Format: Paper presentations with discussion
Convenors:
Kellie Pollard, Charles Darwin University, Faculty of Arts and Society, Northern Institute, Larrakia Country, Australia; kellie.pollard@cdu.edu.au
Nicolas J. Bullot, Charles Darwin University, Faculty of Arts and Society, Humanities and Social Sciences, Larrakia Country, Australia; nicolas.bullot@cdu.edu.au
Martin Porr, University of Western Australia, Archaeology/Centre for Rock Art Research + Management, School of Social Sciences, Australia; martin.porr@uwa.edu.au
Philosophers of archaeology and the historical sciences investigate foundational theories and methods used by researchers to acquire knowledge about the past. However, they rarely acknowledge the critical need for developing a decolonised philosophy in their respective fields. Decolonised philosophy ought to include the contributions of Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous philosophies. Informed by local, place-based connections to lands, Indigenous knowledges have recently been acknowledged for the value they bring to interpretation, theoretical modelling, and methods of historical disciplines. The current status quo in philosophy, which omits Indigenous knowledges from philosophy of science, perpetrates a colonial epistemic injustice: it unjustly decreases the testimonial credibility of Indigenous knowledges and philosophies. Indigenous philosophies of knowing (epistemology), being (ontology), and doing (axiology and ethics) are therefore critical to decolonising research methodologies and philosophical practice in the academia. To remediate the lack of representation of Indigenous knowledge and philosophies, we invite papers investigating how Indigenous and Western knowledge systems can work alongside each other and produce impactful decolonisation studies. We welcome contributions examining different ways of knowing the past and negotiating the political philosophy of historical disciplines. We invite participants to consider questions relevant to debating different ways of knowing. For example, what is the relevance of philosophy to archaeology and the historical sciences? How can conceptual tools developed in philosophy—such as the philosophy of critical thinking, confirmation bias, racialisation, and white ignorance—benefit your approaches to decolonising the practice of research with, by, and for Indigenous communities? How could Indigenous epistemologies challenge philosophical paradigms that have justified the perpetration of colonial and epistemic injustices? Academic power is embedded in the ways university disciplines organise and police themselves to serve their own interests. How can research in Indigenous-led truth-telling and collaborations challenge hegemonic power and decolonise research practice in disciplines like archaeology and philosophy?
Papers:
Introduction to Indigenous Knowledges and the Philosophy of Archaeology and Historical Sciences
Nicolas J. Bullot and Kellie Pollard, Charles Darwin University, Faculty of Arts and Society, Humanities and Social Sciences, Larrakia Country, Australia
Martin Porr, University of Western Australia, Archaeology/Centre for Rock Art Research + Management, School of Social Sciences, Australia
The presentation introduces the session ‘Indigenous Knowledges and the Philosophy of Archaeology and Historical Sciences’. First, we examine an argument for an Indigenist critique of the status quo in the philosophy of archaeology and the historical sciences. The status quo tends to ignore, discredit, or silence Indigenous knowledges. The status quo operates as a cultural scaffolding for epistemic malpractices that undercut the testimonial credibility and deny the creativity of Indigenous knowledges – for example, racialised ignorance, biases enabled by elite capture, unquestioned hierarchies, and other epistemic injustices. The Indigenist critique, by contrast, identifies such epistemic malpractices and devises projects aimed at restoring the epistemic and moral authority of Indigenous knowledges. What are the Indigenist projects that could successfully challenge the status quo? To address this question, we introduce existing projects and session talks that offer promising research alternatives to the status quo. One is the Indigenist third-space methodologies in archaeological research. The second is the program of research ‘with, by, and for’ Indigenous Peoples. Research aimed at building a constructive dialogue between these Indigenist projects and non-Indigenous philosophies of science is novel; and our collaborative research seeks to strengthen this dialogue.
Anthropological Adventures Between Forests and Savages: The Nature and Coloniality of Knowledge in Gulumapu
Fernando Castro-Aguilera, University of Tarapacá, Arica, Chile
The human sciences were fundamental to the structures of power during modernity. The formation of Latin American states in the late nineteenth century required understanding, dominating, and assimilating of the ‘savage’ peoples who still inhabited national territories. This context coincides with the emergence of social evolutionism as a theoretical-methodological tool of knowledge/power. From a decolonial perspective, I argue that the coloniality of knowledge is the matrix of scientific discourses that justify the division between civilisation and barbarism. My objective is to understand the role of anthropology in modern colonial times. This new pattern of power generates perceptions of the immaturity and dehumanisation toward Indigenous people. Consequently, Indigenous practices are rejected or destroyed, while the Eurocentric episteme is established as the only valid form of knowledge. As a case study, I analyse the development of anthropology and archaeology in the colonised territory of Gulumapu between 1900 and 1930, a period following the pacification of Araucanía in Chile. Thus, I aim to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between the human sciences and coloniality in the shaping of the Indigenous subject.
Why Reciprocity in Research? What is a Creed of Research? Recommendations? Righting Wrongs, How Long?
Jahid Siraz Chowdhury, Associate Professor of Social Work, Coordinator, Scholarship Program; Centre Secretary, Yunus Social Business Centre; Director, Institute of Lincoln – Amiya Research, Training, and Publication, Lincoln University College, Malaysia
Bilkis Mir, PhD Fellow, Lincoln University College, Malaysia; Teacher, Jaflong Valley Residential College, Bangladesh
The role of researchers in fostering reciprocity, contribution, and engagement with communities has been a critical discourse in social research, yet dominant methodologies often marginalise Indigenous knowledge systems and epistemic justice. This presentation stands firmly within the Indigenous paradigm while transcending its boundaries to propose a transformative, community-centred approach to knowledge production. Drawing on over two decades of ethnographic experience with the Rakhain community of Bangladesh and other marginalised groups, this study critiques the abstraction of reciprocity, which remains disconnected from the lived realities of Indigenous and local communities. Reciprocity, in this context, is not merely a methodological tool but a relational practice rooted in Revealing-Reporting-Reflecting (Past-Present-Future) and Connection-Contribution-Collaboration. To ground this, we propose four wings of reciprocal research: first, a spirit of research that centres relational accountability over extractive knowledge production; second, an Ihsanic (perfectionist and sincere) notion of engagement beyond Western frameworks of social justice; third, a commitment to knowledge democracy, ensuring Indigenous voices shape epistemic discourse; and fourth, volunteerism as an ethical foundation, embedding research within community well-being. Using an Aristotelian Phronesis, Al-Farabian Intellectual Happiness, and Buddha’s Enlightenment with Indigenous Gnoseology to challenge Eurocentric epistemologies, this paper advocates for a transformative, justice-oriented, and rights-based framework of research.
Constructive Memory in Truth-telling for Reconciliation
Alberto Guerrero-Velázquez, University of Western Australia, Australia
Truth-telling has, in diverse contexts, been conceptualised as a vehicle for achieving reconciliation following injustice. Truth-telling as a social and political phenomenon involves the communication of narratives based on episodic memory. The classical view of memory holds that the function of episodic memory is to accurately represent past events and that the failure to do so renders the memory illegitimate. Truth-telling narratives can fail to reproduce the details of past events and can even invent details that never occurred. Does this pose a problem for reconciliation? This work argues that it does not. Contra the classical view, the constructive conception of memory holds that episodic remembering can be better understood as a constructive simulation in service of present objectives. Under this view, memory is successful not when it precisely recalls the details of past relevant events, but when it preserves the meaning of those events. Seen in this light, the objective of reconciliation is achievable when truth-telling narratives convey the meaning of past events, even if such narratives elide, invent or distort important details.
Developing the Social and Historical Sciences ‘With, By, and For’ Indigenous Communities
Collethy Jaru, Kellie Pollard, Stephen W. Enciso and Nicolas J. Bullot, Faculty of Arts and Society, Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Larrakia Country, Australia
Indigenist scholars have argued that research about Indigenous peoples, knowledges, and cultures should be conducted ‘with, by and for’ (WBF) Indigenous people. The WBF approach motivates community-based research methodologies in archaeology (Atalay 2012) to privilege Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies. In allyship we propose a ‘With, By, and For’ Philosophy (WBFP) for the historical and social sciences. Specifically, we provide a justification of WBFP to emphasise (1) trust and debiasing dialogue (‘with’), (2) Indigenous emancipation and control (‘by’), and (3) demonstrable community benefits (‘for’). We explore the benefits of WBFP for research in general, using Indigenist archaeology and climate change resilience as examples. We examine research and policy failures in Papua New Guinea where some governmental and non-governmental organisations excluded local communities from project design, implementation and management. These violations of WBFP risk damaging social trust in research and risk exacerbating vulnerability to climate change challenges for Indigenous communities. Finally, we respond to potential objections stating that (1) some versions of WBFP unjustly privilege the voices and interests of community representatives over the community as a whole, and (2) WBFP unreasonably inhibits scientific progress. We use the philosophy of moral repair and Indigenist philosophy of science to rebut these objections.
Knowledge Sharing and Oral Family History
Rosalie Neve,
Kellie Pollard, Faculty of Arts and Society, Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Larrakia Country, Australia
How much value can oral family history contribute to the intergenerational transfer of Traditional cultural knowledge not only within the family but also the local community and others? Potential positive contributions by oral family history are not limited to genealogical information. They may include teaching and learning through language, observation, environmental scientific query and participation in ceremony and commemorations.
In the past, generations transferred their knowledge directly from teacher to learner in a variety of ways, including storytelling, song, dance, and actively sharing activities. Today, information can be instantaneously transferred between multiple generations and across great distances without the need for teacher and learner to even be in the same place. This comes with a new suite of benefits to enable cultural knowledge sharing, but it also comes with concerns over the appropriateness and the validity of the information being shared.
In this paper I interrogate concerns regarding the veracity of knowledge and culturally appropriate sharing of information using a case study of my own Aboriginal family’s oral family history. Analysis of this case study has highlighted the importance of ensuring that all information shared both within and outside of the family is collectively and collaboratively agreed upon and validated by multiple sources. My critical evaluation has demonstrated that there are examples where the expertise and authority to validate the transmitted family knowledge is no longer available within our family and this has prompted us to engage in collaborative partnerships with outside experts in the disciplines of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, environmental planning and legislation. In this paper I assess the challenges and advantages that may accrue with bringing in outsiders and offer an insider perspective on what it means to resurrect important family stories.
Indigenist Archaeology: Exploring Taking Control of Meaning Making in Archaeological Research
Kellie Pollard, Faculty of Arts and Society, Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Larrakia Country, Australia
This paper explores how the theory and method of Indigenist archaeology in Australia facilitates the empowerment to Indigenous people the interpretation of meaning of objects, material culture and historical and present evidence in the archaeological record. Specifically, Indigenist archaeology proposes to challenge the meaning and definition of the ‘archaeological record’ itself as a starting point of Indigenous empowerment. This is a different approach to conceptualising meaning making in that it privileges the epistemologies, ontologies, and axiologies of Indigenous worldviews and philosophies in archaeological research methodology to generate new understandings that resonate with cultural logics. Indigenist archaeology in Australia does this work in a third space for intercultural communications to decolonise colonial epistemological, hegemonic positivist, and dominant ethical practices that deny Indigenous agency in the rigour of meaning making.