UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCL 3036:
INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY
2015-16
Year 2/3 Option, 0.5 unit
Turnitin Class ID: 2970198
Turnitin Password IoA1516
th
The Matsieng creation site, Botswana. A San rock art site appropriated by 19 century Tswana settlers and now managed by
the National Museum, Monuments and Art Gallery
Co-ordinator: Andrew Reid
a.reid@ucl.ac.uk
Room 111
Tel: 02076791531
1
1
OVERVIEW
Short description
It is only in the past twenty years or so that archaeology has become critically aware
of the distinct factors relating to archaeology by and about indigenous populations. It
has been demonstrated that minority populations in colonised countries have often
shared very similar experiences and furthermore that they are beset by similar ongoing problems. At the heart of these matters lies their experience of colonialism.
Post-processual archaeology has afforded the potential for a more successful
engagement with indigenous populations and importantly has recognized that there
are other legitimate means of reconstructing the past, beyond western empiricism.
However, new forms of engagement between archaeologists and indigenous
populations, including the training of indigenous archaeologists, are as yet in their
infancy and have encountered a number of problems. This course seeks to explore
these engagements with indigenous populations and to consider what directions may
be taken in the future.
Basic texts
A number of important books have appeared helping to re-define indigenous
archaeology. Of these probably the most accessible is:
C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds) 2005. Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising theory
and practice. London: Routledge.
For a highly critical text focused on decolonization and Australia read:
MacNiven I.J. and L. Russell. 2005. Appropriated Pasts: indigenous peoples and the
colonial culture of archaeology. Oxford: Altamira.
Finally if you want a lighter introduction to issues of repatriation and indigenous
issues you could read the crime thriller (set in Norfolk!)
Elly Griffiths 2012. A Room Full of Bones. London: Quercus.
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by means of:
two pieces of coursework, each of 2375-2625 words, which each contribute 50% to
the final grade for the course.
Teaching methods
The course is taught through lectures and one concluding seminar. The first half of
the course will explore general themes, whilst the second will focus on specific case
studies and will be presented by regional specialists.
2
Week-by-week summary
TERM 1
6th October 2015
1.
Introduction:
objectives.
Andrew Reid
defining indigenous archaeology - course organisation and
13th October 2015
2.
Archaeology as colonial engagement
Andrew Reid
20th October 2015
Andrew Reid
3.
The World Archaeological Congress and the post-colonial encounter
27th October 2015
4.
Repatriation and reburial of human remains
Andrew Reid
3rd November 2015
5.
Problems with the indigenous concept
Andrew Reid
READING WEEK (NO TEACHING)
17th November 2015
Rodney Harrison
6.
Shared histories? Indigenous archaeology and heritage in Aboriginal
Australia
24th November 2015
Dean Sully
7.
Locating Hinemihi’s people; the care of a Maori space in a British place
1st December 2015
Manuel Arroyo-Kalin
8.
Amazonian Archaeology and Indigenous communities
8th December 2015
9.
Indigenous peoples and sub-Saharan Africa
Andrew Reid
15th December 2015
10.
Seminar: the future for indigenous archaeology?
Andrew Reid
3
Workload
There will be 18 hours of lectures and 2 hours of seminars for this course. Students
will be expected to undertake around 60 hours of reading for the course, plus 108
hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total
workload of some 188 hours for the course.
Prerequisites
There are no prerequisites for this course.
2
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
Aims
The main aim of the course is to make students aware of the issues that are involved
in indigenous archaeology. The major issues tackled will include decolonization,
ownership of the past and the recognition of alternative versions of the past.
Exploring these themes will result in a broader and more sophisticated approach to
the students’ own studies, whatever the context of their research.
Objectives
Students will gain an appreciation of the contested significance of archaeological
materials and interpretations and the potential relevance of these to the social,
political and religious concerns of people today.
Students will become aware of some of the ethical considerations of undertaking
archaeological or curatorial work in different parts of the world and will be
knowledgeable of the need to consider diverse interest groups in advance of any
research or archaeological intervention.
Students will learn to give careful consideration to a range of divergent and deeply held
beliefs, they will develop their ability to evaluate information and ideals reported by
other people and, where appropriate, to develop clearly expressed opinions of their
own.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the course students should have developed their skills
relating to:
critical evaluation and reflection
critique of sources and the application of acquired knowledge
Both assessed pieces of work will be essays which will require students to
demonstrate skills of data acquisition and processing, critical reflection and the ability
to generate an effective argument.
Coursework
This course is examined by means of two 2375-2625 word essays (each worth 50% of
the total mark).
4
Assessment tasks
Choose ONE of the options for each of the essays below.
