Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 27–69 | Cite as

Teaching Anti-Colonial Archaeology

  • Rich Hutchings
  • Marina La Salle
Research

Abstract

Archaeology is deeply troubled, but students are unlikely to learn about it in their ARCH 100 class. Our experience with ‘World Prehistory’ and ‘Introductory Archaeology’ courses and reviewing common textbooks charts a discipline securely anchored in the 19th century ideological harbour that is science, evolution, imperialism and progress. This includes so-called ‘middle road’ and ‘post-colonial’ approaches, which reinforce the status quo by limiting political action. In our search for an alternative, we discuss here our attempts to teach an anti-colonial archaeology rooted in critical pedagogy, political activism and anti-oppressive practice. At its core are three tenets: archaeology is personal, political and all about the present. While we are gratified by the many students who relish this opportunity for critical enquiry, we are faced with this lingering problem: most people do not want to hear the “negative reality” of archaeology.

Key words

Pedagogy Colonialism Capitalism Politics Ethics 

Résumé

L’archéologie est en grande difficulté, mais il est peu probable que les étudiants l’apprennent dans leur classe ARCH 100. Notre expérience des cours de « préhistoire mondiale » et d’ « introduction à l’archéologie » ainsi que l’analyse des manuels courants dessinent une discipline bien enracinée dans le champ idéologique du 19ème siècle entre science, évolution, impérialisme et progrès. Même les approches dites « intermédiaire » et « postcoloniale » sont concernées, car elles renforcent le statu quo en limitant l’action politique. Dans notre recherche d’une alternative, nous exposons ici nos tentatives pour enseigner une archéologie anticoloniale nourrie de pédagogie critique, d’activisme politique et de pratique antioppression. Elle se fonde sur trois principes : l’archéologie est personnelle, politique et centrée sur le présent. Bien que nous félicitant du nombre d’étudiants qui savourent cette opportunité d’étude critique, nous sommes confrontés à un problème persistant : la majorité ne veut pas entendre la « réalité négative » de l’archéologie.

Resumen

La arqueología está profundamente preocupada, pero no es probable que los estudiantes sepan de esto en su clase ARCH 100. Nuestra experiencia con los cursos sobre "Prehistoria Mundial" e "Introducción a la Arqueología" y la revisión de los libros de texto comunes trazan una disciplina firmemente anclada en el puerto ideológico del siglo XIX que es la ciencia, la evolución, el imperialismo y el progreso. Esto incluye los enfoques denominados "moderados" o "postcoloniales", que refuerzan el statu quo limitando la acción política. En nuestra búsqueda de una alternativa, tratamos aquí nuestros intentos de enseñar una arqueología anticolonial enraizada en la pedagogía crítica, el activismo político y la práctica antiopresiva. En su núcleo encontramos tres premisas: la arqueología es personal, política y tiene que ver con el presente. Aunque nos sentimos gratificados por los muchos estudiantes que disfrutan de esta oportunidad de indagación crítica, nos vemos enfrentados a este problema persistente: la mayoría de las personas no quieren oír hablar de la "realidad negativa" de la arqueología.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Tania La Salle for her careful review of an earlier draft, and to our family and friends who have helped us persevere against all odds. We are grateful to our reviewers for their insightful comments, critiques and suggestions, and to the editors for allowing us this opportunity to speak and be heard.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This essay represents the convergence of two papers presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, Washington, March 29–April 2, 2011 (Hutchings 2011; La Salle 2011). For a discussion of how “responsible archaeology is applied anthropology”, see Pyburn and Wilk (2000); see also Shackel and Chamber (2004) and Stapp (2012).

     
  2. 2.

    Part-time lecturers are labelled ‘sessionals’ in Canada and ‘adjuncts’ in the United States. About half of all North American faculty are sessionals (Cumo 2012), and around three-quarters of all faculty are ‘contingent’, which includes part-timers, non-tenure track full-timers and graduate assistants (Bradbury 2013). Terms commonly used to describe this situation include “alarming”, “increase” and “insecurity” (MacDonald 2013).

