Archaeology and decolonization HABER GNECO

Prévia do material em texto

Virtual Forum: Archaeology and
Decolonization
Alejandro Haber, Universidad National de Catamarca, Catamarca,
Argentina
Cristo´bal 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 Arqueologı´a Suramericana,
Alejandro Haber (Argentina) and Cristo´bal 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
F
O
R
U
M
Originally published in Spanish in Arqueologı´a Suramericana 3(1), 2007A
R
C
H
A
E
O
L
O
G
IE
S
V
o
lu
m
e
3
N
u
m
b
er
3
D
e
ce
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
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.
________________________________________________________________
Re´sume´: Partiellement re´alise´ graˆce a` des mois de travail sur Internet, ce
forum a implique´ la participation de Nayanjot Lahiri (Inde), Nick Shepherd
(Afrique du Sud), Joe Watkins (E´tats-Unis) et Larry Zimmerman (E´tats-Unis),
en plus de deux e´diteurs de Arqueologı´a Suramericana, Alejandro Haber
(Argentine) et Cristo´bal Gnecco (Colombie). Dans cette perspective, les
discussions et e´changes de points de vue e´taient amples. Nayanjot Lahiri
enseigne a` l’Universite´ de Delhi. Parmi les livres qu’elle a publie´s, on
retrouve Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization was Discovered
(2005) et The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes (1992). Elle a e´dite´ le livre
The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization (2000) et une publication du
World Archaeology intitule´e The Archaeology of Hinduism (2004). Nick
Shepherd est professeur au Centre d’e´tudes africaines de l’Universite´ de
Cape Town, ou` il organise un programme public sur la culture africaine. Il
est sur le comite´ exe´cutif du Congre`s mondial de l’arche´ologie et coe´diteur
du journal Archaeologies : Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. En
2004, il e´tait base´ a` l’Universite´ Harvard comme boursier Mandela. Il a
largement publie´ sur les questions de l’arche´ologie et de la socie´te´ africaine
et sur des questions d’histoire publique et du patrimoine. Joe Watkins est
professeur associe´ en anthropologie a` l’Universite´ du Nouveau-Mexique.
Me´tis avec un parent ame´rindien Choctaw, Watkins a e´te´ implique´ en
arche´ologie depuis plus de 35 ans. Il a une maıˆtrise et un doctorat en
anthropologie de l’Universite´ Sud-Me´thodiste. Son doctorat e´tait base´ sur
l’examen de re´ponses d’arche´ologues au sujet de sce´narios traitant de la
perception sur les questions relatives aux ame´rindiens. Aujourd’hui, son
sujet principal de recherche est la pratique e´tique de l’anthropologie et
l’e´tude des relations anthropologiques avec les populations aborige`nes,
Virtual Forum 391
the`me 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 ame´rindiens et les arche´ologues et en
est a` sa seconde re´impression. Son dernier livre, Reclaiming Physical
Heritage: Repatriation and Sacred Sites (Chelsea House Publishers 2005), a
pour objectif de porter l’attention des e´tudiants de niveau du secondaire
sur les questions concernant les ame´rindiens. 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-pre´sident du Congre`s mondial de l’arche´ologie. Il a aussi servit le
CMA comme secre´taire exe´cutif et comme organisateur du premier inter-
congre`s du CMA qui portait sur l’arche´ologie e´thique et le traitement de la
mort. Ses inte´reˆts de recherche incluent l’arche´ologie des plaines nord-
ame´ricaines, les questions concernant les ame´rindiens d’aujourd’hui et son
projet actuel concerne l’arche´ologie du phe´nome`ne des sans-abri.
________________________________________________________________
Resumen: En este foro, pacientemente logrado en meses de trabajo
ciberne´tico, participan Nayanjot Lahiri (India), Nick Shepherd (Sud Africa),
Joe Watkins (USA) y Larry Zimmerman (USA), ma´s los dos editores de
Arqueologı´a Suramericana, Alejandro Haber (Argentina) y Cristo´bal Gnecco
(Colombia). Es, por lo tanto, bastante amplio el espectro de contextos de
discusio´n y puntos de vista. Nayanjot Lahiri ensen˜a arqueologı´a 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). Haeditado ‘‘The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization’’
(2000) y un nu´mero 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 pu´blica en Africa. Es miembro del comite´ ejecutivo del Congreso
Mundial de Arqueologı´a, y es co-editor de la revista Archaeologies: Journal
of the World Archaeological Congress. En el an˜o 2004, estuvo en la
Universidad de Harvard con la Beca Mandela. Ha publicado extensamente
en temas de arqueologı´a y sociedad en Africa, y en cuestiones de historia
pu´blica y patrimonio. Joe Watkins es indı´gena Choctaw y arqueo´logo. Joe
Watkins es Profesor Asociado de Antropologı´a en la Universidad de New
Mexico. Es mitad indı´gena Choctaw de sangre, y ha estado relacionado con
la arqueologı´a por ma´s de treinta y cinco an˜os. recibio´ su tı´tulo de
Bachelor’s of Arts en Antropologı´a en la Universidad de Oklahoma y sus
tı´tulos de Master’s of Arts y Doctor en Filosofı´a en Antropologı´a en la
Universidad Metodista del Sur, su tesis doctoral indago´ sobre las respuestas
de los arqueo´logos/as a cuestionarios sobre escenarios acerca de sus
392 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
percepciones de las problema´ticas de los aborı´genes norteamericanos. Sus
intereses de estudio actuales incluyen las pra´cticas e´ticas de la antropologı´a
y el estudio de las relaciones de e´sta con las comunidades descendientes y
las poblaciones aborı´genes, ha publicado numerosos artı´culos sobre esos
temas. Su primer libro ‘‘Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values
and Scientific Practice’’ (AltaMira Press, 2000) examino´ las relaciones entre
los Aborı´genes norteamericanos y los arqueo´logos y esta´ en su segunda
impresio´n. Su libro ma´s reciente, ‘‘Reclaiming Physical Heritage: Repatriation
and Sacred Sites’’ (Chelsea House Publishers 2005) esta´ dirigido a crear
conciencia de las problema´ticas de los indı´genas de norteame´rica en los
estudiantes de bachillerato. Larry J. Zimmerman es Profesor de Antropologı´a
y Estudios sobre Museos e intelectual pu´blico de representacio´n de nativos
norteamericanos en la Universidad de Indiana, en la Universidad de Purdue,
Indianapolis y en el Museo Eiteljorg de Indı´genas norteamericanos y Arte
Occidental. Es Vice-Presidente del WAC. Tambie´n ha servido como su
Secretario Ejecutivo y fue organizador del Inter Congreso del WAC sobre
Etica Arqueolo´gica y Tratamiento de los muertos. Sus intereses de
investigacio´n incluyen la arqueologı´a de las llanuras de Norteame´rica y
asuntos sobre los indı´genas norteamericanos contempora´neos. Su proyecto
de investigacio´n actual examina la arqueologı´a 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 was
trained (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 the
Future 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 seek
post-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 academic
conferences 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 the
past. 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 the
kinds 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
394 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 disciplinein 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 former
colonies, 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-based
conception 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 just
begun 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 archaeological
sites 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 physical
removal 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 of
colonial 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’ and
are 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 in
India, 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
396 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 since
several 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 would
have 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 adynamic and strong presence in uni-
versities. New Delhi, the capital of India, boasts of several universities, but
not 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 certain
other 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 dominate
archaeology 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: ‘‘If
non-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 of
archaeology 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 American
archaeological 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 (and
as 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
398 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 of
the 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 knowledge
springs 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 we
are 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 structuring
devices, 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 (whoseposition 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 political
positions, 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 of
the 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 means
of 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
400 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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, there
were 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 that
should 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 of
science, 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. I
think 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 scientific
method 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 a
Choctaw 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 theirown
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 demands
including 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
402 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 the
nature 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 part
of 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 for
in 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 North
America 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 never
fails 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 have
played 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 have
been). 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 necessarily
for 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 Man
and 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 mustlead 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,
404 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 in
my 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 entanglements
and 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 recent
Society 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 to
decolonize 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 to
people. 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 have
no 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: Larry´s 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 and
global 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
406 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 naı¨ve
about 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 of
approaches 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 potential
I 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 inclusive
comparative 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 the
mechanisms 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 be
defined 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 important
loci 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
408 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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 response
on 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 impossibility
of 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 uniformly
across 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 powergeometries 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 to
address 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 of
decolonizing 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 country
contributes 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
410 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO
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.’’ This
view 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 archaeological
practice 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 the
World 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 of
advice 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 change
the 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.
412 ALEJANDRO HABER AND CRISTO´BAL GNECCO