Decolonizing Anthropology: Paleoanthropology within the realms of sex, gender, and race
Information on our earliest ancestors is information that we grew on and learned in school or even a museum trip. As children, we do not stop and think about where this information came from or how biased it is. Proving that the first modern human came from Africa or Asia is a hard feat in itself. Discovering this information could potentially harm existing people even though we are dealing with early humans who lived thousands of years ago. How so? Anthropologist and scientist whenever social sciences was a reasonably new field, wanted to find out when humans turned from savages to what they became. Proving that they are a superior race or class because they were educated and had a different way of life. They made the Africans out to be "others." They would even compare the Asian H. erectus to the European H. neanderthalensis and their connection to the H. sapien. They were biased in their point of view and did not see their lens from the people they were damaging. Discovering the origin of either will only portray the Africans as primitive and more evolved than their European counterparts (Athreya and Ackermann 2018).
Other studies were way more intrusive, so living people. People categorized as indigenous were studied like animals as they were seen to be primitive in both physical and ethnographic methods (Athreya and Ackermann 2018). Even as far as having "humans zoos" to showcase the "others." Primarily if their way of life centered around hunting and gathering people, researchers thought that they were the missing link. This is the reality of anthropology and other sciences looking to uncover the evolution of modern humans. There was little to no representation of indigenous people back then because they were considered biased because it is their culture or people. Finding the answer to the question of who was first is also a bias, especially with people being divided by their ideas of race. These damages and dehumanizes humans who are not white and continue to fit the idea that a race is superior. A representation is needed! I know that as well, especially in the field that I would like to study. It broadens the scope and makes way for new ideas and unbiased ones as well that are inclusive.
Indigenous archaeologist at work!
Gender is as important to talk about as race. Feminist ideologies and representation are critical, especially when they are not portrayed in a field like archaeology. Black women are among the most underrepresented people because they are both black and women. Their contributions can be very fulfilling. Their representation can lead to more women going into a field like paleoarchaeology. Many non-white archaeologists are seen as local archaeologists and are believed not to have an impact. They can find answers to questions that also involve women and their oppression and ways to relive the oppression, and this can lead to many more questions and interpretations as an anthropologist and archaeologist (Sterling 2015).
Athreya, S., & Ackermann,
R. R. (2018). Colonialism and Narratives of Human Origins in Asia and Africa.
Sterling, K. (2015). Black
Feminist Theory in Prehistory. Archaeologies, 11(1), 93–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-015-9265-z
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here Edgar. It is interest to think about how museums affect our interpretation. For example, art made by indigenous people of North America is often found in "Natural History" museums, while art of the same age made by Europeans is in art museums. This is changing, but it does show how the way in which something is shown can influence us. Academia itself is very colonial in its nature and archaeology has often been pointed to as being by definition extractive (especially in the past, with the looting of sites and putting the artifacts into collection/museums).
ReplyDeleteI wonder what else we can do? Primatologists have been focusing more on incorporating local researchers and making sure to give back to the local community (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326817841_Ethics_of_Primate_Fieldwork_Toward_an_Ethically_Engaged_Primatology)
Thanks for the reply! Yes I know as a kid interpretations of so called “cave men” have been mostly depictions of Neanderthals. The Smithsonian is a good example of showing a better depiction including different species and information about them without saying where the first modern human came from. I have also noticed reading scientific papers on lemurs I have seen authors from Madagascar as they want to also be included in saving the place they call home.
DeleteYou talk about how typically hunter-gatherer living groups were the subjects of research/human zoos/etc, and it made me think about how the researchers were more similar to their subjects than they thought. They were sort of hunters and gatherers of these people and their cultures.
ReplyDeleteThat makes a good point, a different interpretation of it, though, but in some way, we are all still the same as early humans just in a different and in a more modern style. But yes technically they hunted the "others" who were not like them and used them as a prize. Some would hunt down a tiger as a prize as they were seen as animals and to them as "primitive," a word used in colonization.
Delete