{"id":6943,"date":"2025-04-24T06:49:58","date_gmt":"2025-04-24T06:49:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/?page_id=6943"},"modified":"2025-04-25T00:59:37","modified_gmt":"2025-04-25T00:59:37","slug":"t14-s07-papers","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/t14-s07-papers\/","title":{"rendered":"T14\/S07: Beyond Archaeological Heritage Hierarchy: Steps to a Decolonised Archaeology\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Format: Paper presentations (individual or collective presentations) with discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Convenors<\/strong>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilhelm Londono Diaz, University of Magdalena, Colombia,\u00a0wlondono@unimagdalena.edu.co<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miguel Aguilar, Independent Researcher, Per\u00fa<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This session is interested in understanding how archaeology constructs and assigns a sense of heritage that prevails over others to produce a heritage hierarchy. The war against the Palestinian people, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the wars in Africa, and the structural violence in Latin America\u2014that is, a state of permanent global war\u2014erases heritage, destroys archaeological and ethnographic landscapes, generates uniformed territories, while establishing that the heritage is what is exhibited in museums in New York, London, Berlin, and other metropolitan cities. In this sense, the session seeks research through which we can understand how these strategies of producing a hierarchy of heritage are made and how local heritages are appropriated as objects of study by metropolitan research centres. We encourage non-metropolitan researchers to investigate how heritage is thought of as a scientific object that exists beyond its current connections with memories, societies, and cultures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Papers:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Revitalisation of Community Archaeology and Indigenous Heritage Perspectives in Taiwan: Case Studies of the Development of Designated National Archaeological Sites<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liou Bing-Wun, Hokkaido University, Japan<\/em>
Chung-chun Wang, Research Assistant, National Museum of Prehistory, Taiwan<\/em>
Maa-ling Chen, Professor, Dept of Anthropology, National Taiwan University, Taiwan<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The development of archaeology in Taiwan began in 1896 when a Japanese scholar discovered the first stone tool, marking the start of Japanese rule over both the Han Chinese and Indigenous populations. Over time, as Taiwan underwent political, economic, and urban transformations, Indigenous communities experienced significant cultural shifts and migration, a process that continues today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of Taiwan\u2019s 6,127 designated cultural heritages, only 237 (3.86%) are related to Indigenous peoples. Although it is difficult to attribute specific archaeological sites to particular Indigenous groups, scholars agree these sites are remnants of Taiwan\u2019s Austronesian-speaking ancestors. However, only nine archaeological sites are directly linked to Indigenous groups in cultural heritage interpretations. Due to colonial history and political structures, Han cultural heritage dominates Taiwan\u2019s designated cultural assets. Even within archaeological sites most associated with Indigenous cultures, their heritage remains marginalised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper examines the role of Indigenous communities in the designation of national archaeological sites, with a focus on their growing influence, particularly after the seventh site was designated in 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Power, Politics, and Preservation: Abb\u00e9 Breuil\u2019s Archaeological Legacy and Archival Tangles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kgolagano Vena, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Archives are far from being neutral repositories of information. They are contested spaces that reflect and reinforce power structures. The Breuil collection, compiled by the French prehistorian Abb\u00e9 Henri Breuil during the mid 1940s under the patronage of Jan Smuts\u2019 government, serves as both a scientific and political artefact. It reveals the intersection of archaeology, colonial authority, and heritage management. Beyond its scientific value, the collection also reflects the colonial state\u2019s strategic use of archaeology to reinforce power structures, while simultaneously engaging in western structures of knowledge production and differentiation. The current Breuil Collection in the RARI archive faces substantial challenges in preservation and accessibility. This paper explores how the archival and preservation challenges of the Breuil Collection are deeply intertwined with historical power dynamics, arguing that archiving is not merely a technical pursuit but a political act within implications on how the heritage is\/was perceived and managed. Addressing these challenges necessitates critical reflection on around the politics of archiving and the accessibility to historical collection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rethinking the \u2018Archive\u2019 in Archaeology: Reorganising and Restructuring Memory and Identity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr Shweta Sinha Deshpande, Symbiosis School for Liberal Arts, Symbiosis International (Deemed University)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The archive, archaeology and memory intersect as contested yet democratic concepts, simultaneously memorised, interpreted, and innovated to form new and old identities. Both history and archaeology are inherently concerned with the memory of a lived past in the present. Archives, typical to history as repositories of primary source documents, are concerned with preserving evidence to depict and define this past. This consciousness of a preserved heritage is integral to both the \u2018archaeological site\u2019 and the \u2018archaeological methodology\u2019. Both are forebearers of a memory of lived realities and experiences and, therefore are positioned as an archive. The archaeological process influences the construction of the archaeological archives and the context, hence, archives are not fixed in time but evolve. It is a place where knowledge is both produced and transformed in the \u2018structuring\u2019 of memory and