These questions ask you to express opinions on complex subjects about which there
may not be general agreement. Your essays should demonstrate that you are aware of
these debates and that you have read an appropriate selection of the relevant literature,
examples of which are available in the lecture readings. You are expected to
strengthen your discussion through the use of relevant facts and examples to
substantiate your own arguments and to refute the interpretations of other people
with whom you disagree. On account of the word limits, you must ensure that your
argument is constructed effectively and efficiently.
1st Essay (Due Monday 23rd November)
To what extent is it correct to argue that archaeology is a colonial
endeavour?
Is the repatriation of human remains good for archaeology as a
discipline?
Are Indigenous Archaeologies legitimately postcolonial or do they
merely pander to a “primitivist” agenda?
*
*
*
*
*
2nd Essay (Due Monday 18th January)
Choosing one part of the world in which you have an interest,
critique the past engagement of archaeologists with indigenous
populations and assess the prospects for interaction in the future.
If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this
with the Course Co-ordinator.
Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve
their marks. However, students may be permitted, in advance of the deadline for a
given assignment, to submit for comment a brief outline of the assignment.
The Course Co-ordinator is willing to discuss an outline of the student's approach to
the assignment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.
Word-length
The two essays should each be 2375-2625 words in length. The following should
not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of figure and
5
tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, captions and contents of
tables and figures, appendices, and wording of citations. Penalties will only be
imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using
fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your
guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.
3
SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS
Teaching schedule
Lectures will be held 11am - 1pm on Tuesdays, in room 412.
Syllabus
The following is an outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and
supplementary readings relevant to each session. Readings marked with an * are
considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the course.
6th October 2015
Andrew Reid
1.
Introduction: defining indigenous archaeology - course organisation
and objectives.
The problems of “other” peoples or distinct ethnicities are not just a thing of the past
(eg Ancient Egypt and its relationship with other societies), but also is a matter of
considerable debate today. The notions of “indigeneity” and “ethnicity” are complex,
and the issues presented by them are often contested. Such contested areas are not
only matters of local significance, but may involve national politics, sometimes
challenging the very nature of the nation state. This introductory lecture will set out
the basic parameters and themes for the course as a whole, outlining the kinds of
societies to be dealt with and the issues that are of most importance. The lecture will
also set the course in its broader archaeological context, considering the
development of archaeological theory and the outlook of the discipline.
Barnard, A.1999. Images of hunters and gatherers in European social thought. In
R.B. Lee and R. Daly (eds) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and
Gatherers: 375-383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borofsky, R. 2005. Yanomami : the fierce controversy and what we can learn from
it. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bowler P. 1992. From Savage to Primitive: Victorian evolutionism and the
interpretation of marginalized peoples Antiquity 66: 721-729. INST ARCH
Pers
*Damm C. 2005. Archaeology, ethnohistory and oral traditions: approaches to the
Indigenous past. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38: 73-87.
Eriksen T. H. 1995 Ethnicity and nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives London
Pluto INST ARCH BD ERI
Fforde C. 2004. Collecting the Dead: archaeology and the reburial issue. London:
Duckworth.
Layton, R. (ed.), 1989. Who needs the past? Indigenous values and archaeology.
1994. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD LAY
6
Nicholas G. (ed) 2010. Being and becoming indigenous archaeologists. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
O’Connor D. 2003. Egypt’s views of others. In J. Tait (ed.) ‘Never Had the Like
Occurred’: Egypt’s view of its past: 155-186. London: UCL Press.
Ravelsloot J. C. 1997 Changing Native American Perceptions of Archaeology and
Archaeologists in: N. Swidler, K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon and A. S. Downer
(eds.) Native Americans and Archaeologists: stepping stones to common
grounds London: Altamira Press, Sage Publishing. INST ARCH DED 100
SWI
Sillar W. 2005. Who’s indigenous? Whose archaeology? Public Archaeology 4: 7194.
Smith, A.D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. INST ARCH BD
SMI
*Ucko P. J. 2001. Indigenous Archaeology. Papers from the Institute of
Archaeology 12: 1-11.
Watkins J. 2000. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian values and scientific
practice Walnut Creek, CA ; Oxford : Alta Mira Press INST ARCH DED 100
WAT
Watkins J. E. 2003. Beyond the Margins: American-Indians, First Nations and
Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68(2)
Wobst H.M. 2005. Power to the (indigenous) past and present! Or: the theory and
method behind archaeological theory and method. In C. Smith and H.M.
Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice: 1732. London: Routledge.
13th October 2015
2.
