Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology

Maxine Oland, Siobhan M. Hart, and Liam Frink eds., Decolonizing Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2012. 320 pages. ISBN 978-08165-0408-4. $55 USD hardcover.Archaeology as discipline has frequently served to perpetuate the Myth of the Vanishing Indian, particularly as it has existed in many parts of the United States of America. This mistaken impression must now be rectified through the alteration of fundamental organizational frameworks and adopted perspectives.The above statement captures the overall tone and important message of Decolonizing Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology, edited by Oland, Hart and Frink. This volume is timely addition to the growing body of literature dealing with archaeological approaches to issues of colonialism and postcolonialism in the portrayal of histories. On personal level, it proved an interesting counterpart to preparations made for recently taught course dealing with Archaeology and Society. Overall, the book successfully relates the role that archaeology can play in the decolonization of the past.The central issue addressed by all articles in the collection is the need to place histories within long-term (longue duree) frameworks that emphasize transitions as opposed to abrupt breaks: a process occurring over time bracketed by incipient European contacts in an area and the more intensive interactions that followed (3). The inclusion of long-term histories, and collaboration with contemporary communities and scholars across the subfields of anthropology, is argued to lead to the decolonizing of archaeological frameworks and interpretations. Although the debate rages on within the discipline concerning the role of empiricism in archaeo- ogy, particularly as it relates to postcolonial and perspectives, extensive deliberation on the subject is not presented in this volume because all of the authors stress that recognition of knowledge and practice requires the restructuring of power relations within the discipline. In the larger debate concerning Western scientific and Indigenous archaeology, this viewpoint is best exemplified by series of articles published in the journal American Antiquity (2008 Vol. 73/Issue 4, 2010 Vol. 75/Issue 2).As is expected of any archaeological volume, time is centralizing theme for all of the articles, in particular the notion and application of periodization frameworks. Such structures are the foundation of all archaeological pursuits; therefore, it is not surprising that any attempt to alter them can prove extremely complex and highly politicized. As someone who studies the Ancient Maya, I am particularly aware of the institutional problems associated with our current view of periodization that continues to regard very early and very late forms as under-developed or decayed versions (respectively) of some pure culture (i.e. Preclassic, Classic, Postclassic), and attempts to rectify such systems are not new (i.e. Preclassic now being the Formative period in Maya studies).The focus of this book places the troublesome periodization division between the Prehistoric and Historic periods, divide recognized in most colonial settings around the world, and many of the contributors highlight the numerous issues surrounding associated pre-contact and post-contact outlooks embedded in archaeology. The authors emphasize that researchers should focus on longer sequences of histories, not punctuated by artificial breaks but rather by transitions. In adopting such focus, as opposed to earlier decolonizing studies that tended to emphasize continuity, the authors avoid pitfalls such as the fastening of Aboriginal identities in flawed notions of tradition.The volume chapters are ordered according to the recognition and deconstruction of colonial dichotomies and categories, and multi-scalar approaches to transitions. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.