performance of heritage for a community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The archive thus is both the \u2018episteme\u2019, or the foundation of knowledge, and the \u2018techne\u2019 or the tool, for structuring identities within the contemporary documentation of a nation\u2019s colonial, post-colonial or the multitudes of sub-nationalist pasts. The paper will explore the hundred years of the Harappan Civilisation\u2019s archaeological and archival democratisation, legitimisation and revelation of \u2018a forgotten age\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decolonising Archaeology in Northern Colombia: A Look at Local Struggles for Memory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilhelm Londo\u00f1o D\u00edaz, University of Magdalena, Colombia<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1922, the Field Museum mission from Chicago arrived off the coast of the city of Santa Marta with the intention of recording archaeological sites. The mission’s aim was to document archaeological villages or large monuments that would contribute to the collections of the emerging and powerful cities of the northeastern United States. In this way, an entire archaeological nomination was created for the material culture of this part of the world, establishing a hierarchy of heritage. This paper aims to show how these nominations are still in force, forming a field of archaeological heritage that overlaps with the local meanings that communities attach to this material culture. In this sense, local communities are struggling against archaeological nominations as part of a decolonisation of the past and memory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Jerarquizaci\u00f3n de Bienes Arqueol\u00f3gicos. Notas a Prop\u00f3sito del Conflicto Armado Colombiano FARC-EP y Estado<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

International Humanitarian Law and the Prioritization of Archaeological Assets. Notes on the Colombian Armed Conflict between the FARC-EP and the State<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christian Hurtado Suarez, Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Integrante grupo de Investigaci\u00f3n Antropolog\u00eda e Historia de la Antropolog\u00eda en Am\u00e9rica Latina (UNAL); Integrante Colaboratorio Arqueolog\u00eda y Conflicto Armado (AyCA)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

La Convenci\u00f3n para la Protecci\u00f3n de los Bienes Culturales en caso de Conflicto Armado y sus dos protocolos definen las medidas en casos de conflicto armado para evitar la destrucci\u00f3n, saqueo y p\u00e9rdida de BC. \u00c9sta define como Bien Cultural a los yacimientos arqueol\u00f3gicos y edificios que los contengan. La Convenci\u00f3n hace parte del Derecho Internacional Humanitario, conjunto de disposiciones que regulan confrontaciones militares con un componente pol\u00edtico.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La ponencia propone que, de facto, la Convenci\u00f3n jerarquiza los BC. Su consecuencia es la aplicaci\u00f3n de desiguales calidades de protecci\u00f3n seg\u00fan se trate de bienes \u2018generales\u2019, \u2018de protecci\u00f3n especial\u2019 y \u2018de protecci\u00f3n reforzada\u2019. Esta jerarquizaci\u00f3n es problem\u00e1tica ante sitios arqueol\u00f3gicos no visibilizados o no monumentales. Demuestro a partir del caso Colombiano c\u00f3mo opera esta jerarquizaci\u00f3n y sus consecuencias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abordo el caso del Museo Comunitario La Cristalina, una experiencia de apropiaci\u00f3n del patrimonio arqueol\u00f3gico por comunidades campesinas, ind\u00edgenas, autoridades locales y FARC-EP. El Museo nace en medio del conflicto armado y fue afectado por un allanamiento del Ej\u00e9rcito y posterior uso militar en 2005. Ante el DIH el Museo deb\u00eda ser protegido, pero sus afectaciones quedan en el limbo jur\u00eddico de las categor\u00edas de bienes culturales, anulando sus efectos protectores.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two protocols define measures in cases of armed conflict to prevent the destruction, looting, and loss of cultural heritage. It defines archaeological sites and buildings containing them as cultural heritage. The Convention is part of International Humanitarian Law, a set of provisions that regulate military confrontations with a political component.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper proposes that, de facto, the Convention prioritises cultural heritage. This results in the application of unequal protection levels depending on whether the property is \u2018general\u2019, \u2018specially protected\u2019, or \u2018enhanced protected\u2019. This hierarchiaation is problematic in the case of hidden or non-monumental archaeological sites. Using the Colombian case, I demonstrate how this hierarchisation operates and its consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I address the case of the La Cristalina Community Museum, an experience of appropriation of archaeological heritage by peasant and indigenous communities, local authorities, and the FARC-EP. The Museum was founded in the midst of the armed conflict and was affected by an army raid and subsequent military use in 2005. Under IHL, the Museum should have been protected, but its effects remain in the legal limbo of the categories of cultural property, nullifying its protective effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Desigualdades Patrimoniales y Apropiaci\u00f3n Local: Un Estudio Sobre Arqueolog\u00eda e Identidad en Supe Puerto y Paramonga, Per\u00fa<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heritage Inequalities and Local Appropriation: A Study of Archaeology and Identity in Supe Puerto and Paramonga, Peru<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilmer Eduardo Postigo Echaiz and Rebeca Mercedes Silvia Timoteo Belling, Universidad Nacional de San Marco<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Esta ponencia presenta los resultados de una investigaci\u00f3n que analiza c\u00f3mo las intervenciones arqueol\u00f3gicas influyen en la construcci\u00f3n de la identidad local de estudiantes del nivel secundario en dos distritos de la costa norcentral peruana: Supe Puerto y Paramonga. El estudio parte de una mirada cr\u00edtica a los enfoques predominantes en la gesti\u00f3n del patrimonio arqueol\u00f3gico, donde las intervenciones suelen estar orientadas principalmente a la producci\u00f3n acad\u00e9mica y especializada, lo que limita su impacto en las din\u00e1micas sociales e identitarias de las comunidades locales. Esta perspectiva centrada en la investigaci\u00f3n, si bien valiosa, no logra por s\u00ed sola generar apropiaci\u00f3n significativa del patrimonio por parte de la poblaci\u00f3n. En contraste, se observa que cuando existe una pol\u00edtica p\u00fablica para el patrimonio que articula la investigaci\u00f3n con la gesti\u00f3n cultural, la educaci\u00f3n y la participaci\u00f3n comunitaria \u2014como en el caso del sitio \u00c1spero, gestionado por la Zona Arqueol\u00f3gica Caral\u2014se produce una conexi\u00f3n efectiva entre los saberes arqueol\u00f3gicos y los actores locales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper presents the results of a research project that analyses how archaeological interventions influence the construction of local identity among secondary school students in two districts on Peru’s north-central coast: Supe Puerto and Paramonga. The study begins with a critical look at the prevailing approaches to archaeological heritage management, where interventions tend to focus primarily on academic and specialised production, limiting their impact on the social and identity dynamics of local communities. This research-centred perspective, while valuable, fails to generate significant ownership of heritage by the population. In contrast, it is observed that when a public heritage policy exists that articulates research with cultural management, education, and community participation\u2014as in the case of the \u00c1spero site, managed by the Caral Archaeological Zone\u2014an effective connection is established between archaeological knowledge and local stakeholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decolonising Islamic Narratives in Indonesian Museums: A Critical Analysis of the Trowulan and Sonobudoyo Museums<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Muhammad Faizurrahman and Tori Nuariza Sutanto, Sultanate Institute<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Archaeological and museum narratives have long been shaped by colonial frameworks, often marginalising or misrepresenting non-Western histories and cultures. In Indonesia, the representation of Islamic history in museums, such as the Trowulan Museum in Mojokerto and the Sonobudoyo Museum in Yogyakarta, reflects these colonial legacies. Historically, Islam has been portrayed as an external force, disconnected from the region\u2019s broader socio-political and economic developments. This fragmented view of Islamic culture has created a hierarchical understanding of heritage, wherein Islam is relegated to a peripheral role in the historical narratives of the Nusantara. This paper seeks to dismantle this hierarchy by critically examining the curatorial processes, artifact displays, and exhibition narratives in these two museums, using a decolonial lens. It challenges the traditional narrative that treats Islam as an ancillary component of Javanese history and instead advocates for the recognition of Islam as an integral and foundational element of the region’s cultural and historical formation. Through this analysis, the paper calls for a shift in museum practices that centres local and indigenous voices, promoting a more inclusive and equitable representation of Islamic heritage. By decolonizing Islamic narratives in Indonesian museums, this research contributes to a broader movement in archaeology and heritage studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decolonising Archaeological Imagination: Graeco-Roman Egypt as Epistemological Intervention<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olga Nikonenko, University College London, UK<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This research interrogates the artificial North-South binary in archaeological practice through the lens of Graeco-Roman Egypt, an archaeological context that reveals the power dynamics shaping knowledge production. Situated at the intersection of multiple cultural worlds, Graeco-Roman Egypt essentially highlights contradictions and epistemological violence in global scholarship. While classical antiquity is marketed as \u201cuniversal\u201d heritage, modern Greeks and Italians\u2014the geographic descendants of these civilisations\u2014have been excluded from shaping mainstream academic narratives. Instead, Northern European and American institutions have monopolised funding, publication platforms, and citation networks, perpetuating what Hamilakis (2013) calls a \u201cdouble colonisation\u201d that transcends simplistic Global North-South categorisations. Graeco-Roman Egypt is a liminal archaeological space, neither fully classical nor explicitly pharaonic. It is a historical terra incognita that incorporates elements from both Eastern and Western traditions but remains marginalised in global scholarship. As a region defined by its status as a colonised territory, a classical heartland, and a modern nation, it challenges rigid disciplinary boundaries and exposes the biases of traditional archaeological epistemologies. By employing postcolonial and feminist theoretical frameworks, this study critiques the limited perspectives that dominate research on Graeco-Roman Egypt and reveals how \u201cuniversal\u201d heritage reinforces academic hierarchies and contributes to the broader goal of dismantling structural inequalities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Format: Paper presentations (individual or collective presentations) with discussion Convenors: Wilhelm Londono Diaz, University of Magdalena, Colombia,\u00a0wlondono@unimagdalena.edu.co Miguel Aguilar, Independent Researcher, Per\u00fa This session is interested in understanding how archaeology constructs and assigns a sense of heritage that prevails over others to produce a heritage hierarchy. The war against the Palestinian people, the Russian invasion […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1157,"featured_media":276,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":{"0":"post-6943","1":"page","2":"type-page","3":"status-publish","4":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"pmpro-has-access","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6943","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1157"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6943"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6943\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7405,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6943\/revisions\/7405"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/276"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac10\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}