ABSTRACT
Assuming that all knowledge gathered at the archaeological field site has a specific methodology associated with it, the desire to decolonize a practice creates a discourse in which variables include visibility and artifact density to personal bias based on privilege, scientific and cultural imperialism, and, in some cases, racism (Dibble, Raczek, and McPherron 2005; Wobst 2005). Decolonization integrates methodology with social activism and makes relevant the performed identity of those practicing archaeology and those within whose spaces and locales the practice unfolds. An active acknowledgment of identity allows for an investigation of politics and power, based on new models of interaction, social systems, and codes of conduct, rather than a reliance on imperial and colonial models of interaction based on histories of oppression. Relying on older systems of power reflects the scarcity of time and energy required to negotiate and renegotiate our positions of power and privilege when we enter into the field as researchers, and such economies are symptomatic of complacency. Most decisions to maintain and reify power structures are not maliciously intended, but are the byproducts of prioritizing research over inequality, disenfranchisement and, in a callous sense, of prioritizing our research over the present, past, or future of others. . . .
