Indigenous Peoples and Archaeology: Towards a New Theory

The social sciences have experienced a number of rapid and expansive theoretical developments over the course of the last hundred years. From fighting for their existence as an intellectual endeavor within academia and the university during the 19th century, to experiencing a series of popular and wide scale adoptions with such theoretical epistemologies as positivism and behaviorism, the social sciences are currently at an epistemological crossroads. In the aftermath of such powerful critiques as deconstructionism, postmodernism, postcolonialism, and the Frankfurt School’s singular attack on positivism and the Vienna School, the social sciences are struggling to find their epistemological footing. This is particularly true within the field of anthropology, including its daughter discipline of archaeology, for not only has the theoretical foundations of the discipline been called into question, but the field’s subject matter – its source of data and existence – has also been brought to bear. In an effort to reestablish some form of theoretical footing, the social sciences have begun to open their epistemological doors to cultures and ways of knowing historically allowed to only represent data. In this process, indigenous peoples and their epistemology have played a key role.

Over the past two decades a significant amount of academic energy has been invested in professing the urgent need and essentialness for developing what some have called an indigenous archaeology. Books, essays, and academic conferences have discussed, defined, and designed a multiplicity of paths towards this goal. Very little effort has been expanded, however, in seriously examining the intellectual viability or the social and cultural desirability of this project. In a recent paper entitled Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology Robert McGhee attempts to examine this theoretical endeavor within the field of archaeology.

Read more about indigenous peoples archaeology and the development of social science theory here.

World Health Organization and Indigenous Peoples

There are an estimated 370 million indigenous peoples living in more than 70 countries worldwide. They represent a rich diversity of cultures, religions, traditions, languages and histories; yet continue to be among the world’s most marginalized population groups. The health status of indigenous peoples varies significantly from that of non-indigenous population groups in countries all over the world.

An official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by the UN system due to the diversity of the world’s indigenous peoples. Instead, a modern and inclusive understanding of “indigenous” has been developed and includes peoples who:

• Identify themselves and are recognized and accepted by their community as indigenous.
• Demonstrate historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies.
• Have strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources.
• Have distinct social, economic or political systems.
• Maintain distinct languages, cultures and beliefs.
• Form non-dominant groups of society.
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.

In some regions, there may be a preference to use other terms such as tribes, first peoples/nations, aboriginals, ethnic groups, adivasi and janajati. All such terms fall within this modern understanding of “indigenous”.1

Read more about indigenous people’s health and the World Health Organization here.

American Indian Novel Traditions: Muting White Noise

James Cox takes the title of his book from Sherman Alexie, for whom “white noise,” the static that remains on a television after broadcasting ends, represents “the oppressive noise of white mass-produced cultures, the loud demand to conform to the invader’s cultural belief system or be destroyed” (p. 11). Cox takes “white noise” to signify a broad history of colonial domination and erasure, which Alexie and the other novelists he considers write to resist. The introduction to Cox’s book, “A Cup of Water,” states his purpose to demonstrate how Euro-western and Euro-American literary and popular narratives, which almost always “culminate in the absence of Indians” (p. 13), support ongoing colonial dominance and produce real-world consequences for living Indians; and to explore the strategies used by some contemporary Native fiction writers to intervene in these colonial narratives of conquest, to render them powerless and suggest that “conquest, as imagined by non-Native authors, did not take place” (p. 18). Cox argues that his study “implements Osage scholar Robert Warrior’s proposal … that, in any scholarship on work by Native authors, the ‘critical interpretation of those writings can proceed primarily from Indian sources,’” (p. 4); thus he intends to avoid “academic colonialism” by privileging the voices of Native writers in his own interpretations (pp. 4-5). If reality is constructed by stories, and if, as Greg Sarris observes, “In oral discourse … no one party has access to the whole of the exchange…. [O]ne party’s story is no more the whole story than a cup of water is the river” (quoted, p. 16), Cox wishes his own “cup of water” to resist the narrative flow that justifies domination and to “nourish” new plots for Native people (pp. 16-17).

Read more about Muting White Noise: Native American and European Novel Traditions here.