Ethical Issues in Indigenous Archaeology: Problems with Difference and Collaboration

Alfredo González-Ruibal

doi:10.7202/1066461ar

Abstract

The critique of archaeology made from an indigenous and postcolonial perspective has been largely accepted, at least in theory, in many settler colonies, from Canada to New Zealand. In this paper, I would like to expand such critique in two ways: on the one hand, I will point out some issues that have been left unresolved; on the other hand, I will address indigenous and colonial experiences that are different from British settler colonies, which have massively shaped our understanding of indigeneity and the relationship of archaeology to it. I am particularly concerned with two key problems: alterity – how archaeologists conceptualize difference – and collaboration – how archaeologists imagine their relationship with people from a different cultural background. My reflections are based on my personal experiences working with communities in southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and South America that differ markedly from those usually discussed by indigenous archaeologies.

Highlights

In this article I will explore briefly some ethical questions that, in my opinion, are left unresolved by prevailing indigenous and postcolonial archaeologies
I have argued that neither indigenous nor postcolonial archaeologies take alterity seriously into account, in part because it has accepted the logic of multiculturalism that is ready to accept a limited measure of difference, while it eludes crucial issues of power and agency – including the enduring effects of colonialism and capitalism in transforming indigenous societies
I have expressed my skepticism towards the possibility of conducting hybrid archaeologies, in which Western and non-Western viewpoints coalesce, as well as toward the actual radicalism of leaving indigenous peoples to take the initiative of carrying out archaeological research

Summary

Introduction

In this article I will explore briefly some ethical questions that, in my opinion, are left unresolved by prevailing indigenous and postcolonial archaeologies. Postcolonial archaeologies tend to depict indigenous or subaltern communities as rather homogeneous (internally and across different cultures) and with little conflict, except with mainstream or colonial society They are imagined as free of conflictual relations with nature, with the past and with each other. Archaeologists concerned with conducting ethical research in collaboration with indigenous communities should devote time to analyzing power relations within the community before taking for granted the cohesive and representative role of leaders Such leaders have been artificially created in some cases by NGOs, missionaries or even the State (as with the indigenous peoples with whom I have worked in Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea), bypassing traditional institutions and individuals with an important social capital within the community. The space in between the dots is the fissure created by capitalist imperialism

Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest None to declare