Does the Archaeology Curriculum Condemn Us to Repeat the Sins of the Past?

Summary

This is an abstract from the "Sins of Our Ancestors (and of Ourselves): Confronting Archaeological Legacies" session, at the 84th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

Despite the early prominence of indigenous archaeologists like Arthur and "Birdie" Parker, Native practitioners remain a minority in the discipline. This exacerbates an already vexed relationship between archaeologists and Native peoples. Tensions flare in cases like that of Kennewick Man / The Ancient One, highlighting disagreements about what forms of knowledge matter; how such knowledge is produced; and what relationships link us to past peoples. Similar tensions emerge in the anecdotes of indigenous archaeologists, who describe existential discomforts, structures of privilege/oppression, and compromised academic and field situations. Small wonder that so few Native students are drawn to major in archaeology today. While many of the proposals offered in "Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century" (2000) might alleviate these tensions, changes to the standard archaeology curriculum have appeared only slowly and inconsistently. Further, in recognizing the interests of descendant communities as distinct from those of the archaeologist, even these initiatives risk implying that Native people cannot be archaeologists. If we wish to avoid the sins of the past, to overcome educational inequalities in the communities where we work, and to honor the SAA’s published commitment to diversity in the discipline, we must imagine a curriculum that attracts and includes Native students.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• Sins of Our Ancestors (and of Ourselves): Confronting Archaeological Legacies

Keywords

Spatial Coverage

Record Identifiers

Abstract Id(s): 26330