Archaeology as colonial engagement
Andrew Reid
Much of the political organization of the modern world has been defined by European
expansion and colonization. Many colonizers identified differences between the
indigenous peoples they met (based on social organization, language, dress, etc.)
and these differences frequently intensified as they were demarcated and used as
administrative units by colonizers. In some cases these ethnic divisions also
influenced the boundaries of modern Nation States during their fight for
independence. Does this mean that indigenism can only be identified in relation to
colonization, and, if so, are Indigenous movements inherently a challenge to the
sovereignty of modern Nation states? Is archaeology just an arm of this colonization
process? There has been a move throughout much of the world to give legal status
to the rights claimed by indigenous people. But, can such claims be endorsed when
indigenous status remains contentious in many areas? Such tensions are
particularly acute on the African continent where archaeological constructs of
precolonial population movements are disregarded as colonially inspired theories
designed to disenfranchise black populations from their land. Good examples of the
latter disregard can be seen in the ideologies of Apartheid in South Africa and the
ideologies which inspired genocide in Rwanda.
Bond, G.C. and A. Gilliam (eds). 1994. Social Construction of the Past:
representation as power. (pbk 1997) London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD
7
BON
*Bowen J. R. 2000 Should we have a universal concept of ‘indigenous peoples’
rights? Ethnicity and essentialism in the twenty-first century. Anthropology
Today 16(4): 12-16 ANTH PERS
Cocker, M. 1998. Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold: Europe’s conflict with tribal
peoples. London: Jonathan Cape. INST ARCH BD COC
Davison, P. 2001. Typecast. Representations of the Bushmen at the South African
Museum. Public Archaeology 2: 3-20. INST ARCH Periodicals
Eltringham N. 2004. ‘Ethnicity’: the permeant debate. Ch.1 in Accounting for Horror:
post-genocide debates in Rwanda: 1-33. London: Pluto Press.
Fagan B. M. 1998. Clash of Cultures. (2ndedition) Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
INST ARCH BD FAG
Field L. 2004 Who are "We" and is that Dangerous for "Them?" Anthropology News
45(1)
Funari, P.P.A., Hall, M. and S. Jones (eds). 1999. Historical Archaeology: back from
the edge. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AH FUN
Gawe, S., and Meli, F.: “The missing past in South African history”, The Excluded
Past: Archaeology in Education, ed., P. Stone and R. Mackenzie (London:
Unwin Hyman, 1990), pp. 98-108.
González-Ruibal A. 2010. Colonialism and European archaeology. In Lydon J. and
U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology: 39-50. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast Press.
Hemming S. and T. Trevorrow 2005. Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan: archaeology,
colonialism and re-claiming the future. In C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds)
Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice: 243-261.
London: Routledge.
Hobsbawm, E. J. and Ranger, T. (eds) 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH BD HOB) especially introduction
Hodgson D. L. (ed.) Special Issue on Indigenous Rights Movements. Introduction:
Comparative Perspectives on the Indigenous Rights Movements in Africa and
the Americas. American Anthropologist 2002(4): 1037-1049
Lyons C. L. and J. K. Papadopoulos (eds.) 2002 The archaeology of colonialism
Los Angeles : Getty Research Institute, INST ARCH AH LYO
Mamdani M. 1996. Citizen and Subject. London: James Currey.
Mamdani M. 2001. The racialisation of the Hutu/Tutsi difference under colonialism.
Ch. 2 in When Victims Become Killers: colonialism, nativism and the genocide
in Rwanda: 73-102.
Nicholas G.P. 2005. The persistence of memory; the politics of desire: archaeological
impacts on Aboriginal peoples and their response. In C. Smith and H.M.
Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice: 81103. London: Routledge.
MacNiven I.J. and L. Russell. 2005. Appropriated Pasts: indigenous peoples and the
colonial culture of archaeology. Oxford: Altamira.
Ramos, A. 1991. A Hall of Mirrors. The rhetoric of indigenism in Brazil. Critique of
Anthropology 11, 155-169 AHTH Pers
Marks, S. 1980. “South Africa. ‘The myth of the empty land’”, History Today, 30 (1):
7-12.
Mazel, A.: “Changing fortunes: 150 years of San hunter-gatherer history in the Natal
Drakensberg, South Africa”, Antiquity, 66 (1993), 758-767.
Nash J. 2004 A Gendered View on Indigenous Autonomy Movements
8
Anthropology News 45(1)
Ouzman, S.: “Spiritual and political uses of a rock engraving site and its imagery by
San and Tswana-speakers”, South African Archaeological Bulletin, 50 (1995),
55-67.
Pwiti G. and W. Ndoro 1999. The legacy of Colonialism: Perceptions of the Cultural
Heritage in Southern Africa, with special reference to Zimbabwe. African
Archaeological Review 16(3) 143-153. INST ARCH PERS
Said, E. W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto & Windus. INST ARCH
BD SAI
Thomas N. 1994. Colonialism’s Culture: anthropology, travel and government.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Trigger B. G. 1996. Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist. Imperialist
Contemporary Archaeology in Theory R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.)
