journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
Lyons, Natasha; Hoffmann, Tanja; Miller, Debbie; Huddlestan, Stephanie; Leon, Roma; Squires, Kelly
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9333-2pmid: N/A
Archaeological site DhRp-52 is a long-lived multi-component residential site situated in the Fraser River Delta, about 50 km upriver from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The wetland wapato (also known as Indian potato, x̌ʷəq̓ʷə́l̕s in hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓, and Sagittaria latifolia in Latin) garden at this site was built 3800 years ago, and for the following 700 years residents of DhRp-52 managed the garden to mass produce the wapato’s wild tubers. The discovery of this garden is challenging conventional notions of Northwest Coast peoples as developing politically, ritually, and socioeconomically complex societies in the absence of farming. This paper tells the story about a time before memory when ancestors of contemporary Coast Salish q̓íc̓əy̓ (Katzie) people fell into a deep and mutual love with the wapato, building a life to accommodate their collective desires and needs. Katzie ancestors sustained their knowledge and appreciation of wapato through hundreds of generations. Today, this knowledge is being applied through experimental research and ecological restoration in Katzie territory.
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9336-zpmid: N/A
This article is the product of an intercultural archaeological project which main goal and praxis is to promote and empower indigenous voices and knowledge in contemporary Argentina, in a context of re-emergence of indigenous identities and organizations after decades of invisibilization and denial. Here we explore the past by combining two sources of knowledge: the archaeological one (with its theories and methods) and the indigenous knowledge (based on a non-Western ontology and informed by oral traditions, cosmological observations, practical know-hows, and the experience acquired by dwelling in the indigenous territory). To accomplish this task, the graphic representations that the Diaguita communities of the North Calchaquí Valley (Argentina) painted on their pots and engraved on rocks during the late intermediate period (AD 1000-1450) is examined and discussed. We claim that analysing prehistoric material culture from these two perspectives and sources of knowledge allows the production of richer, plural, and better-informed narratives of the past.
Barnes, Benjamin; Lepper, Bradley
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9334-1pmid: N/A
The Seip-Pricer Mound was one of the largest mounds in the Hopewellian world. Among the many features at the mound’s base, there was a massive, clay-lined, oval basin known as the “Burnt Offering.” This basin contained a large quantity of artifacts that had been subjected to intense burning. Five small spheres of black steatite were among the remarkable objects recovered from this deposit, each of which had been engraved with abstract designs. Shetrone interpreted these objects as marbles. More recently, Carr suggested they were shamanic paraphernalia. We propose an alternative interpretation based on the premise that conversations with contemporary, indigenous descendant communities may provide improved contextualization of archeological materials. Our conversation involving traditional Shawnee people and their ceremonial practices suggests a more parsimonious identification of the Seip-Pricer Mound spheres. The Shawnee drum uses spherical stones to attach the drum head to the shell. In contemporary practice, these stones are not engraved, but similarities between the Shawnee drum stones and the Hopewell steatite spheres, including size, color, and number, suggest the intriguing possibility that the Hopewell spheres were parts of a drum. This would be the first direct evidence for a drum in the Middle Woodland period, and our proposed interpretation is strengthened by the fact that it derives from firsthand knowledge of the ceremonial practices of an indigenous Eastern Woodlands tribe that could be among the direct descendants of the Hopewell culture.
Gonzalez, Sara; Kretzler, Ian; Edwards, Briece
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9335-0pmid: N/A
Collaborative archaeological research with indigenous communities, in addition to fostering culturally specific, community-centred research programmes, also encourages meaningful shifts in archaeological research on the ground. Field Methods in Indigenous Archaeology (FMIA), a community-based research partnership between the University of Washington and the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, highlights these dual possibilities. The project seeks to strengthen the tribe’s capacity to care for cultural resources, to recover histories of survivance on the Grand Ronde Reservation, and to develop a low-impact, Grand Ronde archaeological methodology. These goals are realized through a summer field school, which joins comprehensive field instruction with overviews of tribal historic preservation and engagement with the Grand Ronde community. FMIA encapsulates the ethical imperative to work with, for, and by indigenous communities in archaeological research and the opportunities such work brings in transforming archaeological method, theory, and practice.
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9332-3pmid: N/A
Frictions between state-sanctioned heritage policies and the quotidian practices of local stakeholder communities often have deep historical roots. In this essay, I trace the history of conflicts in the management of archaeological sites in the Yucatan peninsula to the emergence of a romantic sensibility toward the leisured enjoyment of ruins in the mid-nineteenth century. This posited a kind of subjectivity that was radically different from the subsistence practices that brought Maya-speaking peasants into contact with archaeological sites. There are important parallels between this discourse on ruins and a philological approach to the Yucatec Maya language which tended to denigrate the vernacular of rural speakers. Interestingly, the tendency of these entwined discourses to delegitimate the speech and customs of rural agriculturalists posited a “proper” relationship to heritage that could be assumed by people from diverse ethnic categories if they adopted an attitude that was consistent with liberal perspectives on labor and identity. The heritage of this simultaneously inclusive and elitist discourse is still evident in contemporary heritage practice and neoliberal multiculturalism.
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9340-3pmid: N/A
Archaeology, a science studying material sources with which mankind shaped their world and social relations in the past, may appear to be an apolitical discipline. In fact, the opposite is true. National and ideological propagandists have long set their eyes on archaeology, since its very beginnings. In this paper I am trying to give a brief overview of the development of ideology in archaeology and its application, as well as its engagement in the formation of political propaganda in the modern history of Central and Eastern Europe. In today’s globalised world, archaeology is confronted on a daily basis with changes in public opinion, with the development of the society in a diverse geopolitical context, but also with a wide range of human rights issues. There is no doubt that archaeology, as a social science, cannot develop in isolation from changes in the society and, quite to the contrary, that it is destined to reflect on major societal issues of our time. Although modern archaeology is profoundly affected by the current intellectual societal demand and ideology, archaeologists openly admit that their science is not apolitical and timeless. This awareness could hopefully help prevent its unfortunate political engagement and use for the propaganda of ideologies and regimes in the future.
doi: 10.1007/s11759-018-9337-ypmid: N/A
Taking as its start-point a radical intervention in the field of archaeology and heritage—one that laid down a direct challenge to the unspoken discourse of property relations inherent in our management of cultural resources—this article considers how much has changed since that intervention. In particular, the article considers developments in the manner of legal regulation of archaeological heritage, the adoption of ideas from economics, and relations with communities that have taken place in archaeology. It identifies differences between the rhetoric of commentators and practitioners and their actual practice that we need to address if we seek truly to turn our field into one that serves the wider community rather than merely telling others how to be.
Showing 1 to 8 of 8 Articles