     
  3. 3.

    It has been suggested to us that instructors rarely teach the textbook directly and instead use it as a foil, drawing on some sections to critique. This has not been our experience as students or teaching assistants of introductory courses using these textbooks. Further, this does not negate but instead supports our conclusions about the apolitical stance of textbooks that are commonly employed. In addition, this reinforces our point that there is something fundamentally wrong with mainstream archaeology texts.

     
  4. 4.

    Our focus on “relative points of view” brings about awareness of the central place of language within identity and culture. As Stroińska (2001:1) observes, “Language is more than just an innocent tool used for communication. It is a powerful instrument, which may be used to enable exchange of thoughts and expression of feelings. However, it can also be used as a weapon for destruction, alienation, exclusion or thought manipulation”. How archaeologists communicate, therefore, is of critical importance (Holtorf 2007). This extends to textbook imagery. To paraphrase Hammond et al. (2009:150), imagery in an assigned text is often the first message North American students receive about archaeology.

     
  5. 5.

    A useful and relevant comparison for the post- vs. anti-colonial debate can be found in environmental discourse, specifically the philosophical imbroglio that is “light green” vs. “dark green”. Following Dobson (1990:13, as presented in Chase 1991:7), “conventional environmentalism” represents an imperial approach to nature that argues that our environmental problems “can be solved without fundamental changes in present values or patterns of production and consumption”. Alternatively, “radical ecologism” raises the ethical ideal, arguing that environmental stewardship “presupposes radical changes in our relationship with it, and in our mode of social and political life”. A useful point of entry into this debate in North American archaeology and heritage studies emerges from Thomas King’s (2009:7) observation that “we now have bureaucracies overseeing environmental impact assessment (EIA) and cultural resource management (CRM), and we have well-heeled private companies doing EIA and CRM work under contract. What we do not have is an orderly system for actually, honestly considering and trying to reduce impacts on our natural and cultural heritage. It’s all pretty much a sham”.

     
  6. 6.

    One reviewer suggested that by taking a “presentist” approach—which we freely admit to doing (we are self-identified constructivists)—we are denying thus devaluing ‘the past’. We disagree with this critique. Rather, we follow Holtorf (2005a:158–160) in this regard: “Claiming that the past is of the present makes the past no less significant today. It paves the way for the assertion that the significance of the past is defined by all of us, rather than by the few who assume position of intellectual authority from which they state how archaeological sites and artifacts are properly appreciated and ultimately what they really mean for us”. What gives heritage meaning are people (actors) experiencing (acting) in the present, the living people who actively (re)new, (re)produce, (re)construct, (re)shape, (re)read, (re)experience, (re)celebrate and ultimately re-member ‘the past’ (see Benton 2010).

     
  7. 7.

    Reading packages are an excellent and cost-effective alternative to textbooks, however, they require much work to assemble and years of tinkering to perfect, neither of which limited-term instructors are able to offer. Also, while locally produced alternative textbooks may be available to some (in our case, Muckle 2006, 2008), such works likely lack the supporting materials typical of mainstream texts (eg. prepared exam questions, websites), thus significant time is needed to fully develop these into a course for hundreds of students, again something that limited-term teachers are typically unable (or unwilling) to offer. In addition, these may be limited in geographic scope, thus unsuitable for the global expectations/requirements of a ‘world’ or ‘introductory’ course.

     
  8. 8.

    See, for example: Alexander 2008; Alfred 2009; Andrews 2006; Biro 2011; Foster et al. 2010; Hall and Fenelon 2009; Heinberg 2003; Homer-Dixon 2006; Jaimes 1992; Plant and Plant 1992; Ritzer 1993; Stapp 2012; Williams 2012.

