Decolonizing/Indigenous Archaeology: A Literature Review

Tim Lambert-Law de Lauriston Hist. 4283 Dr. Brian Hosmer 7 December 2012 Decolonizing Archaeology A recent area of intense scholarly study has been the process of “decolonizing” various fields of scientific study. In fact, it is so popular that a Google search for just the word “decolonizing” yields 425,000 results! Even a search on an “academic” search engine, such as JSTOR, yielded 2,672 articles, reviews, and comments, showing that decolonization is indeed a fast growing area of study. One particular “traditional” field of study that has been in need of decolonization is that of archaeology. For years archaeologists have studied the cultures and material remains of seemingly dead or extinct cultures, disregarding the wishes and thoughts of the descendant communities of these “dead” cultures about how their ancestors, and ancestral sites, should be treated, handled, represented, and studied. This sentiment has been changing in recent years though, and archaeologists trained in the modern era of post-colonial critiques are actively striving in multiple ways to “do” an archaeology that is beneficial and respectful to living descendant communities. Long gone are the days of archaeology, where archaeologists can literally rob graves, just so long as they shout “This should be in a museum” as their justification. In addition to this, the traditional joke among archeologists and anthropologists that “archaeologists become archaeologists, instead of anthropologists, so they do not have to deal with living peoples” is no longer valid, though it certainly has been in the past (personal communication, Garrick Bailey 2012). With these thoughts in mind I move to the main bulk of this paper. Herein, I cover a large range of topics concerning the “decolonization of archaeology”. These topics range from general methodological discussions, theoretical and ethical issues, to various ways in which decolonization has been put into practice in the “real world” of archaeology, particularly field schools/excavations and in the classroom, and even what exactly should a decolonized archaeology entail or look like. While this review is by no means exhaustive, I hope that the literature presented will cover some of the most important, and in some senses the most practical, areas that should be discussed when talking about a decolonized archaeology. Sonya Atalay’s article Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice is a very fitting place to start our discussion. One of the first things that Atalay wants to make clear is that if archaeology as a discipline wants to move beyond its colonial foundation, then archaeologists must not “ignore the effects of past practices by placing the acts in a historical context that works to excuse them” (Atalay 2006: 281). Put more simply, Atalay wants archaeologists to begin with “a critical recognition of the colonial lens through which archaeological interpretations have been built” and not excuse the horrible atrocities committed by archaeology as a “product of the times” that in a sense was inevitable (Atalay 2006:283). She then moves onto what a decolonized archaeology would look like, saying that at its core it should be a socially just archaeology that “is in sync with and contributes to the goals, aims, hopes, and curiosities of the communities whose past and heritage are under study”, or to borrow a catch phrase that has been used in almost every publication discussing decolonizing archaeology, it should be an archaeology “by, for, and with indigenous communities” (Atalay 2006:284). One very important point for Atalay, and indeed many decolonization scholars, is distinguishing between what she calls “collaboration” and “consultation”. She argues that collaboration involves including descendant communities at every level of an archaeological investigation, from the initial stages of project design, research goals, and grant writing to the very end product of publication and dissemination of results. Consultation, on the other hand, “does not necessarily allow for indigenous people to play an active role in the entire research process” (Atalay 2006:293 original emphasis). Atalay’s “consultation” is what author Joe Watkins calls “legislethics” or ethical approaches to involving descendant communities in archaeology that are mandated by laws such as the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NARGPRA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), or the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRPA) (Watkins 2000:173). These laws require that archaeologists consult with Native American groups in a government to government relation, regarding the potential impact and repatriation of cultural heritage, instead of truly involving the groups in all aspects of the research being conducted. Atalay also denounces the common misconception that “Indigenous archaeology is…simply archaeology done by or involving Indigenous peoples” and says that instead “Indigenous archaeologists aim to challenge the master narrative…to bring back to Indigenous people the power to set the agenda for their own heritage, to determine what is excavated, and to remain involved in…their traditional methods of cultural resource management” (Atalay 2006:294). She ends the article by noting that Indigenous archaeology should not be considered a sub-discipline of “traditional” archaeology, but rather must become “standard practice” that acts as “part of a wider project of decolonizing and democratizing knowledge production in archaeology and the social sciences more broadly” (Atalay 2006:302). I think that Atalay does a very good job of detailing what should and should not be considered a decolonized archaeology. She provides a very positive view of the direction that archaeology is heading and the recent trends toward involving Indigenous groups in all facets of research. The next piece of literature reviewed is intended to provide the other side of the coin, when compared to Atalay’s work, in that it takes a very critical, and at times harshly worded and negative, critique of the current failure of decolonizing practice, while at the same time offering words of advice on how to fix the problems. Juan Gomez-Quiñones’ Indigenous Quotient, Stalking Words: American Indian Heritage as Future is essentially a compilation of two essays written by the author that harshly critiques the current fields of history, anthropology, and the social sciences in general, in the first essay, then offers very constructive suggestions in the second essay on how to overcome these shortcomings. He starts by recognizing, like Atalay, that decolonizing methodologies should not be a “special presentation, project option, or ethnographic appreciation here and there, but rather [they should be characterized by] the full integration of Native American histories and cultures into academic curriculums” (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:13). Moving from here he shortly reviews the history of atrocities that have occurred from contact into modern times. He is particularly concerned with the fact that writings of people such as Christopher Columbus and Hernan Cortes are given “canonical status” in classrooms settings, without discussing their inherently colonialist nature. Another example that he is disturbed with is the representation of Bartolome de Las Casas and Vasco de Quiroga as the “defender of the Indians” and “a reformer and visionary” respectively (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:22). He says that neither of these, or other peoples heralded as sympathetic to Indigenous peoples such as Juan Gines de Sepulveda, should “be considered humanist or humanitarian in the traditional sense—i.e. empathetic, tolerant, and privileging personhood” (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:23). He views both of these examples as contributing to the foundations of what he terms “Aborigenism” defined as the “disparagement of Indian heritage and a fundamental denial of Indians’ cultural contributions” and goes on to say that this idea is “utilized by admirers of imperialism, as well as false liberal friends, who feign empathy while covertly supporting imperialist agendas” (Juan GomezQuiñones 2012:14). Thus he, like many others, feel it is of the upmost importance that anybody involved in decolonizing any field of study recognize the colonialist roots of their discipline and work to not excuse, or in some cases glorify, it. As part of his decolonizing methodology he examines how the history of many Indigenous groups has either been appropriated by their imperialist overlords or ignored altogether. The earliest example he cites of appropriation is the Criollo or “Mesoamerican born…descendants…of European invaders” people who “researched Indian accomplishments and through some weird mental alchemy claimed them as their own” (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:26). He tells of early 17th and 18th century writers such as Carlos de Siguenza y Gongora, who was part of a marginalized middle-class group who wanted to fight for their rights, and thus created a “Europeanized version of Mexica/Aztec political history” thus providing a demonstration of the power of the colonizers to appropriate the history of the colonized for political gain. On the other side of the spectrum he turns to the United States to highlight a similar power, but one used to delete Indigenous history from memory. He notes that America, like many other imperialist countries, “arose through violence, have colonialist roots, and share certain modern biases [about the] Indigenous” (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:32). He goes on to say that “racism, colonialism, appropriation, and exploitation are too often deleted from the history pages of the United States curriculum” an instead replaced with ideas such as the frontier theory that explained the atrocities committed against Indigenous groups as “the advance of democracy, development, and individualism—when in fact what you had was violence, robbery, and plutocracy” (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:32). Again, he believes this contributes to the idea of Aborigenism and that it must stop and be replaced the actual versions of what happened, who it happened to, and who did the “happening”. The second part of this author’s book attempts to offer suggestions as to how the wrongs he discussed in the first part can begin to be righted. He calls for the creation of a “theory of Indigenitude” which would be characterized by “Indigenist cosmology (world and society), Indigenist citizenship (equality and autonomy), and Indigenist ethics (values and aesthetics)” (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:63). The ultimate goal of this theory, he says, would be to provide “an answer to the false colonialist epistemology, which has long denied autonomy to the Indigenous” and in practice “stresses persons and peoples—real social relations” instead of material objects (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:64). He, like others, calls for the theory to be grounded in Indigenous sources of knowledge, tangible and intangible alike, that stem from actual Indigenous peoples, not outsiders writing about them and their knowledge. He believes that a key concept of this theory “involves understanding the convergence of history and the present, and gaining from this understanding a motivation to change the present “, thus using the theory to kick start much needed social reform among Indigenous peoples all over North America (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:69). He closes his book with a few key thoughts about his proposed Theory of Indigenitude. One is the fact that no “pro-Indigenous education groups and efforts exist on a large sustained level” and he feels that this must be fixed by implementing these kinds of groups into the academy, as well as in multiple other spheres of interaction (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:77). He also notes that every problem faced by Indigenous people is not likely to be fixed by this theory, but it is definitely worth the time anyway, as on its largest level “Indigenous theory is a contribution to the analysis of the human condition” which can provide insights into many other realms of inquiry (Juan Gomez-Quiñones 2012:89). Thus, we see that this author, just like many others that will be discussed below, is first and foremost concerned with justifying old wrongs by using a decolonized theory, as well as providing real world, tangible benefits to the people that these wrongs have happened to. With an idea know in mind about what a decolonized archaeology, or even a decolonized “Theory of Indigenitude” in general, might look like, it is possible to move on to real examples of how these theories have been implemented in the field of archaeology. The first part of this discussions involves several case examples of decolonized archaeological projects from multiple regions around the globe including, Canada, Australia, Turkey, and examples from here in America. The second part deals explicitly with examples of decolonized archaeological field schools, which are the traditional means of educating young, blossoming archaeologists about the applied side of their chosen field of study. In both examples, the main focus will be on how the project utilized decolonizing methods, what was gained or learned by using these methods when compared to traditional methods, and finally how did the Indigenous communities involved in the projects benefit from their involvement. The first example comes from Australia discussed in Claire Smith and Gary Jackson’s article Decolonizing Indigenous Archaeology: Developments from Down Under. One of the key focuses in their paper is how language has served as a major tool of colonization, and consequently how language should be “fundamental to the decolonization process” (Smith and Jackson 2006:313). They point out the first step in utilizing language is to realize that archaeological language, or more broadly scientific language, can not be completely objective, contrary to popular belief. On this they say “language can be used to injure people, not only through labeling and description, but also through silences and omissions” (Smith and Jackson 2006:314). A prime example they say is the use of the word “Aboriginal” to describe the native inhabitants of Australia. The argue that this is offensive and inherently colonialist as it “collapses the cultural and geographic boundaries of more than six hundred diverse Indigenous groups, each of which had its own political system, laws, and language” for the ease of use by the colonial state of Australia (Smith and Jackson 2006:315). To help get rid of this misconception, the authors say that they and many other archaeologist now refer to the cultures they are studying by whatever term the descendant communities wish to be called, whether that name is based on language, community , or by region. This exercise not only allows for the Indigenous populations to exert control over their own identity, but can be used to help establish historical and archaeological relationships between “geographic, temporal, and social webs” that otherwise might not have been known (Smith and Jackson 2006:315). One other example of how language is being used to empower Indigenous communities in Australia is the renaming of Australia Day, the day the first British settlers arrived in Australia, by Indigenous communities to Invasion Day or Survival Day highlighting “the past, present, and future survival of Indigenous Australians” (Smith and Jackson 2006:319). In addition to this, indigenous communities make, sell, or just wear clothing with the catch phrase “Aboriginals Discovered Cook” on this and other days to make known the occupation of Australia by Indigenous communities for tens of thousands of years before James Cook arrived. From this the authors move onto discuss the major benefits that their work has conferred on the communities that they partner with. The first is simply, monetary. They note that they pay what amounts to royalty fees to the Indigenous groups that they work with, specifically when using photographic images of said groups or individuals. The authors say that prices range from $US75 to $US300, “with the lower rate for each photo of an individual or a site and the higher rate for cover images of books of images of several people” (Smith and Jackson 2006:335). The royalties are paid each time the image is used in a new publication or setting and the monies are paid either using book sale proceeds, grant funds, or in some cases the authors’ personal salaries!, when the images are used in journal articles and no direct money is made from the photo’s publication. They also help the community by having various individuals travel with them to archaeological conferences worldwide, either as co-presenters, sole presenters, or as members of the audience. While this may seem more like a fun vacation, the authors argue that this benefits the individuals by helping them gain world experience, a better understanding for how archaeological results are disseminated, and even helps to build prestige, as they note that “travel has long conferred status in many Indigenous cultures” as it represent accumulation of knowledge and experience (Smith and Jackson 2006:336). The authors close this article with what has, since reading it, become one of my favorite quotations/critiques about the field of archaeology. They state “The archaeological and anthropological practices outlined in this paper do not ‘empower’ Indigenous peoples, they simply refrain from disempowering them” (Smith and Jackson 2006:341). By following a decolonizing practice in their work in Australian archaeology Smith and Jackson have stated, though it was not discussed in the paper, that an archaeology that attempts to “empower” Indigenous peoples is just as rooted in colonial thought as the archaeology that disempowers people. This is because it places archaeology in the superior position of being able to “give” power to the Indigenous communities, rather than recognizing their inherent right to that power. As Juan Gomez-Quiñones states, “We learn that rights are not to be accepted as gifts” through this kind of theoretical approach. The next example comes from Canada in George Nicholas’ article Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. This author is involved with landscape archaeology and seeks to involve Indigenous ideas and values about past land use practices as “worldwide…Indigenous explanations of past land use has often been used to verify existing theories” (Nicholas 2006:350). Most of his work is dedicated to finding and identifying sites for forestry services, logging companies, or development projects so as to protect traditional land use areas and sites. He says that “some aspects of past land use fall completely outside the realm of Western understanding” and thus in order to completely identify all the sites that need to be recorded it is necessary to contact Indigenous communities. He also makes the argument, which is very true, that many landscape archaeological studies have been involved in Indigenous land claim cases as an “effective tool for First Nations who have been pursuing the restoration of their rights and land for well over a century” to prove that they do have entitlements to said land and rights (Nicholas 2006:356). The one other aspect that Nicholas stresses should be a part of any Indigenous archaeology project, and he indeed always strives to include it in his own work, is the aspect of education, whether that be of the general public, other academics, or the Indigenous communities themselves. This author conducted a project from 1991 to 2005 on a First Nation reserve that offered both classroom and in the field training to Indigenous community members. The main motivation for this aspect of the project, he notes “is to provide Native students with the knowledge and means for them to use archaeology as a tool to use as they see fit; I don’t expect them to do my kind of archaeology” (Nicholas 2006:364 emphasis added). He also says that even though many of the project’s participants are not currently pursuing careers in archaeology, that this was never the intended goal, and thus should not be used as a measure of success for the project. Thus, in this project the author’s own personal feelings about what he has gained is “In addition to identifying and describing material culture at these sites, archaeologists have also worked to refine local and regional cultural histories, to explain evidence of cultural change or stability, and to reconstruct past land use patterns. In many instances, this work has been informed by Indigenous traditional knowledge, which has proved especially useful in reconstructing past cultural landscapes” (Nicholas 2006:370). And the Indigenous communities have slowly been regaining rights over their traditional land use areas, as exemplified in Anna Willow’s book Strong Hearts, Native Lands: The Cultural and Political Landscape of Anishinaabe Anti-Clear cutting Activism. In addition to this, many Indigenous peoples are gaining useful knowledge in not only the field of archaeology, but in scientific practice in general, and more education in more areas is never a bad thing. The third example comes from Michoacán, Mexico in Decolonizing Archaeology in the Meseta Purepecha, Michoacán, Mexico: A Case Study, a paper by Tricia Gabany-Guerrero and Steven Hackenberger. This study started out when the authors were investigating a large Classic Period earthen mound, they were told by the elders of the community about a place up in the mountains that had “ancient writings” on the side of a cliff wall. The authors state that “the elders were concerned about the potential destruction of this place as the ecotourism unit had planned to promote rock climbing and rappelling in the same area” (Guerrero and Hackenberger 2006:8). The authors investigated the site and found that the there was ample evidence for investigation and subsequently gained permission from the community to excavate there. Initially the Indigenous community was skeptical about the team investigating this area as they believed that the drawings were probably “graffiti which had…recently been placed there by local scoundrels” and they believed that “what was in their lands could not contain anything valuable relating to their past” (Guerrero and Hackenberger 2006:9). What the authors found was amazing. In their excavations they uncovered what is now the oldest known burial with “the site predate[ing] the earliest known burials…by over 1000 years” (Guerrero and Hackenberger 2006:9). The community, as the authors state, “armed with this new evidence…has forged new linkages with the elders of the community. School groups with enthusiastic children…now visit the site as part of the new cultural history of the region” and they go on to say that “the community is creating new ideas about the past on their own terms and in their territory” (Guerrero and Hackenberger 2006:10). The people have even started using the images of the rock art and the image of the burial uncovered, colloquially called Huitzinicki or “the bald one”, on clothing articles and other material items to identify their town. Even though there was seemingly not much gained by the archaeologists from including the local community, except for the discovery of the site itself, the main purpose of this project was met in that it gave back loads to the community. It provided them with information about their past and allowed them to draw their own conclusions based on the information. The site is currently being used in an education setting and the town will most likely in the future use it as an ecotourism spot as the site is “a critical, if not one of the most critical cultural heritage sites in the entire region of West Mexico” (Guerrero and Hackenberger 2006:10). Another example comes from Sonya Atalay’s book Community Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. While this book covers a huge spectrum of issues relating to the theoretical and methodological sides of decolonizing archaeology, the only part that will be discussed from the book is Atalay’s work with the Indigenous community closest to the site Çatalhöyük in modern day Turkey, as many of Atalay’s views on the other issues are presented earlier in this paper using one of her articles. This example is a very good one to discuss, as this was a project that had already been going on for several years before Atalay became involved with the community outreach side, showing that even pre-existing projects can have an element of Indigenous archaeology added to them. The first step that Atalay discusses is the choosing of a community to work with. While this may seem like a non-essential part of the process she believes it is one of the most important and often time most controversial steps, of a project. This is because there might be what she has termed “multiple stakeholders” who might all have legitimate reasons for being the Indigenous communities involved with the project, and picking one or the other could lead to hostilities between the separate communities or the communities and the archaeologists. To help overcome these potential problems Atalay started out by “conducting a series of interviews with residents from the six…communities [geographically closest to the site]” (Atalay 2012:13). Through these interviews Atalay found that all of the six communities agreed that one particular village, Küçükköy, was the best suited and had the most legitimate claim for being included in the research project. By doing this, Atalay and the research team was able to avoid any potential conflicts that may have arisen over any perceived “favoritism” towards that community. The next step this author identifies was distributing materials about the site to help educate community members about it, as well as to get the word out that the team wanted to involve the community in the project. This was accomplished through “a regular newsletter, informational kiosks, site and lab tours, a comic series for children, and an onsite annual community festival” (Atalay 2012:14). In addition to this, she continually conducted interviews and encouraged feedback, comments, and criticisms from the Indigenous communities about how they thought the project was succeeding, failing, or on potential areas of research and community development they wished to see involved with the project. From this feedback mechanism Atalay says that they have been able to increase “local involvement in the management, protection, and heritage tourism at the Çatalhöyük site” as well as a number of projects that directly give back to the community such as “a traveling archaeological theatre troupe…a women’s craft co-operative…using the dig house buildings…to create handicrafts with archaeological designs to sell…an internship research training program …and a village based community cultural heritage board is in place to participate in regional site planning and management making decisions” (Atalay 2012:15). Although the author admits that “this collaboration did not follow the path I expected…it has made incredible strides and continues to grow” which she is happy with as the community was involved in deciding the path the project would take and what they wanted or needed to get out of it (Atalay 2012:15). One of Atalay’s main benefits Atalay says that the archaeologists at Çatalhöyük are getting from their connection with the local community is the dispelling of long held misconceptions about the field of archeology. She notes that several members of the community believed that the research team was “using the flotation machine to recover gold from the mound” and thus get rich off their heritage (Atalay 2012:217). She goes on to explain that their “local interns were able to assure them that this was not the case” and says that it was important to let the local interns tell the community this as “it means something very different when community members hear this sort of explanation from…someone they know and trust— rather than from an archaeologist” (Atalay 2012:217). Another misconception that was overturned was that archaeologists were selling the artifacts they recovered for personal gain, which she says is not just a problem at this site, but across mot of Turkey. The last major idea that the collaboration helped to correct was that “local community members thought archaeologists were simply digging up bodies and dumping them in a mass grave” and what was most disheartening about this revelation was that the man who asked what was actually happening to the bodies “had been part of the daily excavation process for years, yet was completely unaware of what happened to the human remains after they were excavated” (Atalay 2012:218). While to many this may not seem like a big “benefit” to understanding what went on at the site, Atalay feels that archaeologists everywhere can benefit from correcting these long held misconceptions, because it will help to break down the barriers and build trust between the archaeologists and the communities they wish to work with. The last example of a project that used archaeology in a decolonized way comes from the far north east of the United States. In Frederick Wiseman’s book Reclaiming the Ancestors: Decolonizing a Taken Prehistory of the Far Northeast the author shows how the most recent archaeological evidence can be used to dispel stereotypes about the ancient Wabanaki peoples. The long held belief was that the Wabanaki were backward to far inferior to surrounding peoples such as the Iroquois or other Northeastern and even Midwestern cultures. The author terms this idea the “Dumb Abenaki” model and says that it is based off of diffusionist ideas that the Wabanaki people were only passive recipients of many other cultures original ideas (Wiseman 2005:14). What is most perplexing to the author is that this idea is still prevalent even though “well dated archaeological data reveals that the Wabanakis were not a cultural ‘backwater’” (Wiseman 2005:15). This book was of particular interest to me as it moves from the purely methodological and theoretical discussions, and actually presents the analysis of the sites that he uses to dispel the “Dumb Abenaki” model. He actually discussed the archaeological evidence and presents it in light of Wabanaki oral histories and origin stories. One very neat thing he included was “historical reconstructions” in which he blends the current archaeological evidence and the oral traditions of his Wabanaki tribe to identify what was going on at different places and at different time periods throughout Wabanaki history and prehistory. A couple places where the archaeological evidence and the oral traditions line up with amazing accuracy are the ideas of Wabanaki origins during the recession of the last ice age and the introduction of corn into the Northeastern United States (Wiseman 2005). This type of research shows the veracity of what Atalay calls “braided knowledge” in which traditional knowledge systems are blended with archaeological evidence to prove each other correct and supply new, creative, and accurate analysis of Indigenous history (Atalay 2012). The main area where this author’s research is helping out his Native community is in providing evidence for the possible upcoming land claims cases surrounding the Wabanaki people. He says that the “state of Vermont and the Province of Quebec will certainly attempt to “prove” in court that ethnic Iroquois settled Vermont and Southern Quebec, leaving the Wabanaki as transients…and Wabanaki claims to the area may be invalidated” (Wiseman 2005:235). This author states that should a court case actually arise in which the Wabanaki claim to their land is challenged he will most assuredly “use all of my knowledge, all of my heart, and all of my cunning …to defeat the settler governments [of Vermont and Quebec]…and to defend my homeland” (Wiseman 2005:35). Only time will tell if a court case will actually come about, but if it should Indigenous archaeology such as this study will be over immense importance to supporting the Wabanaki peoples, its rights, and its traditional land use area. With the regional discussions over, we can now move onto the second area of this topic, that is the one of Indigenous archaeological field schools. I feel the best example comes from Gonzalez et al.’s article called Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. This paper discusses a field school at Fort Ross in Sonoma County California, provided by the University of California— Berkley in collaboration with the Kashaya Pomo tribe. The ultimate goal of this project was to produce an interpretive trail around the sight that would show the importance of the fort to the Kashaya people and the surrounding economy. What seemed to me to be the most important aspect of this project is that it “did not consciously set out to decolonize archaeology” but ended up doing so anyway (Gonzalez et al. 2006:396). I see this as a very positive direction for archaeology because it was just “natural” for the principal investigators to carry out the field school in this way showing that a decolonized archaeology is slowly moving away from being a “specialized field” and towards being the dominant form of archaeology practiced. Several ways that this field school was decolonized was that, first of all, all people were in continual contact with local tribal members. And by all people, they really mean all, including undergraduate and graduate students, volunteers, and the field directors interviewed, spoke with, and were constantly collaborating with the Kashaya tribal members. This helps to break down existing power barriers between not just the archaeological team and the tribe, but also within the archaeological team as well, making all participants feel like they have something important to contribute to the project. In addition they did things like hiring on local women to cook the meals for the field school, and while they note that this is usually seen as an inferior position in most field school, “among the Kashaya cooking for large groups of people is a highly respected and dignified activity” thus placing the women in a high status role. (Gonzalez et al. 2006:400). They also respected the tribes concerns over women’s menstrual cycles and what the women participants could or could not do on the site during their cycles. This led to a better understanding of the tribal customs as well as building a stronger relationship and trust between the research team and the tribe. Another area of tribal custom they observed was the abstention from consuming alcohol while on or near the site, or by anybody who would be digging the site that day. By following these and other guidelines, the team helped “make the field camp a place in which the Kashaya elders felt comfortable” again strengthening the bonds between the team and the tribe. The main benefit the authors feel that the archaeologists received from this decolonized field school was learning about the traditional customs and beliefs of the Kashaya people. They also were invited to participate in tribal ceremonies regarding the site, leading to a greater appreciation and understanding as to why the Kashaya do and believe what they do. On this the authors say “by spending time with Kashaya elders and hearing their oral traditions, the students and staff…gained a deeper insight into the…Kashaya cultural resources and landscapes around Fort Ross and how they might be interpreted to general audiences” (Gonzalez et al. 2006:409). Indeed the authors believe that if the only thing the students took away from this project was learning how to interact with, understand, and respect the ideas and beliefs of another culture then the field school had been successful. The final piece of literature to be examined is the book Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology edited by Stephen Silliman. This book is a collection of essays, papers, and articles that deals with multiple case examples of decolonized field schools from all over the United States. The editor states that one of his goals is for archaeologists to quit worrying so much about “the sharpness of the trowel’s edge—a favorite obsession in North American field archaeology—[and] should worry more about who grips he trowel’s handle and whether their voices are heard” (Silliman 2008:5). Since discussing every article is far beyond the scope of this paper, I will instead focus on several of the main ideas that this book talks about. The first is what Mills et al. call “field schools without trowels” in which the field school focuses more on “mapping equipment, GPS receivers, cameras, computers, data recorders, and the concepts of community collaboration” rather than actually excavating (Mills et al. 2008:35). While they note that some excavations did take place, they say that “trowels were one of the least used tools that students became familiar with” (Mills et al. 2008:34). Other areas of interest in this collection were ethics classes held at various field schools which, from personal experience and communications, are not usually included in the run of the mill field school. These classes included different topics like discussing the pros and cons of current ethics codes of several major professional archaeological groups like the Society for American Archaeology and the World Archaeological Congress, to legislated ethics, and how Indigenous ethics might be different from other’s ethical codes. One important area of interest was the call for archaeology to be accepted as a “craft” given that “archaeologists craft a product—history—through a combination of…archaeological information…and a responsiveness to communities” (Silliman and Dring 2008:69). This helps to decolonize the field by implying the Indigenous histories are not discovered by archaeologists, but are rather created by the archaeologists in collaboration with the Indigenous communities that they work with. The final area of this book, and indeed this paper, to be discussed is one that I feel is of the upmost importance to a decolonized archaeology. This is what author Jack Rossen calls his “expanded identity” that came about in the course of his work. He says an expanded identity would be characterized by the archaeologist being an “advocate for contemporary Native issues, constructing a relationship with Native people that transcends archaeology” (Rossen 2008:107). He says that to him personally this means that “whether or not people approve of my research activities, my advocacy and community involvement have somewhat submerged my identity as an archaeologist” (Rossen 2008:108). He says that this should not be used to hide research data or processes, but rather place them “within the broader framework and identity of the community activist” (Rossen 2008:108). I believe that all archaeologists involved in Indigenous archaeology should take on this expanded identity and even when their project with a particular community is over, that they should still be involved with that community, its needs, wants, desires, and political struggles. If all archaeologists can do this, I believe our field will begin to be recognized as one that “does some good, instead of one that does no harm” (Watkins 2000: 33). A lot of material has been covered in this paper on the current trend of decolonizing archaeology. Everything from the theoretical and methodological discussions, to certain examples from around the globe, and how field school can utilize a decolonized archaeology has been discussed. I personally have high hopes that this trend will continue and indeed will no longer be a trend, but instead it will become the way all archaeology is practiced. I believe that the literature presented in this paper make a strong case that the field of archaeology will continue to be decolonized to the extent that practitioners of the field 25 years ago will look at archaeology a few years from now and not even recognize it. These are definitely exciting times to be trained in and learning about archaeology and I personally hope that the work that I do in the future will be able to include many of the aspects that the authors of the literature discussed in this paper have presented. Works Cited and Referenced Atalay, Sonya 2012 Community Based Archaeology: Research with, by and for Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkley 2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. in American Indian Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 3/4. Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006) pp. 280-310 Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip 2009 Inheriting the Past: The Making of Arthur C. Parker and Indigenous Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon Gonzalez, Sarah, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, and Tsim Schneider 2006 Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. in American Indian Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 3/4. Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006) pp. 388-415 Gomez-Quiñones, Juan 2012 Indigenous Quotient, Stalking Words. Aztlan Libre Press, San Antonio Kovach, Margaret 2009 Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. University Of Toronto Press, Toronto Liebmann, Matthew and Uzma Rizui eds. 2008 Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique. Altamira Press, New York Mills, Barbara, Mark Altaha, John Welch, and T.J. Ferguson 2008 Field School without Trowels: Teaching Archaeological Ethics and Heritage Preservation in a Collaborative Context. in Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. Ed. Stephen Silliman, pp. 25-49. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson Nicholas, George 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. in American Indian Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 3/4. Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology pp. 350-380 Rossen, Jack 2008 Field School Archaeology, Activism, and Politics in the Cayuga Homeland of Central New York. in Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. pp 103-120 The University of Arizona Press, Tucson Schmidt, Peter and Thomas Patterson eds. 1995 Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe Silliman, Stephen ed. 2008 Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology: Troweling at the Edges, Eyeing the Center. in Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. Ed. Stephen Silliman, pp. 1-21.The University of Arizona Press, Tucson Silliman, Stephen and Katherine Sebastian Dring 2008 Working on Pasts for Futures: Eastern Pequot Field School Archaeology in Connecticut. in Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. Ed. Stephen Silliman, pp. 67-87. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson Smith, Claire and Gary Jackson 2006 Decolonizing Indigenous Archaeology: Developments from Down Under. in American Indian Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 3/4. Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006) pp. 311-349 Tuhiwai Smith, Linda 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books ltd., New York Two Bears, Davina 2006 Navajo Archaeologist is not an Oxymoron: A Tribal Archaeologist’s Experience. in American Indian Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 3/4. Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006) pp. 381-387 Watkins, Joe 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Altamira Press, New York Wiseman, Frederick 2005 Reclaiming the Ancestors: Decolonizing a Taken Prehistory of the Far North East. University Press of New England, New Hampshire