibly coming nobody knows what are the

steps to it. Should a broad horizontal network for communicating decolon-

izing experiences and projects be useful in building decolonizing archaeolo-

gies? How such a network should be organized?

Watkins: The network for communicating decolonizing experiences and

projects already exists but is not fully utilized. As I have said before theWorld Archaeological Congress is a model that could be utilized to spread

the ‘‘decolonizing’’ banner if (1) more professional archaeologists believed

in its utility; (2) more local accessibility to electronic outlets were available;

(3) the discipline agreed in the utility of such views and supported such

communication networks globally; (4) archaeologists globally agreed to act

locally to instigate perceived necessary changes!

Virtual Forum 411

Zimmerman: Such a network certainly could be important. One needs

torealize, however, that the colonial experiences of different regions, or

even different countries will be variable and may require unique responses

in order to decolonize their archaeologies. At the same time, a network can

provide solutions used in their region that may be of use or other forms ofadvice or assistance when needed. The World Archaeological Congress is

beginning to serve such a function on a global level, but experiences with

colonialism have been different enough that WAC understands the need

for smaller networks that can be more immediately responsive. I have no

real idea what organizational scheme would work best, but some basic

form of regular communication will be crucial.

Shepherd: We can discuss the lack of a definitive South - by which I

would understand you to mean that the notion of what the South com-prises has become complicated and contested - but at the same time what

we should not lose sight of is the reality of structural oppression and

power geometries which play themselves out in terms of a (broad) North

situated over and against a (broad, complex) South. In this sense the

notion of the South remains a useful, I would say an indispensable, term

of analysis. With regard to the need to build broad horizontal networks:

yes, certainly. These should not only be for the purposes of comparing

experience, but also for the purposes of advocacy and activism, to changethe discipline from within. How to do this? Well, this is a good question.

First we should recognize that such initiatives are not new but are under-

way in some instances, with varying degrees of success. Secondly, I suppose

the general answer is that we need to break free of prevailing structures

and forms of organization, and build new structures which are more

appropriate to the needs of indigenous persons and practitioners in the

South. By way of closing I want to return to an earlier point and ask the

question how the World Archaeological Congress as an existing organiza-tion might act in this capacity.


Documents

Archaeology and decolonization