     

References

  1. Alexander, B. K. (2008) The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in the Poverty of the Spirit, Oxford University PressOxford, UK.,Google Scholar
  2. Alfred, T. (2009) Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto2nd, Oxford University PressDon Mills, ON.,Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, C. (2006) Slow is Beautiful: New Visions of Community, Leisure and Joie de Vivre, New SocietyGabriola Island, BC.,Google Scholar
  4. Atalay, S. 2007. Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey. Archaeologies 3(3):249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basso, K. H. (1996) Wisdom Sites in Places: Landscapes and Language among the Western Apache, University of New Mexico PressAlbuquerque, NM.,Google Scholar
  6. Bell, L. A. (2010) Storytelling for Social Justice: Connecting Narrative and the Arts in Antiracist Teaching, RoutledgeNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  7. Bender, B. (1999) Stonehenge: Making Space, Materializing Culture, Berg PublishersOxford, UK.,Google Scholar
  8. Bender, S. J., Smith, G. S. 1998. The SAA’s Workshop on Teaching Archaeology in the 21st Century: Promoting a National Dialogue on Curricula Reform. SAA Bulletin 16(5):11–13.Google Scholar
  9. Bender, S. J., Smith, G. S. (eds.) (2000) Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, Society for American ArchaeologyWashington, DC.,Google Scholar
  10. Benton, T. (ed.) (2010) Understanding Heritage and Memory, Manchester University PressManchester, UK.,Google Scholar
  11. Biro, A. (editor). 2011. Critical Ecologies: The Frankfurt School and Contemporary Environmental Crises. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  12. Bodley, J. H. (2008a) Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems5th, AltaMiraNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  13. Bodley, J. H. 2008b. Victims of Progress. Fifth Edition. AltaMira, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Bradbury, A. 2013. Adjunct Faculty, Now in the Majority, Organize Citywide. Labor Notes 20 May 2013. Electronic document, accessed 11 December 2013, http://www.labornotes.org/2013/05/adjunct-faculty-now-majority-organize-citywide.
  15. Breitborde, L. B. (1997) Anthropology’s Challenge: Disquieting Ideas for Diverse Students. In The Teaching of Anthropology: Problems, Issues, and Decisionspp. 39–44, edited by CP Kottak, JJ White, RH Furlowand PG Rice, Mayfield PublishingToronto, ON.,Google Scholar
  16. Breunig, M. 2009. Teaching For and About Critical Pedagogy in the Post-Secondary Classroom. Studies in Social Justice 3(2):247–262.Google Scholar
  17. Breunig, M. 2011. Problematizing Critical Pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3(3):2–23.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, L., Strega, S. (2005) Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches, Canadian Scholars’ Press/Women’s PressToronto, ON.,Google Scholar
  19. Brownlee, K. 2010. Searching for Identity through Archaeology. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by G. Nicholas, pp. 55–65. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Bruchac, M. M., Hart, S., Wobst, H. M. (eds.) (2010) Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader in Decolonization, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  21. Byrne, D. 2008[1991]. Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management. In The Heritage Reader, edited by G. Fairclough et al., pp. 229–234. Routledge, London. Originally published in History and Archaeology 5:269–276.Google Scholar
  22. Byrne, D. 2008. Heritage as Social Action. In The Heritage Reader, edited by G. Fairclough et al., pp. 149–173. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  23. Castañeda, Q. E., Matthews, C. N. (2008) Introduction. In Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practicespp. 1–24, edited by Q Castañedaand C Matthews, AltaMira PressPlymouth, UK.,Google Scholar
  24. Chase, S. 1991. Whither the Radical Ecology Movement? In Defending the Earth: A Dialogue between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman, edited by S. Chase, pp. 7–24. South End Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Chazan, M. 2009. World Prehistory and Archaeology: Pathways Through Time. Pearson, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  26. Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture, University of Harvard PressCambridge, MA.,Google Scholar
  27. Coates, J. (2003) Ecology and Social Work: Toward a New Paradigm, FernwoodBlack Point, NS.,Google Scholar
  28. Colwell-Chathaphonh, C., Ferguson, T. J. (2008) Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, AltaMira PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Culhane, D. (1998) The Pleasure of the Crown: Anthropology, Law and First Nations, Talon BooksVancouver, BC.,Google Scholar
