Convened By
\nDaryle Rigney (Australia), Martin Wobst (USA), Tara Million (Canada) and Joe Watkins (USA)<\/p>\n
Theme Details
\nThroughout the world, Indigenous peoples are claiming greater input into archaeological research. After decades of silence and exclusion, Indigenous peoples are demanding that they be actively involved in the communication of information about their cultures. Changes are occurring at a number of levels: at the institutional level, at community level and, most importantly, in terms of the relationships between individual archaeologists and the Indigenous people with whom they work. These changes are being compounded by the entrance of Indigenous archaeologists into the discipline.<\/p>\n
In some cases, professional ethical codes of behaviour and legislation, such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the USA, ensure formal interaction between archaeologists and descendent communities. Apart from this, archaeologists and Indigenous people share an interest in the same material culture. The manner in which these interests intersect has a range of manifestations in different parts of the world. In Australia, archaeologists have helped Indigenous peoples gain control over their land and their cultural heritage but have stopped short of incorporating Indigenous peoples into the framework of archaeology as a discipline. In the USA, Indigenous communities employ archaeologists and have a lot of control over individual projects and Indigenous peoples often have a formal role in national bodies-but are still unable to control the bones of their ancestors. In Southern Africa, the post-apartheid voices of Indigenous peoples are calling for recognition that they are still there and that their Indigenous identities have not been lost. In Asia, the voices of Indigenous peoples still are rarely heard. Despite these regional differences there are core issues that are of interest to archaeologists and Indigenous peoples throughout the world. This theme will focus on these issues, attempting to bring a global perspective to each. The sessions which will be included in this theme include:<\/p>\n
\u00b7 Decolonizing the Archaeology of a Region.
\n\u00b7 Ethics, Public Policy and Cultural and Intellectual Property.
\n\u00b7 Repatriation and the Colonialist Origins of Archaeology.
\n\u00b7 Working with Indigenous Communities.
\n\u00b7 Oral History as Archaeology.
\n\u00b7 Monuments, Landscapes and Cultural Memory.
\n\u00b7 The Historical Archaeology of Indigenous Peoples.
\n\u00b7 Reverse Archaeologies.<\/p>\n
Contact:<\/p>\n
Martin Wobst
\nemail: wobst@anthro.umass.edu<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nAlistair Paterson (Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nMain stream archaeology often has focussed almost exclusively on the “prehistoric” past of Indigenous populations and on the “prehistoric practices” of the Indigenous populations of the present. In that way archaeologists have deflected from the lived lives of Indigenous populations of the recent past and present, and thus kept the impact of colonialism on Indigenous life as invisible archaeologically, as the agency of Indigenous peoples under colonialism and more recently. This session brings together papers on Historical archaeology of Indigenous people – that is, they expose their lives under colonialism and post-colonialism.<\/p>\n
Discussant: Patricia Rubertone<\/p>\n
Email contact: paterson@arts.uwa.edu.au<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nContact Or Colonialism? Interpreting Indigenous People In American Historical Archaeology
\nStephen Silliman (Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, USA) Catechized and Colonized: Themes Explored in Maya Archaeology of the Historic Period
\nTraci Ardren (Department of Anthropology, University of Miami, USA)
\nHistory, Historical Archaeology And Indigenous Australians
\nNaomi Anderson & Christopher Wilson (Department of Achaeology, Flinders University, Australia) Colonial encounters: Archaeology at Ebenezer Mission, north-western Victoria
\nJane Lydon (Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies, Monash University, Australia)
\nContact Or Colonialism? Interpreting Indigenous People In American Historical Archaeology
\nRuth Trocolli (Handbook of North American Indians, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Pryzbyla 321<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nLarry Zimmerman (USA), Sven Ouzman (USA), and Joram Useb (Africa)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis session focuses on relationships between ethics and public policy relating to scientific practice and Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. Archaeological practice is undergoing a period of radical change in response to calls by Indigenous peoples for control over their cultural and intellectual property. Existing ethical codes and public policy seldom address Indigenous needs. However, some countries with Indigenous peoples are revising legislation and policy to recognise the contribution made by Indigenous knowledge to the development of new medicines; to recognise the communal and multi-leveled ownership of cultural knowledge; and to performers’ rights to recognise the restricted nature of certain performances. Recent successes include the November 2001 decision by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals to financially and intellectually acknowledge southern Africa’s Bushmen for their knowledge of the Hoodia gordonia plant\u2019s slimming properties. Similarly, in February 2000 the Snuneymuxw of Canada trademarked 10 sacred rock-engravings. As Indigenous people throughout the world become empowered through global networks, understanding and accommodating these developments will be critical to the conduct of ethical practice in Indigenous archaeologies.
