Historical Archaeology and Indigenous Collaboration

Abstract

This multi-authored case study of three Nipmuc sites is an introductory archaeology text that includes a tribal member as one of the scholars. Collaboration between the authors over two decades is a key theme in the book, serving as a model for a primary topic of the book. Historical Archaeology and Indigenous Collaboration engages young scholars in archaeology and Native American history, teaching them about respecting and including indigenous knowledge and perspectives on colonization and indigenous identity. A key asset is access by indigenous peoples whose past is explored in this book. The case study offers an arena in which Nipmuc history continues to unfold, from the pre-Contact period up to the present, and stresses the strong relationships between Nipmuc people of the past and present to their land and related social and political conflicts over time. A double narrative approach (the authors sharing their experiences while exploring the stories of individuals from the past whose voices emerge through their work) explores key issues of continuity, commonality, authenticity and identity many Native people have confronted today and in the past. As a model of collaborative archaeology, the relationships that developed between the authors stress the critical role personal relationships play in the development and growth of scholarly collaborations. Beyond being “engaged,” indigenous peoples need to be integral to any research focused on their history and culture. Although not entirely a new concept, this book demonstrates how collaboration can move beyond engagement and consultation to true incorporation of indigenous knowledge and scholarship.

Archaeology in 2022: Counter‐myths for hopeful futures

“…What would ceding narrative sovereignty to descendant communities who stand to gain or lose the most from their participation in interpreting their ancestors’ stories look like? Contributions to Gould et al.’s (2020) and Schneider and Panich's (2022) recent volumes offer us some possibilities. For instance, Laluk's (2022) contribution to the latter volume challenges the marginalizing categories archaeologists use for Ndee (and many Indigenous) settlements—terms like “low visibility, highly mobile, ephemeral.” Among some Ndee communities, cultural heritage resources were and are partly managed through avoidance; villages were cleaned up when leaving, camouflaging settlements to prevent detection by impinging US settlers and their genocidal military (and, later, their archaeologists’ surveys; Laluk, 2022, 75).…”

Spectacles of Settler Colonial Memory: Archaeological Findings from an Early Twentieth-Century “First” Settlement Pageant and Other Commemorative Terrain in New England

“…If architectural “replicas” are proposed, will planners conscientiously seek input from (and meaningfully respond to) multiple stakeholders, including Indigenous representatives and archaeologists, about the impacts such activities might have on sensitive cultural landscapes? It remains to be seen whether these commemorations reinscribe the problematic power relations of other regional public history sites, where Siobhan Hart ( 2019 ) has argued that “projects place the burden of decolonizing squarely on Indian people, expecting little of non-Indians except open minds and a willingness to consider other points of view.” Or whether their organizers and participants take up the challenges of epistemological transformation, relationship-building, and authority-sharing that have begun to cohere in other parts of the region, such as Nipmuc homelands (Gould et al 2020 ).…”