  31. Cumo, C. 2012. Sessional Faculty in Canada and Adjunct Faculty in the U.S. Share More Than Just An International Border. Adjunct Nation 27 June 2012. Electronic document, accessed 11 December 2013, http://www.adjunctnation.com/2012/06/27/26-sessional-faculty-in-canada-and-adjunct-faculty-in-the-u-s-share-more-than-just-an-international-border/.
  32. Dabulkis-Hunter, S. (2002) Outsider Research: How White Writers Explore Native Issues, Knowledge and Experiences, Academic PressBethesda, MD.,Google Scholar
  33. Dei, G. J. S. 2006. Introduction: Mapping the Terrain—Towards a New Politics of Resistance. In Anti-Colonialism and Education: The Politics of Resistance, edited by G. J. Sefa Dei and A. Kempf, pp. 1–24. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. Dei, G. J. S., Asgharzadeh, A. 2001. The Power of Social Theory: The Anti-Colonial Discursive Framework. Journal of Educational Thought 35(3):297–323.Google Scholar
  35. Deloria, V. Jr. (1997) Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact, ScribnerNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  36. Diaz, M. A. 2010. Being and Becoming a South American Archaeologist. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by G. Nicholas, pp. 19–25. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Dobson, A. (1990) Green Political Thought, Unwin HymanLondon, UK.,Google Scholar
  38. Dongoske, K. E., Aldenderfer, M., Doehner, K. (eds.) (2000) Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, Society for American ArchaeologyWashington, DC.,Google Scholar
  39. Echo-Hawk, R., Echo-Hawk, W. (1994) Battlefields and Burial Grounds: the Indian’s Struggle to Protect Ancestral Graves in the United States, Lerner PublicationsMinneapolis, MS.,Google Scholar
  40. Foster, J. B. (2009) The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet, Monthly Review PressNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  41. Foster, J. B., Clark, B., York, R. (2010) The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, Monthly Review PressNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  42. Galtung, J. 1967. After Camelot. In The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between the Social Sciences and Practical Politics, edited by I. Horowitz, pp. 281–312. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Gero, J., Root, D. (1990) Public Presentation and Private Concerns: Archaeology in the Pages of National Geographic. In The Politics of the Pastpp. 19–37, edited by P Gathercoleand D Lowenthal, RoutledgeNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  44. Graeber, D. (2004) Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, Prickly Paradigm PressChicago, IL.,Google Scholar
  45. Graves-Brown, P., Harrison, R., Piccini, A. (eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, Oxford University PressOxford, UK.,Google Scholar
  46. Hall, M. 2006. Identity, Memory and Countermemory: The Archaeology of an Urban Landscape. Journal of Material Culture 11(1/2):189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hall, T. D., Fenelon, J. V. (2009) Indigenous Peoples and Globalization: Resistance and Revitalization, ParadigmBoulder, CA.,Google Scholar
  48. Hamilakis, Y. 2004. Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy. World Archaeology 36(2):287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hamilakis, Y. (2007) From Ethics to Politics. In Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politicspp. 15–40, edited by Y Hamilakisand P Duke, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  50. Hamilakis, Y. 2012. Are We Postcolonial Yet? Tales from the Battlefield. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 8(1):67–76.Google Scholar
  51. Hamilakis, Y., Duke, P. (eds.) (2007) Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  52. Hammond, J. D., Brummel, J., Buckingham, C., Dolan, D., Irish, L., Menzel, E., Noard, C. 2009. Interrogating Cultural Anthropology Text Covers: Intended Messages. Received Meanings. Visual Anthropology Review 25(2):150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harrison, R. (ed.) (2010) Understanding the Politics of Heritage, Manchester University PressManchester, UK.,Google Scholar
  54. Harrison, R. (2013) Heritage: Critical Approaches, RoutledgeLondon.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Haviland, W. A. (1997) Cleansing Young Minds, or What Should We Be Doing in Introductory Anthropology? In The Teaching of Anthropology: Problems, Issues, and Decisionspp. 34–38, edited by CP Kottak, JJ White, RH Furlowand PG Rice, Mayfield PublishingToronto, ON.,Google Scholar