\nEmail contacts: larry-zimmerman@uiowa.edu; ouzman@uclink.berkeley.edu; wimsareg@iafrica.som.na
\nPresentations
\nWhat To Share? Thoughts On Situating Southern African Indigenous And
\nEmbedded Knowledge
\nSven Ouzman (Anthropology Department, University of California, USA) The Missouri River Sacred Site Conflict: Will Tribes Gain Control?
\nGabrielle Elliott (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA)
\nAutomobile Graverobbing
\nAdam Fish (Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University, 21223 Marine View Drive, Seattle WA 98166 USA) Cell Tower Deconstruction: A Cautionary Tale for Developers
\nSteve J. Dasovich (SCI Engineering, Inc., USA) and Marianne Long (Director of Tribal Operations\/Historic Preservation, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, USA)
\nThe Use And Abuse Of Indigenous Advisory Boards
\nLarry J. Zimmerman (Archaeology Department, Minnesota Historical Society, USA) The Emergence of Intellectual Property Rights in Archaeology
\nGeorge Nicholas (Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University-Secwepemc Education Institute, British Columbia, Canada)
\nThe San Of Southern Africa Have Learnt To Fight For Their Intellectual Property Rights
\nJoram |Useb (Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA)) Ancestral Landscape and Indigenous Archaeology
\nDes Tatana Kahotea (Te Ongaonga, RD1, Tauranga, New Zealand)
\nBalancing The Interests Of Native Americans, Archaeologists, And Industry Under The National Historic Preservation Act
\nCarol Gleichman (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Lakewood, USA) Traditional Cultural Knowledge and Scientific Methods.
\nJeff Van Pelt and Julie Longenecker (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Cultural Resources Protection Program, Pendleton, OR, USA)
\nHuman Rights Issues Within The Practice Of Archaeology
\nPeter R. Schmidt (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA) \u201cLand is never protected\u201d: the on-going struggle
\nShirley Schermer (Burials Program Director, University of Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City, Iowa)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room Pryzbyla 321<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nDavina Two Bears<\/p>\n
Session Details
\n–
\nPresentations
\nAszdaa Archaeologists, Navajo Women Archaeologists: A Matriarch In United States Southwest Archaeology
\nDavina Two Bears Archaeological research, education and social impact in the indigenous communities. The experience of Huari, Peru
\nJubitza E. Ibarra Asencios (Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos)
\nIndigenous Knowledge And Heritage Management In Nigeria
\nAbi A. Derefaka Inuit and Archaeology: heritage perspectives in Nunavik
\nPierre M. Desrosiers and Daniel Gendron (Avataq Cultural Institute, Universit\u00e9 Paris 1, Sorbonne, France)
\nThe Use And Perceived Abuse Of Cultural Legacy As A Political Platform \u2013 Central American Nationalism Vs. Indigenous Rights
\nCarleen D. Sanchez (Central American Research and Policy Institute, California State University Northridge, USA)<\/p>\n
Indigenous Technology and Sustainable Development in Africa: the Nigerian Case
\nAlex. I. Okpoko (Department of Archaeology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State – Nigeria) and Uche Ezeadichie (Department of History\/International Relations, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State – Nigeria)<\/p>\n
From A Past Gunditjmara Landscape To Future Well-being
\nHeather Builth and Ken Saunders<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Pryzbyla Center A<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nPatricia Rubertone (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis session examines the relationship between memorialization as represented in the landscape through the lens of monuments and persistent myths of Indigenous extinction. Rather than simply focusing on these monuments as evidence of historical disjunctures and invented traditions of colonialists, or recounting the complex, even fiery, political and social debates over particular monuments, the session asks about Indigenous peoples\u2019 engagement with, and possible interest in, these sites. Venturing beyond critiques of the symbolism underwriting colonialist monuments, the participants draw on oral traditions and archaeology to probe Indigenous peoples\u2019 connections to places that existed long before, and continued after, the monument\u2019s construction. They also use these strands of evidence to inquire about the diverse ways in which concerns about representation may be resolved by the appropriation or even the creation of new sites on the memorialized landscape for community building and cultural affirmation.<\/p>\n
While archaeology can help to decipher layers of memory and experience that challenge colonial erasure, the session recognizes that its role is often problematic. Archaeological involvement may contribute to site preservation and monument building in ways that run counter to, and may interfere with, Indigenous peoples\u2019 living traditions. Stopping short of indictment or exoneration, the session aims at illuminating more complicated struggles and understandings about place, memory, and Indigenous persistence.<\/p>\n
