Over time, Indigenous peoples around the world have preserved distinctive understandings, rooted in cultural experience, that guide relations among human, non-human, and other-than human beings in specific ecosystems. These understandings and relations constitute a system broadly identified as Indigenous knowledge, also called traditional knowledge or aboriginal knowledge. Archaeologists conducting excavations in Indigenous locales may uncover physical evidence of Indigenous knowledge (e.g. artifacts, landscape modifications, ritual markers, stone carvings, faunal remains), but the meaning of this evidence may not be obvious to non-Indigenous or non-local investigators. Researchers can gain information and insight by consulting Indigenous traditions; these localized knowledges contain crucial information that can explain and contextualize scientific data. Archaeologists should, however, strive to avoid interference with esoteric knowledges, sacred sites, ritual landscapes, and cultural property. Research consultation with local Indigenous knowledge-bearers is recommended as a means to ensure ethical practice and avoid unnecessary harm to sensitive sites and practices.

No abstract

Decolonizing approaches in archaeology emerged as a means to counter the dominance of colonial ideologies and improve the accuracy of Indigenous representations. Historically, the routines of mainstream archaeological practices have been shaped by Western (primarily elite Euro-American) beliefs and categories. Although Indigenous people have long been used as informants, Western scientists have exerted control over Indigenous property, and Indigenous knowledges and concerns have been pushed to the margins. Decolonizing has both political and practical effects; it alters power relations among scientists and subjects, while also expanding the volume and accuracy of available Indigenous data.

This research examines the disarticulation of Native American funerary assemblages in museum collections and highlights the challenges of identifying them for inventories mandated by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. Indigenous objects and human remains from burial sites were routinely subjected to collecting and sorting procedures that stripped them of meaning and context. NAGPRA does not, however, require museums to reassemble sites or locate related materials housed in other institutions. As a result, associated funerary objects and human remains can easily be “lost” in collections and tribal representatives may be unable to find them. This paper samples the evidence from the Middle Connecticut River Valley to illustrate how items were routinely excavated and categorized and proposes a few restorative methodologies for their recovery.

No abstract