  56. Heinberg, R. (2003) The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, New SocietyGabriola Island, BC.,Google Scholar
  57. Hodder, I., Hutson, S. (2003) Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology3rd, Cambridge University PressCambridge, UK.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hollowell, J., Nicholas, G. 2009. Using Ethnographic Methods to Articulate Community-Based Conceptions of Cultural Heritage Management. Public Archaeology: Archaeological Ethnographies 8(2–3):141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Holtorf, C. (2005a) From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture, Altamira PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  60. Holtorf, C. 2005b. Beyond Crusades: How (Not) to Engage with Alternative Archaeologies. World Archaeology 37(4):544–551.Google Scholar
  61. Holtorf, C. 2007. Can You Hear Me at the Back? Archaeology, Communication and Society. European Journal of Archaeology 10(2–3):149–165.Google Scholar
  62. Homer-Dixon, T. (2006) The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization, Vintage CanadaToronto, ON.,Google Scholar
  63. Hoodfar, H. 1992. Feminist Anthropology and Critical Pedagogy: The Anthropology of Classrooms’ Excluded Voices. Canadian Journal of Education 17(3):303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hutchings, R. 2011. Introducing Archaeology, Ethically: Teaching ‘Real’ Archaeology to University Undergraduates. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, Washington, March 29–April 2, 2011.Google Scholar
  65. Hutchings, R., and M. La Salle. 2014. Archaeology as Disaster Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology Special Volume: Disentangling Contract Archaeology, guest edited by A. Dias and C. Gnecco. [Forthcoming]Google Scholar
  66. Jaimes, M. A. (ed.) (1992) The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance, South EndBoston, MA.,Google Scholar
  67. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Braman, D. 2011. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kehoe, A. B. (1998) The Land of Prehistory: A Critical History of American Archaeology, RoutledgeNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  69. Kelly, R. L., and D. H. Thomas 2010. Archaeology (5th ed.). Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  70. Kerber, J. E. 2006. Introduction. In Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States, edited by J. E. Kerber, pp. xix–xxx. University of Nebraska, NE.Google Scholar
  71. Kohl, P. L. 1998. Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote Past. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. King, T. F. (2009) Our Unprotected Heritage: Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Natural and Cultural Environment, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  73. Kintz, T. 1998/2012. Radical Archaeology as Dissent. The Anarchist Library 21 May 2012. Electronic document, http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/theresa-kintz-radical-archaeology-as-dissent. Retrieved and republished on 27 January 2010 from http://green-anarchy.wikidot.com/radical-archaelogy-as-dissent. Originally published 26April 1998 in OFF! (SUNY-Bing campus publication), Errol Schitzer, ed.
  74. La Salle, M. J. 2010. Community Collaboration and Other Good Intentions. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 6(3):401–422.Google Scholar
  75. La Salle, M. J. 2011. Making Nature. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, Washington, March 29–April 2, 2011.Google Scholar
  76. La Salle, M. J. 2013. ‘Capital-C’ Consultation: Community, Capitalism and Colonialism. New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry 6(2):72–88.Google Scholar
  77. La Salle, M., and R. Hutchings 2012. Commercial Archaeology in British Columbia. The Midden 44(2):8–16.Google Scholar
  78. Leone, M. (2005) The Archaeology of Liberty in an American Capital: Excavations in Annapolis, University of California PressLos Angeles, CA.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Leone, M. P., Potter, P. B. Jr., Shackel, P. A. 1987. Towards a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 23(3):283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Liebmann, M. (2008) The Intersections of Archaeology and Postcolonial Studies. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critiquepp. 1–20, edited by M Liebmannand UZ Rizvi, Altamira PressLanham, MD.,Google Scholar
  81. Lydon, J., Rizvi, U. Z. (2010) Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  82. Lyman, R. L. 2010. American Archaeology Textbooks as Reflections of the History of the Discipline. North American Archaeologist 31(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. MacDonald, M. 2013. Sessionals, Up Close. University Affairs 09 Jan 2013. Electronic document, accessed 11 December 2013, http://www.universityaffairs.ca/sessionals-up-close.aspx.