Email contact: patricia_rubertone@brown.edu<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nPaleo Is A Not Our Word: Exploring The Implications Of Mi’kmawey Debert
\nDon Julien, Tim Bernard and Leah Rosenmeier (The Confederacy of Mainland Mi\u00e2kmaq, P.O. Box 1590, Truro, NS, Canada)<\/p>\n
\u00cd\u00cdkah and Monuments of Regional and Celestial Landscapes
\nTaft Blackhorse, Jay Williams and June el-Piper (Navajo Nation Chaco Protection Sites Program, USA)
\nDighton Rock: A Touchstone For Competing Histories In Southern New England
\nDaniel P. Lynch (Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, USA)
\nPlacemaking Along the Rio Grande: The Story of Kuaua
\nRobert W. Preucel (Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, USA) and Frank Matero (Department of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania, USA)
\nConceptualizing Landscapes In The San Pedro Valley Of Arizona: Native American Interpretations Of The Reeve Ruin And Davis Site
\nChip Colwell-Chanthaphonh (Center for Desert Archaeology), T. J. Ferguson (Anthropological Research, L.L.C.) and Roger Anyon (Pima County) Memorializing the Narragansett: Place-Making and Memory-Keeping in the Aftermath of Detribalization
\nPatricia E. Rubertone (Department of Anthropology, Brown University, USA)
\nFrom Dust To Dust: The Pueblo Way
\nJoseph Suina (Cochiti Pueblo & College of Education, University of New Mexico, USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 22nd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room Pryzbyla Center A<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nH. Martin Wobst (USA) and Sally K. May (Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nWhen it comes to Indigenous populations, frequently the archaeological and historical research that is easily accessible, as well as the research into the history of that archaeological or historical research, have been carried out by non-Indigenous researchers. This needs to change. Indigenous researchers need to take a more active interest in research on the research history on their populations. This session is a first step in that direction. It is designed to present research by members on Indigenous populations on the (history of) archaeological field work and historical research that has been completed on them by non-Indigenous others. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations stand to gain by this switch in subject and object.
\nPresentations
\nRevisiting The Removal Of The Oenpelli Skeletal Remains
\nDonald Gumurdul (Senior Traditional Owner, Gunbalanya), Gabriel Maralngurra (Kunwinjku Artist and Interpreter) and Sally K. May (Archaeologist, Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, Australian National University)<\/p>\n
The role American cultural hegemony has played in the discourse on Seminole and Afro-Native American identity
\nRoderick Anderson (University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA)<\/p>\n
Prospects Of The Archaeology By Palestinians
\nHamed Salem (Acting Director, The Palestinian Institute of Archaeology, Birziet University, Palestine)
\nSession Time
\nDay Thursday Date 26th June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room Pryzbyla 323<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nJoe Watkins (Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) and Claire Smith (Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis panel will present the views of some of the main players involved in debate over the Ancient One from Kennewick. In order to place the debate within a global perspective, it will also present the views of archaeologists and Indigenous peoples from other parts of the world, including Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.<\/p>\n
The background to this case is well known. The human remains of what Native American people refer to as the Ancient One were discovered inadvertently in 1996 at Columbia Park, near the city of Kennewick, Washington State. A series of radiocarbon dates from these remains indicated that the man had lived between 9500 and 8500 years ago. These remains have become the center of an on-going debate between a group of forensic anthropologists and archaeologists and a coalition of five Indian tribes in the region, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Reservation, and the Wanapum Band. These groups have taken a united stand, seeking repatriation and reburial of this ancient material (www.umatilla.nsn.us\/kennman6.html).<\/p>\n
On August 30th, 2002, Magistrate John Jelderks, of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, issued a decision in favour of the scientists, finding that the Secretary of the Interior \u201cerred in defining \u2018Native American\u2019 to automatically include all remains predating 1492 that are found in the United States\u201d. Jelderks\u2019 decision is based on the assumption that if remains are identified as Native American they will not be open to scientific study:<\/p>\n
All pre-Columbian people, no matter what group they belonged to, where they came from, how long they or their group survived, or how greatly they differed from the ancestors of present-day American Indians, would be arbitrarily classified as \u2018Native American,\u2019 and their remains and artefacts could be placed totally off-limits to scientific study (Jelderks 2002:29)<\/p>\n
This decision leaves the remains of the Ancient One from Kennewick in the custody of scientists. The finding challenges the long-standing assumption that human remains pre-dating 1492 in the United States necessarily are those of the ancestors of contemporary Native Americans. It means that human remains that are found without associated cultural materials may no longer be assumed to be Native American. The matter is under appeal.<\/p>\n
Taking a global perspective, this panel will present both Indigenous and archaeological views on this debate. Confirmed participants in this panel include:<\/p>\n
Francesca Cubillo, National Museum of Australia
\nFrank McManamon, US National Parks Service
\nDorothy Lippert, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
\nThomas Morning Owl, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla people
\nSven Ouzman, University of California at Berkeley (formerly National Museum of South Africa)
\nClaire Smith, Flinders University
\nJoe Watkins, University of New Mexico
\nLarry Zimmerman, Minnesota History Center
\nMary Pappin, Mutthi Mutthi Elder and Chair, Mungo National Park Joint Management Advisory Committee
\nDan Wildcat, Hasskell University
\nDes Kahotea, Waikato University
\nMichael Wilcox, Stanford University
\nPresentations
\nNative American No More: Kennewick, NAGPRA, And The Recent Court Decision
\nJoe Watkins (Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) Strange Bedfellows Indeed!: Politics in American Archaeology
\nJoe Watkins (Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room Pryzbyla Center A<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nMarge Bruhac (USA) and Heather Harris (Canada)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nDuring the last decade oral history has significantly enriched the interpretation of archaeological contexts. What has not been discussed is how the publication of Indigenous oral history interferes in this Indigenous medium and in Indigenous society. By turning something non-material into something material, the medium, the message, and the social context are altered. This session brings together papers that look at the impact of published oral history on Indigenous societies.
\nPresentations
\nPunan\u2019s Oral Tradition
\nBoedhihartono and Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono (Indonesia) We Are Sugpiaq: Archaeology and Oral Traditions of the Outer Kenai Coast, Alaska
\nAron L. Crowell (Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution, 121 W. 7th Ave, Anchorage, AK) and Alutiiq community panelists and project consultants: Herman Moonin, Port Graham, Lillian Elvsaas, Seldovia, Nick Tanape, Sr., Nanwalek
\nWho Knows The Truth? : The Role Of Archaeology In Oral History Traditions
\nEmmylou Rabe (University of Cape Town, South Africa) Innu history: exploring the paths of stories, mythology and archaeology — an Innu perspective
\nRichard Nuna (Innu Nation Environment, and Tshikapisk Foundation, Sheshatshit, Labrador)<\/p>\n
Contested Land: Burial Grounds And Aboriginal Oral Histories
\nPamela M. Cunningham (Member, M\u00e9tis Nation of Alberta, Department of Anthropology, University of Anthropology) Female productive activities (The significance of female\u2019s role in different Indonesian communities)
\nBoedihartono and Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono (Indonesia)
\nOral Traditions, Archaeology, And The Political Economy Of Historical Memory In East Africa
\nPeter R Schmidt Memory as an Archaeological Clue to the Oral History and Folk Narrative in West Africa: The Case of the Mbum People of Donga-Mantung of the Western High Grassfields of Cameroon
\nSemuyeh Nyugab
\nA Forgotten Space And Remembered Time: Making Pasts In Lowland Northeastern Tanzania
\nJonathon R Walz Why Don\u2019t Most Archaeologists Understand That the Dead Are Alive
\nHeather Harris (First Nations Studies, University of Northern British Columbia)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Thursday Date 26th June
\nTime 9AM-1PM Room Pryzbyla Center A<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nKirsten Brett (Australia) and Ken Isaacson (Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nEmail contacts: klbrett@yahoo.com; kenn@matilda.net.au<\/p>\n
This session will explore developments in the working relationships of Indigenous peoples and archaeologists. Conflict has often existed between archaeologists and Indigenous people. Archaeologists have frequently considered themselves the experts on and keepers of the Indigenous past and have failed to discover Indigenous people’s views of the past. Archaeologists have even divorced Indigenous people from their past by creating archaeological cultures that they contend cannot be proven to be related to present Indigenous cultures. Such views are often in direct contradiction to oral histories, which sometimes extend as far back as the Pleistocene. The demand that archaeologists should be accountable to the Indigenous communities with whom they work is often viewed as a threat to the autonomy of the discipline.
\nGiven these conditions, it is understandable that archaeology does not rate high on the list of Indigenous peoples’ priorities. This is a shame – not because Indigenous people should take an interest in archaeological interpretations of their pasts but because archaeology can be an important tool in the empowerment of Indigenous peoples. Archaeologists can help us strengthen our cultural identities. They can help us teach our children and others about our pasts. They can help us use our cultural heritage to develop economic enterprises and create jobs for our young people. Working in long-term relationships of trust with Indigenous peoples, archaeologists can re-shape their discipline into one that will produce profound benefits for the people they work with. Fundamental to making archaeology more relevant to Indigenous people is acknowledgement of disparity in the knowledge systems of archaeologists and the Indigenous peoples. It is not enough for archaeologists to teach communities their version of archaeology, rather they need to provide community members with a platform from which to shape an archaeology that has meaning and is useful to them, in their knowledge system. The papers in this session will document a new style of archaeology that is emerging, one that is shaped by the views and agendas of both archaeologists and the Indigenous peoples with whom they work.<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nDruphmi \u2013 Ola Oldintaim Mob: The Development Of Relevant Cultural Education Materials
\nKirsten Brett Archaeology In The Post Apartheid South Africa: An Indigenous Perspective
\nIrene Mafune (Centre for African studies, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa)
\nWhat The Elders Taught Me. Community Archaeology In Wardaman Country Northern Territory Australia
\nJulie Drew and Bill Harney
\nHierarchies of Knowledge and the Tyranny of Text: Archaeology, Ethnohistory and Oral Traditions in Australian Archaeological Interpretation
\nBryce Barker (Department of Humanities and International Studies, University of Southern Queensland, Australia) and James Gaston (Birri Elder, Cultural Heritage Officer, Giru Dala Council of Elders, Bowen, Queensland, Australia)
\nTowards A Non-colonial Model For Archaeology In Canada
\nSarah Carr-Locke (University of Northern British Columbia) Excavating for Authenticity: Intra-Tribal Multiculturalism and its Role in Cultural Resources Management
\nWill Gilmore (Tribal Archaeologist, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa, P.O. Box 1475, Hayward, WI, USA)
\nDifficulties In Giving Back The Past
\nJohn Morieson Sharing the Future
\nKen Isaacson (Kalkadoon Tribal Council, Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia)
\nChallenges For The Future Of The Past: New Directions In Inuit Archaeology In Labrador
\nLena Onalik (Memorial University), Stephen Loring (Smithsonian Institution) and Leah Rosenmeier (Council of Mainland Mik’maq\/Brown University) Working with Indigenous Communities to Promote Cultural Resource Stewardship
\nDarby C. Stapp (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)
\nPre-Hispanic Communal Organizations And Its Availability For Modern Grass-roots Development Projects
\nCarlos Alberto Asencios Espejo (Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos) Creating a Collaborative Research Agenda: Working with Indigenous Communities
\nDesiree Renee Martinez (Tribal Affiliation: Gabrielino (Tongva). Department of Anthropology, 11 Divinity Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA)
\nWorking Together: Indigenous People And Archaeologists
\nVincent Copley, Vincent Branson and Belinda Liebelt (Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Sunday Date 22nd June
\nTime 9AM-1PM & 4-6PM Room McMahon 200<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nTara Million<\/p>\n
Session Details
\n–<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nFolklore In Western Archaeology – From An Indigenous Perspective?
\nAtle Omland The Archaeological Linguistic Community: Discourses of Inclusion and Exclusion
\nTara Million
\nThe Archaeological Heritage In Latin America And The Relationship Between National Governments, Archaeologist And Aboriginal Peoples
\nAna Isabel Gonz\u00e1lez (Former General Coordinator of the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs of Argentina, National University of La Plata and University of Buenos Aires) and Maria Isabel Hern\u00e1ndez Llosas (Researcher of the National Council on Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Archaeology Section, Institute of Anthropological Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina) The negation of Indigenous meaning of the pre-Columbian material culture in Colombia
\nWilhelm Londono
\nThe Archaeology Of Aboriginal Ceremonial Sites: Mount Drysdale, NSW, Australia
\nDan Witter Reclaiming a Ngarrindjeri future: archaeology, heritage and politics on Ngarrindjeri Ruwe
\nSteve Hemming, Tom Trevorrow and Azra Rochester
\nLiving With American Archaeology: An American Indian Perspective
\nJoe Watkins (Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) Inserting the Cultures of Indigenous Minority Groups into the Educational System: Case Study of Widekum Ethnic Group of the Bamenda Grassfield of Cameroon
\nIsaac Akenji Ndambi (Department Of History, Faculty Of Arts, University Of Buea, Cameroon)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 22nd June
\nTime 9-11AM Room Pryzbyla Center A<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nRobert Paynter (USA and Ron Welburn (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis session chronicles how the vestiges of colonialism in the archaeology of a region (western New England) are being challenged, in government, university systems, curricula, teaching, museums, theme parks, and curation, research, teaching, theory and method, and other realms in which vestiges of colonialism lurk.<\/p>\n
The participants in the session are associated with educational institutions in the Five Colleges area of Western Massachusetts. We have worked together in a number of different situations (courses, administrative committees, social events, etc.) to better understand and rectify the historical and present day realities of the region\u2019s involvement in the colonization of North America. We have sought to bring to our students and other members of the Five Colleges an understanding of aspects of the lives and cultures of the peoples indigenous to this area. To do this we have been engaged in an ongoing struggle to transform the dominant culture\u2019s understandings, with special attention being devoted to how these influence the traditional research goals and practices of anthropological archaeology. In this session, we will trace how these efforts have affected the subject matter of our educational curricula, the organization of our educational institutions, the articulation of the academic community with neighboring Native communities, the nature and conduct of archaeological research, and the repatriation of human remains and objects of cultural patrimony.<\/p>\n
The overlap of our work, in team taught courses and committee work, precludes a presentation in the standard paper presentation format. The situation is too dynamic and multifaceted to be easily captured on paper. Instead, we will be discussing our work in a panel format, where a few of us will take primary responsibility for introducing a topic, leaving time for other members of the panel as well as members of the audience to engage in conversation. We are interested in presenting the fruits of our efforts, but we especially want to engage people involved in similar efforts elsewhere around the globe in a discussion about the strategies and tactics that are necessary to successfully do this work.<\/p>\n
Members of our panel are:
\nMargaret Bruchac, (Abenaki) University of Massachusetts, Amherst
\nMarta Carlson (Yurok), University of Massachusetts, Amherst
\nElizabeth S. Chilton, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
\nJean Forward, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
\nRobert Paynter, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
\nJoyce White Deer Vincent (Cherokee & Blackfoot) University of Massachusetts, Amherst
\nRon Welburn (Gingaskin Assateague\/Cherokee) University of Massachusetts, Amherst<\/p>\n
We will discuss the following points:
\nRethinking Undergraduate Courses (Jean Forward and Joyce Vincent)
\nThe Pitfalls and Potentials of Graduate Work (Marta Carlson and Robert Paynter)
\nInitiatives for a Reorganized Academy (Ron Welburn and Robert Paynter)
\nThe Challenges of Reconceptualizing Research (Margaret Bruchac and Elizabeth Chilton)<\/p>\n
The discussion will be moderated by Robert Paynter and Ron Welburn. Approximately ten minutes will be used to introduce each topic and ten more for a general discussion of the theme. The session\u2019s remaining ten minutes will be used for general discussion of the problem of decolonizing a region.<\/p>\n
Email contacts: rpaynter@anthro.umass.edu, rwelburn@english.umass.edu
\nPresentations
\nSession Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 9-11AM Room Pryzbyla Center A<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Convened By Daryle Rigney (Australia), Martin Wobst (USA), Tara Million (Canada) and Joe Watkins (USA) Theme Details Throughout the world, Indigenous peoples are claiming greater input into archaeological research. After decades of silence and exclusion, Indigenous peoples are demanding that they be actively involved in the communication of information about their cultures. Changes are occurring … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":2159,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2186","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2186","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2186"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2186\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2780,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2186\/revisions\/2780"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}