Blackwells, Oxford. INST ARCH AG PRE
Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of
California Press. ANTH D26 WOL
20th October 2015
Andrew Reid
3.
The World Archaeological Congress and the postcolonial encounter
Although isolated changes were already happening in the relationship between
archaeologists and indigenous peoples, the formation of WAC with its specific
agenda to meaningfully incorporate indigenous peoples into the archaeological
process represented an important transformation within the discipline. The early
years of WAC saw a range of publications identifying key issues and then tracking
the resolution of conflicts. This was and perhaps is, by no means universal, but
nevertheless helped to establish the credentials of a new archaeological practice that
sought to engage with non-archaeologists and crucially that recognized ownership of
the past by others. In very recent times this has been seen as a process of
decolonization.
Allen H. and C. Phillips. 2010. Maintaining the dialogue: Archaeology, cultural
heritage and indigenous communities. In C. Phillips and H. Allen (eds)
Bridging the Divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st
century: 17-48. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Atalay S. 2010. “Diba Jimooyung” – telling our story: colonisation and decolonisation
of archaeological practice from an Anishanabe perspective. In Lydon J. and
U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology: 61-72. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast Press.
Harris H. 2005. Indigenous worldviews and ways of knowing as theoretical and
methodological foundations for archaeological research. In C. Smith and H.M.
Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice: 3341. London: Routledge.
Layton R. 1994 Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions London: Routledge
INST ARCH BD LAY
Lydon J. and U.Z. Rizvi 2010. Introduction: Postcolonialism and archaeology. In
Lydon J. and U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology: 17-34.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
9
MacNiven I.J. and L. Russell. 2005. Chapter 7. Shared History: the new
appropriation. Appropriated Pasts: indigenous peoples and the colonial
culture of archaeology: 211-231. Oxford: Altamira.
Phillips C. 2010. Working together? Maori and archaeologists in Aotearoa?New
Zealand today. In C. Phillips and H. Allen (eds) Bridging the Divide:
indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st century: 129-156.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Smith C. and H.M. Wobst 2005. Decolonising archaeological theory and practice. In
C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising
theory and practice: 5-16. London: Routledge.
Ucko P. J. 2001. ‘Heritage’ and ‘Indigenous People’ in the 21st Century. Public
Archaeology 1(4) 227-238. INST ARCH Pers
27th October 2015
4.
Repatriation and reburial of human remains
Andrew Reid
One issue, the treatment of human remains, has come to dominate archaeology’s
dealings with indigenous peoples over all others. The emotion naturally associated
with the treatment of the dead, married with the denial of rights in other aspects of
society meant that indigenous peoples developed a largely unanimous and
unswerving demand for the return of their ancestors’ remains. This demand served
to highlight the huge degree of deception and disrespect that had taken place in the
past and in which archaeology had been complicit.
As indigenous societies became increasingly vocal in the expression of their identity
and in the demand for the recognition of their rights as indigenous peoples, from the
1960s onwards, the issue of human remains became increasingly important.
Academia was shocked to discover that its own forebears had undertaken huge
collecting trips in the late 19th and early 20th centuries explicitly targeting the human
remains of what we would now call indigenous populations. This was clearly an
exercise in European imperialism, with the design of establishing the racial
superiority of European peoples. The fascination with anatomy ended but huge
collections of human material remained in major museums and university collections.
As awareness of these collections grew in the 1980s, so also did understanding of
the manner in which collections were made through theft, deceit and even murder.
Moreover the continued retention of human remains by institutions, despite often
never having been examined was considered to be a major source of trauma
amongst indigenous populations, particularly when confronted by the very different
treatment handed out to European remains. In a number of cases, particularly in the
United States of America, it was established that routine impact mitigation work prior
to development reburied European remains, but sent Native American remains to
museums.
Faced with this situation indigenous populations in a number of parts of the world
saw archaeologists as their principal enemies and sought to close down and prevent
archaeological investigations. These confrontations led to the desire amongst some
but by no means all archaeologists to sit down and discuss issues with indigenous
10
populations. Out of these negotiations a number of important initiatives have
developed. However, as the protracted Kennewick case has shown in the US, the
issues are by no means entirely resolved. What’s more there are still significant
collections of human remains of indigenous peoples in major institutions, including
Britain. Besides the reburial of ancestral remains there have been a number of
important developments ranging from the development of NAGPRA in the USA to the
Australian government’s efforts to repatriate human remains as a screen to their
efforts to undermine Aboriginal rights.