  84. McGuire, R. H. (2008) Archaeology as Political Action, University of California PressBerkeley, CA.,Google Scholar
  85. McNiven, I. J., Russell, L. (2005) Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology, Altamira PressOxford, UK.,Google Scholar
  86. Mahuika, R. 2008. Kaupapa Māori Theory is Critical and Anti-Colonial. MAI Review 3(4):1–16.Google Scholar
  87. Mapes, L. (2009) Breaking Ground: The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Unearthing of Tse-Whit-zen Village, University of Washington PressSeattle.,Google Scholar
  88. Meskell, L. 2002. The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31(1):279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Meskell, L. 2005. Sites of Violence: Terrorism, Tourism, and Heritage in the Archaeological Present. In Embedding Ethics, edited by L. Meskell and P. Pels, pp.123–146. Berg Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  90. Meskell, L., Pels, P. (eds.) (2005) Embedding Ethics, Berg PublishingOxford, UK.,Google Scholar
  91. Moghaddam, F. M. (1997) The Specialized Society: The Plight of the Individual in an Age of Individualism, PraegerWestport, CT.,Google Scholar
  92. Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005) Situating Anti-Oppressive Theories within Critical and Difference-Centered Perspectives. In Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approachespp. 37–72, edited by L Brownand S Strega, Canadian Scholars’ Press/Women’s PressToronto, ON.,Google Scholar
  93. Muckle, R. J. (2006) Introducing Archaeology, BroadviewPeterborough, ON.,Google Scholar
  94. Muckle, R. J. 2008. Reading Archaeology: An Introduction. Broadview, Peterborough, ON.Google Scholar
  95. Mullins, P. R. 2008. Excavating America’s Metaphor: Race. Diaspora and Vindicationist Archaeologies. Historical Archaeology 42(2):104–122.Google Scholar
  96. murphy, r. a. (editor). 2007. Art & Anti-Colonialism: the 2006/05 Cedar Table Series Anti-Colonial Art Contest. West Coast Line 55 41(3), Hignell Books, Winnipeg, MB.Google Scholar
  97. Nicholas, G., and J. Hollowell. 2007. Ethical Challenges to a Postcolonial Archaeology: The Legacy of Scientific Colonialism. In Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, edited by Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke, pp. 59–82. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. CA.Google Scholar
  98. Ortner, S. B. 2005. Subjectivity and Cultural Critique. Anthropological Theory 5(1):31–52.Google Scholar
  99. Plant, J., Plant, C. (1992) Putting Power in Its Place: Create Community Control!, New SocietyGabriola Island, BC.,Google Scholar
  100. Potts, K., Brown, L. (2005) Becoming an Anti-Oppressive Researcher. In Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approachespp. 255–286, edited by L Brownand S Strega, Canadian Scholars’ Press/Women’s PressToronto, ON.,Google Scholar
  101. Pyburn, K. A. 1999. Native American Religion versus Archaeological Science: A Pernicious Dichotomy Revisited. Science and Engineering Ethics 5(3):355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pyburn, K. A. 2003. What Are We Really Teaching in Archaeological Field Schools? In Archaeological Ethics, edited by L. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli, and J. Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 213–223. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  103. Pyburn, K. A. 2005. Past Pedagogy. Archaeologies 1(2):1–6.Google Scholar
  104. Pyburn, K. A. 2007. Archaeology as Activism. In Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, edited by H. Silverman and D. Fairchilde Ruggles, pp. 172–183. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  105. Pyburn, K. A., and G. S. Smith (Co-Principal Investigators). 2001. Renewing the Undergraduate Archaeology Curriculum. Grant Proposal Submitted by the Society for American Archaeology to the National Science Foundation. Accessed online, http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/grant.html, 27 March 2012.
  106. Pyburn, K. A., Wilk, R. R. (2000) Responsible Archaeology is Applied Anthropology. In Ethics in American Archaeology Revisedpp. 78–83, edited by MJ Lynottand A Wylie, Society for American ArchaeologyWashington, DC.,Google Scholar
  107. Regan, P. (2010) Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada, University of British Columbia PressVancouver, BC.,Google Scholar
  108. Renner, M. 2002. The Anatomy of Resource Wars. Worldwatch Paper 162. Worldwatch Institute, Danvers, MA.Google Scholar
  109. Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation Into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life, Pine Forge PressThousand Oaks, CA.,Google Scholar
