Where the Wind Blows Us: Practicing Critical Community Archaeology in the Canadian North

3. Finding Middle Ground: The Methodological Shift

51 3 Finding Middle Ground The Methodological Shift Decolonizing Research Methods From the inception of the discipline, anthropological research methods have continuously evolved to meet the needs of changing sociopolitical conditions. At different historical junctures, the discipline has been hailed as the salve of cross-cultural inquiry and, at others, has come under fire for its misstep with political conditions or epistemological stance (Asad 1991; Stocking 1992:342–361). Early approaches to the study of and reporting on non-Western cultures were often set in a realist mode of inquiry, which rested on Enlightenment ideas about science (Appleby et al. 1994; Ruby 2000:161). The crisis of representation in the anthropology of the 1980s brought this research framework under sharp scrutiny, targeted with accusations of false claims to objectivity and representative authority. Notes Christians (2000:141): “a positivistic philosophy of social inquiry insists on neutrality regarding definitions of the good, and this worldview has been discredited.” Positivism’s attendant claims to objectivity have been further critiqued by feminist proponents, due to its disregard for the subjective of lived experience, and its denial of relational and emergent aspects of cultural interaction (e.g., Bell 1993; Harding 1986; Oleson 2005; Stacey 1991). At the very heart of this debate is the question of who has the right to represent other cultures, either past or present. Anthropological (and archaeological ) pursuits have been closely associated with imperialistic endeavors, particularly due to anthropologists’ historical assumption of the right to interpret non-Western cultures (Clifford 1988:22–23). The exposure of this situation sent the discipline of anthropology headlong into a period “of political upheavals” marked by a “strong reassertion of the alternative discourses . . . of subjugated peoples” (Bond and Gilliam 1994:2). In the wake chapter 3 52 of this crisis, members of formerly disenfranchised groups have claimed the right to set heritage agendas. With knowledge of the destructive legacy of colonial relations, archaeological practitioners have worked to reconfigure their approaches to working with communities of descent, and to determine what methodological tools are most appropriate to this task. Many of the answers are emanating from Indigenous (and other ethnocultural) communities, where research has for many been construed as a “dirty word” associated with oppression, mistrust, and bad memories (Tuhiwai Smith 1999:1). The Indigenous scholarly community has turned to the process of decolonization as a means of transforming perceptions of research and empowering communities who once served as the cultural “other” (Wilson 2004:71). A new, more collaborative environment of research has emerged that is tentative and more respectful. Below I discuss some of the main methodological trends in this discourse, focusing on the development of strategies to decolonize research and attendant methodologies. As a result of the crises of representation and authority, and ongoing interactions with Indigenous and ethnocultural scholars and communities, archaeologists recognize that data can no longer be considered data as they once knew it, nor methods equated with a standard set of excavation and analysis methods. Critique of our professional interactions with cultural others has helped archaeologists to recognize the inherent biases in research practice and product, as well as the need to expand both our approaches to and explanations of human behavior, past and present (Trigger 2006:546). The postmodern movement questions our very methods of knowing the world (Bhattacharya 2008:314). Emerging methodologies recognize that data derives from a variety of sources, each with their own set of positions and biases, but which can be used to address real-world issues in source communities at the same time as gathering more conventional forms of archaeological evidence (Bray 2003; Ferguson 2008; Leone 2010; Moss 2005). Archaeology is witnessing a virtual explosion of methodological approaches , especially in relation to community-based and other alternative archaeologies . The actual processes of engaging with communities and working together with them toward common goals form the subject of many research chapters and handbooks (e.g., Atalay 2012; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Denzin et al. 2008; ITK and NRI 2007; Watkins and Ferguson 2005). But perhaps the most fundamental change for archaeological practice is the shift away from our primary modus operandi, excavation. Many communities see both the land and the resources within it—including heritage sites— as sacred and seek a low-impact approach toward archaeological remains finding middle ground 53 (Lightfoot 2008). This has translated to the increased use of groundpenetrating technologies, returning excavated materials to the ground, developing research designs...