*Daehnke J. and A. Lonetree 2010. Repatriation in the United States: the current
state of NAGPRA. In Lydon J. and U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of Postcolonial
Archaeology: 245-256. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Byrne D. 2004. Archaeology in reverse: the flow of Aboriginal people and their
remains through the space of New South Wales. In N. Merriman (ed.) Public
Archaeology: 240-254. London: Routledge.
*Fforde C. 2002 Collection, repatriation and identity. In C. Fforde, J. Hubert and P.
Turnbull (eds) The Dead and Their Possessions: 25-46. London: Routledge.
Fforde C. 2002. Yagan. In C. Fforde, J. Hubert and P. Turnbull (eds) The Dead and
their Possessions: 229-241. London: Routledge.
Fforde C. 2004. Collecting the Dead: archaeology and the reburial issue. London:
Duckworth.
*Fforde C. and J. Hubert 2006. Indigenous human remains and changing museum
ideology. In R.Layton, S. Shennan and P. Stone (eds) A Future for
Archaeology: 83-96. London: UCL Press.
May S.K., D. Gumurdul, J. Manakgu, G. Maralngurra and W. Nawirridj 2005. “You
write it down and bring it back…that’s what we want” – revisiting the 1948
removal of human remains from Kunbarlanja (Oenpelli), Australia. In C. Smith
and H.M. Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: decolonising theory and
practice: 110-130. London: Routledge.
*Smith L. 2004. The repatriation of human remains – problem or opportunity?
Antiquity 78 (300): 404-413.
Stapp D.C. and J.G. Longenecker 2005. Reclaiming the Ancient One: addressing
the conflicts between American Indians and archaeologists over protection of
cultural places. In C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies:
decolonising theory and practice: 171-184. London: Routledge.
Hurst Thomas D. 2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, archaeology and the battle for
Native American Identity New York: Basic Books. INST ARCH DED 100
THO
Veth P. 2010 Australian and International Perspectives on Native Title, Archaeology
and the Law. In Lydon J. and U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of Postcolonial
Archaeology: 267-284. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Watkins J. 2005. The politics of American archaeology: cultural resources, cultural
affiliation and Kennewick. In C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds) Indigenous
Archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice: 189-203. London:
Routledge.
11
3rd November 2015
5.
Problems with the indigenous concept
Andrew Reid
The term indigenous has been liberally applied, typically to societies marginalized by
European settler communities and is now part of the global language commonly used
by governments and multinational organizations. Yet, the seemingly innocent term is
extremely difficult to apply in many situations. It is not so readily applied to
colonization in non-European contexts. In African countries and also in China, for
instance, governments will generally claim that all peoples were indigenous to their
country, prior to the encounter with Europeans. Clearly the term “indigenous” is
historically problematic in that it implies the selection of one episode in time as
having primacy over all others. Other countries interpret indigenous peoples to be
the most ethnically distinct or culturally non-European in visual appearance, directly
appealing to European tourists and their notions of the exotic which they wish to
encounter. At present there is also a huge debate taking place concerning the whole
notion of indigenous peoples and whether they are a relevant theme for study or the
very term “indigenous” reconfirms the alienation and marginalization of
disadvantaged societies: is the very term itself valid or does it perpetuate the
problems of exclusion we would like to address.
Barnard A. 2004. Indigenous peoples: a response to Justin Kenrick and Jerome
Lewis. Anthropology Today 20 (5): 19.
Bowen J.R. 2000. Should we have a universal concept of ‘indigenous peoples
rights’? Ethnicity and essentialism in the twenty-first century. Anthropology
Today 16(4): 12-16.
Colchester M. 2002. Indigenous right and collective conscious. Anthropology Today
18(1): 1-3.
Discussion, On the return of the native (various commentators). Current
Anthropology 45 (2): 261-267.
Ferguson T. J. 1984 Archaeological Ethics and Values in a Tribal Cultural Resource
Management Program at the Pueblo of Zuni In: Archaeological Ethics K. D.
Vitelli (ed.) Walnut Creek, London Altamira 224-235. INST ARCH AG VIT
Gladney D.C. 2004. Dislocating China: reflections on Muslims, Minorities and Other
Subaltern Subjects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Herle A. and D. Phillipson 1994 Living Traditions: Continuity and Change, Past and
Present Special Issue of Cambridge Anthropology 17(2) ANTH Pers
Hodgson D.L. 2002. Comparative perspectives on the indigenous rights movements
in Africa and the Americas. American Anthropologist 104: 1037-1049.
*Kenrick J. and J. Lewis 2004. Indigenous peoples’ rights and the politics of the term
‘indigenous’. Anthropology Today 20 (2): 4-9.
*Kuper A. 2003. The return of the native. Current Anthropology 44(3): 389-402.
Lane, P.J., Reid, A., and Segobye, A.K.: “Introduction”, Ditswa Mmung: the
Archaeology of Botswana, ed., P.J. Lane, A. Reid and A.K. Segobye
(Gaborone: Pula Press/Botswana Society, 1998), pp. 13-19.
Layton, R. (ed.), 1989. Who needs the past? Indigenous values and archaeology.
1994. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD LAY
McGuire R. J. 1989 The Sanctity of the Grave: White Conflicts and American Indian
Burials in: R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions
London: Unwyn Hyman 167-184 INST ARCH BD LAY (also article by
Zimmerman)
12
*McIntosh I., M. Colchester and J. Bowen 2002. Defining oneself, and being defined
as, Indigenous. Anthropology Today 18(3): 23-25.
Mathis R. and T. Weik 2005. Not just Black and White: African Americans reclaiming
the Indigenous past. In C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds) Indigenous
Archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice: 281-297. London:
Routledge.
National Museum of the American Indian 2000. The changing presentation of the
American Indian : museums and native cultures. Washington, D.C.: National
Museum of the American Indian INST ARCH MG 3 CHA
Sylvain R. 2002. ‘Land, water and truth’: San identity and global indigenism.
American Anthropologist 104: 1074-1085.
Tahara K. 2005. The Ainu people of Japan: an indigenous people or an ethnic
group? Public Archaeology 4: 95-102.
Von Falkenhausen, Lothar (1995) The Regionalist Paradigm in Chinese
Archaeology. In: Philip L. Kohl and Clare Fawcett (eds.) Nationalism, Politics
and the Practice of Archaeology. 198-231. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
17th November 2015
Rodney Harrison
6.
Shared histories? Indigenous archaeology and heritage in Aboriginal
Australia
With the possible exception of the USA, the case of Australian Aboriginals represents
the most advanced engagement with indigenous issues. This Australian situation
has shifted from the outright exclusion of Aboriginals from the state, through the
awakening of demands for equal rights and the consequent rejection of
archaeologists, to qualified representation within the nation state and a subsequent
conservative backlash amongst white politicians. The Australian situation points a
way forward for indigenous populations to secure representation. More importantly,
for archaeologists it serves to demonstrate how selective and irrelevant our
supposedly objective discipline can be. Fortunately, in some situations aboriginal
groups have recognized, defined and regulated the contribution they wish
archaeologists to make, indicating that a rather brighter future may be possible.
Key issues involving Australia’s indigenous populations include archaeological site
protection and management; control of objects, human remains and records held by
collecting institutions (museums, art galleries, research institutes); repatriation of
human remains and sacred objects; intellectual property rights; and who should study
indigenous subjects.
Bowdler S. 1992. Unquiet slumbers: the return of the Kow Swamp burials. Antiquity
66 (250): 103-106.
Brady L. and J. Crouch 2010. In Lydon J. and U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of
Postcolonial Archaeology: 413-428. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
13
Byrne, D. 1996 Deep Nation: Australia’s acquisition of an Indigenous Past.Aboriginal
History 20: 82-107 (online
http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=857526009992384;res=IELIND
Byrne D. 2004. Archaeology in reverse: the flow of Aboriginal people and their
remains through the space of New South Wales. In N. Merriman (ed.) Public
Archaeology: 240-254. London: Routledge.
Harrison, R. 2004Shared Landscapes. UNSW Press, Sydney (available online
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/Shared_Landscapes.p
df )
Harrison, R. and D. Rose (2010) Intangible Heritage. In T. Benton (ed)Understanding
heritage and memory. Manchester University Press in association with the Open
University, Manchester and Milton Keynes; pp. 238-276 (online
herehttp://www.academia.edu/776665/Intangible_Heritage )
*Paterson, A. 2010. The Archaeology of Historical Indigenous Australia. In J. Lydon
and U.Z. Rizvi (eds)Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut
Creek; pp. 165-184.
Sutton P. 2005. Social scientists and native title cases in Australia. Public
Archaeology 4: 121-126.
24th November 2015
Dean Sully
7.
Locating Hinemihi’s people; the care of a Maori space in a British
place
Creating heritage sites can help to promote a sense of history and identity, and have
economic and social impact on local communities particularly when development and
tourism are implicated. However, this frequently removes control of the sites to the
care of state authorities. What is the role of the local population and or the cultural
group(s) who previously identified and developed the site or constructed the
monument in its management and presentation? To what extent do indigenous
people wish to be "trained" to take part in archaeological research on and the
management of their cultural sites? To what extent should research, conservation
and site management be conditioned by indigenous control of those sites? Is there a
sense of copyright or ownership, real or imagined that we should recognize?
As a specific example of these issues we will visit the National Trust’s ‘Maori House’
at Clandon (near Guildford). This building was first constructed as a Maori meeting
house at Te Wairoa, North Island, New Zealand, where it’s completion in 1880
marked its becoming a living being in its own right, Hinemihi. It was originally
planned to serve both traditional functions (e.g. for funerary rites) as well as a
location for display and dancing aimed at visiting tourists. The surrounding
14
community was largely destroyed by a volcanic eruption in 1886, after which the
building was dismantled and bought as a souvenir by Lord Onslow to take back to his
estate at Clandon after he completed his time as Governor General of New Zealand.
Since then the building has been used as a boat-house, a summer house, and a
garden store. It was first ‘rescued’ by New Zealand soldiers billeted at Clandon
during the first world war, and it has then acquired by the National Trust as part of the
Clandon estate, and it has also become the meeting house for the Ngati Ranana
London Maori association who have worked to reconstruct and honour the original
function of the building. This example raises a number of issues as to what different
stake holders think about which attributes of a site are the most significant and how,
or if, they should be presented to the public. The complex history of the building, and
changes to its material fabric, raises important issues about how and what can be
conserved of its intrinsic, intangible and indigenous values.
Australia ICOMOS. 1999.The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of
Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter). Adopted 1979, with
revisions in 1981, 1988 ad 1999. International Council for Monuments and
Sites. Accessed February 25, 2013n. http://www.international.icomos.org/
Allen, Ngapine (1998) ‘Maori vision and the imperialist gaze’, In Colonialism and the
Object: Empire, Material Culture and the Museum Barringer, Tim and Flynn,
Tom (eds.), 144-147. London: Routledge
Clavir, Miriam (2002) Preserving What is Valued Museums, Conservation, and First
Nations. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Hanson, A. 1989 The Making of the Maori: cultural invention and its logic. American
Anthropologist 91, 890-902
*Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean (1998) "Perspectives on Hinemihi: A Maori Meeting
House," in Colonialism and Its Objects: Empire, Material Culture and the
Museum, ed. Tim Barringer and Tom Flynn, 129-143. Routledge, London.
Gravesen, Cecile (2012) ‘Between Humans and Other Things: Conservation as
Material Fabric in Contemporary Art’.Journal of Conservation and Museum
Studies, Vol 10, No 1 (2012).
Kreps, Christina (2003) Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums,
Curation, and Heritage Preservation. London: Routledge.
Matunga, Hirunga (1994) ‘Waahi tapu: Maori sacred sites’, in D L Carmichael, J
Hubert, B Reeves and A Schanche (eds),Sacred sites, sacred places, 217–
226. Routledge, London.
O’Regan, Stephen (1990) ‘Maori control of the Maori heritage’. In P. Gathercole and
D. Lownethal (eds.) The Politics of the Past, 95-106. One World
Archaeology, 12 Unwin Hymen Ltd. London.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai (1999) Decolonising methodologies: research and indigenous
peoples. London, UK: Zed Books.
*Sully, Dean (2007), (ed.) Decolonising Conservation: Caring for Maori Meeting
Houses Outside New Zealand. Left Coast Press Walnut Creek, US.
Wharton, Glenn (2012) The Painted King Art, Activism, and Authenticity in Hawai’i.
University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu.
Whiting, Dean (2005) ‘Conserving Marae buildings’, in H Stovel, N Stanley-Price and
R Killick (eds),Conservation of living religious heritage, ICCROM
Conservation Studies, vol. 3, ICCROM, Rome.
15
1st December 2015
Manuel Arroyo-Kalin
8.
Amazonian Archaeology and Indigenous Communities
8th December 2015
9.
Indigenous peoples and sub-Saharan Africa
Andrew Reid
The definition of who may be regarded as indigenous is particularly problematic on
the African continent, where processes of incipient nationalism work alongside
continued or exacerbated ethnic exclusion. This is crystalised in the case of Kenya
where the term indigenous is reserved in official circles for those populations who are
either most remote or most non-western in their orientation. These interpretations
were enhanced by the pronounced ethnic conflict in Kenya in the 1990s. Elsewhere
the Khoisan speaking communities of the Kalahari would appear to represent an
obvious indigenous population but their ability to establish their rights has been
variously denied and eroded in different southern African countries.
Abungu L. 2005. Museums and communities in Africa: facing the new challenges.
Public Archaeology 4: 151-154.
Andah B. 1995. European encumbrances to the development of relevant theory in
African Archaeology. In Ucko P.J. (ed) Theory in Archaeology. A World
Perspective: 96-109. London: Routledge.
Fewster, K.J.: “Basarwa and Bamangwato interaction: a view from above”, Making
Places in the Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology, ed., J.
Brück and M. Goodman (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 178-197.
Ouzman, S. 1995. “Spiritual and political uses of a rock engraving site and its
imagery by San and Tswana-speakers”, South African Archaeological Bulletin,
50 (1995), 55-67.
Ouzman S. 2005. Silencing and sharing southern African Indigenous and embedded
knowledge. In C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies:
decolonising theory and practice: 208-225. London: Routledge.
*Reid A. 2005. Interaction, marginalization and the archaeology of the Kalahari. In
African Archaeology (ed. A. Stahl): 353-377. Oxford: Blackwell.
*Schmidt P.R. and Karega-Munene 2010. An Africa-informed view of postcolonial
archaeologies. In Lydon J. and U.Z. Rizvi (eds) Handbook of Postcolonial
Archaeology: 215-226. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Smith B., J.D. Lewis-Williams, G. Blundell and C. Chippendale 2000. Archaeology
and symbolism in the new South African coat of arms. Antiquity 74:467-8.
Solway J.S. and R.B. Lee. 1990. Foragers, genuine or spurious? Situating the
Kalahari San in History. Current Anthropology 31(2): 109-46.
Strother, Z.S. 1999 Display of the Body Hottentot In: B. Lindfors ed. Africans on
Stage. Studies in Ethnological Show Business Bloomington: Indiana University
Press:1-61. ANTHROPOLOGY E 35 LIN
16
15th December 2015
Andrew Reid
10.
Seminar: the future for indigenous archaeology?
To round up this course we must take serious consideration of the implications of all
our study for the way in which archaeologists should develop their discipline. It is not
simply sufficient to take notice of the above concerns, but rather it can be suggested
that we need to change the whole orientation of our discipline, in the process
recognizing the inherent inequalities and bias upon which the discipline was originally
founded. The consequences of not recognizing these problems and changing the
way the discipline is practiced are considerable and ultimately risk marginalizing
archaeology throughout the world. At the same time it could be argued that these
concerns should be fundamental to archaeology as a whole it should not be reserved
simply for its treatment of and by indigenous populations.
*MacNiven I.J. and L. Russell. 2005. Chapter 8. Partnerships: pathways to a
decolonised practice. Appropriated Pasts: indigenous peoples and the
colonial culture of archaeology: 232-260. Oxford: Altamira.
Nicholas G.P. (ed) 2010. Being and becoming indigenous archaeologists. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
*Nicholas G.P. 2010. Seeking the end of Indigenous Archaeology. In C. Phillips and
H. Allen (eds) Bridging the Divide: indigenous communities and archaeology
into the 21st century: 233-252. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Watkins J. 2010. Wake Up! Repatriation is not the only Indigenous issue in
Archaeology! In C. Phillips and H. Allen (eds) Bridging the Divide: indigenous
communities and archaeology into the 21st century: 49-60. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press.
17
4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Libraries and other resources
In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, other libraries in UCL with
holdings of particular relevance to this degree are in the Anthropology section of the
Science library
Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students
Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s
coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington (email j.medrington@ucl.ac.uk), which
will also be available on the IoA website.
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAELOGY COURSEWORK PROCEDURES
General policies and procedures concerning courses and coursework, including submission procedures,
assessment criteria, and general resources, are available in your Degree Handbook and on the following website:
http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin. It is essential that you read and comply with these. Note that some of
the policies and procedures will be different depending on your status (e.g. undergraduate, postgraduate taught,
affiliate, graduate diploma, intercollegiate, interdepartmental). If in doubt, please consult your course coordinator.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS:
New UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework have
been introduced with effect from the 2015-16 session. Full details will be circulated to all
students and will be made available on the IoA intranet. Note that Course Coordinators are
no longer permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a
new UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and
will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are now
acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student
Disability Services to make special arrangements.
18
Week-by-week summary
TERM 1
6th October 2015
5. Introduction:
objectives.
Andrew Reid
defining indigenous archaeology - course organisation and
13th October 2015
2.
Archaeology as colonial engagement
Andrew Reid
20th October 2015
Andrew Reid
3.
The World Archaeological Congress and the post-colonial encounter
27th October 2015
4.
Repatriation and reburial of human remains
Andrew Reid
3rd November 2015
5.
Problems with the indigenous concept
Andrew Reid
READING WEEK (NO TEACHING)
17th November 2015
Rodney Harrison
6.
Shared histories? Indigenous archaeology and heritage in Aboriginal
Australia
24th November 2015
Dean Sully
7.
Locating Hinemihi’s people; the care of a Maori space in a British place
1st December 2015
Manuel Arroyo-Kalin
8.
Amazonian Archaeology and Indigenous Communities
8th December 2015
9.
Indigenous peoples and sub-Saharan Africa
Andrew Reid
15th December 2015
10.
Seminar: the future for indigenous archaeology?
Andrew Reid
19
20