  110. Rubertone, P. E. (2008) Archaeologies of Placemaking: Monuments, Memories, and Engagement in Native North America, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  111. Samuels, K. L. 2008. Value and Significance in Archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 15(1):71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. SeeThink Films. 2006. Darkon. Directed by Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel. Produced and Distributed by SeeThink Films, Brooklyn, NY.Google Scholar
  113. Shackel, P. A., Chambers, E. J. (eds.) (2004) Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, Taylor and FrancisNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  114. Shanks, M., Tilley, C. (1987) Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University PressCambridge, UK.,Google Scholar
  115. Silliman, S. W. (2008) Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, University of Arizona PressTucson, AZ.,Google Scholar
  116. Skeates, R., McDavid, C., Carmen, J. (eds.) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, Oxford University PressOxford, UK.,Google Scholar
  117. Smith, C., Wobst, H. M. (2005) Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, RoutledgeLondon, UK.,Google Scholar
  118. Smith, G. S. 2008. Teaching and Learning Archaeology: Skills, Knowledge and Abilities for the 21st Century. Research in Archaeological Education 1(1):6–14.Google Scholar
  119. Smith, L. (2004) Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, RoutledgeLondon.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  121. Smith, L., Waterton, E. (2009) Introduction: Heritage and Archaeology. In Taking Archaeology Out of Heritagepp. 1–7, edited by E Watertonand L Smith, Cambridge ScholarsNewcastle upon Tyne, UK.,Google Scholar
  122. Smith, L. T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, St Martin’s PressNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  123. Sorell, T. (1994) Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science, RoutledgeNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  124. Stapp, D. G. (ed.) (2012) Action Anthropology and Sol Tax in 2012, Northwest AnthropologyRichland, WA.,Google Scholar
  125. Stottman, M. J. (2010) Archaeologists as Activists: Can Archaeologists Change the World?, University of Alabama PressTuscaloosa, AL.,Google Scholar
  126. Stroińska, M. (2001) Beyond Language and Culture: Relative Points of View. In Relative Points of View: Linguistic Representations of Culturepp. 1–16, edited by M Stroińska, BerghahnNew York.,Google Scholar
  127. Swidler, N., Dongoske, K. E., Anyon, R., Downer, A. S. (1997) Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, AltaMira PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  128. Tomlinson, J. (1991) Cultural Imperialism, The Johns Hopkins University PressBaltimore, MA.,Google Scholar
  129. Trigger, B. G. 1984. Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man 19:355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Trigger, B. G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. First Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  131. Trigger, B. G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  132. Tuck, E., Yang, K. W. 2012. Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1(1):1–40.Google Scholar
  133. Two Bears, D. 2010. What Better Way to Give Back to Your People. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by G. Nicholas, pp. 296–308. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  134. Watkins, J. (2000) Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice, Altamira PressWalnut Creek, CA.,Google Scholar
  135. West, S. (ed.) (2010) Understanding Heritage in Practice, Manchester University PressManchester, UK.,Google Scholar
  136. Wilk, R. R. 1985. The Ancient Maya and the Political Present. Journal of Anthropological Research 41(3):307–326.Google Scholar
  137. Williams, Robert A. Jr. (2012) Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization, Palgrave MacmillanNew York, NY.,Google Scholar
  138. Yellowhorn, E. 2000. The Evolving Relationship between Archaeologists and First Nations. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 24(1–2):162–164.Google Scholar
  139. Yellowhorn, E. 2002. Awakening Internalist Archaeology in the Aboriginal World. Unpublished Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, PQ.Google Scholar
  140. Zimmerman, L. J. 2001. Usurping Native American Voice. In The Future of the Past: Native Americans, Archaeologists, and Repatriation, edited by T. Bray, pp. 169–184. Garland Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program (ISGP)University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations