Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECOLONIZING
ARCHAEOLOGY:
UZMA Z.
RIZVI
ON THE
GLOBAL
HERITAGE
OF
EPISTEMIC
LAZINESS
154 155
TWO DAYS AFTER FOREVER UZMA Z. RIZVI
156 157
TWO DAYS AFTER FOREVER UZMA Z. RIZVI
be generated within very few, narrowly defined, acceptable As archaeologists, we have inherited colonial standpoints of
formats. There is value in thinking of that promiscuity as a ignorance, and they manifest as contemporary social position-
move to create transversal dialogs rather than universalizing ing or, bluntly, neocolonialism. Such positioning impacts the
discourses. It is only then that we might be able to identify manner in which archaeology is practiced globally: it is deeply
something amiss on the level of our first assumptions as colonial on every level of knowledge construction around the
problematic. There is something more that needs to be uncov- world. As a discipline it behooves us to think through that
ered, and not uncovering it, or at least attempting to do so, is impact. Archaeology may argue that the construction of these
in some capacity just lazy. knowledges was already in place. That may be; but it is through
It is not really a problem in general if one chooses to be our participation that they are activated. Participation in this
epistemically lazy; an issue only emerges if that same “one” sense may be in the form of acting within those systems, or
chooses to do so and continues to create knowledge. If you failing to act against them.7 Relying on older systems of power
are choosing to take on the responsibility of creating systems reflects the scarcity of time and energy required to negotiate
of knowledge, then it becomes an ethical obligation to think and renegotiate our positions of power and privilege when we
through epistemic laziness—because otherwise you are know- enter into the field as researchers, and such economies are
ingly sustaining a system that privileges you, as a knowledge symptomatic of complacency. Most decisions to maintain and
producer, over all others.5 “There is not needing to know and reify power structures are not maliciously intended, but they
there is needing not to know,” a careful distinction drawn in are the byproducts of prioritizing research over inequality and
an argument presented by José Medina, in which that precise disenfranchisement, and, in a callous sense, of prioritizing our
distinction categorizes liberal strategies with respect to racial research over the present, past, or future of others.
and sexual difference within America, in particular when it This leaves me in a predicament in which I
comes to ideologies of color-blindness and gender-blindness— recognize that there is a system of knowledge now
these epistemically lazy positions are predicated on being that is unjust because it was a system of knowl-
actively and proudly ignorant of social positionality.6 If one edge, i.e., archaeology, created within a colonial
were aware of the social context of their action they may not time period. But now that I have recognized the
enact it in a particular manner. For system as unjust, is that not enough to decolo-
example, if I said that the way you nize it? Decolonizing the system works in some
interpret an archaeological site is measure, but it does not take into account how
systematically hindering the abil- we build that knowledge. Our epistemic heritage
ity for a specific community to live is predicated upon our relationships with archae-
there, then perhaps you would not ological artifacts.
do it. However, if you maintain that And so we shift from a discussion of episteme
stance, then you should be open to to a critical investigation of not only how we build
ethical and moral scrutiny. Particu- knowledge systems, but also with what materials
larly, I would argue, if you do so in we build them. What role do these artifacts
the name of nation-building. play when, in the act of collection, in the act of
158 159
TWO DAYS AFTER FOREVER UZMA Z. RIZVI
producing them as data, we have already been rendered mute argue is distinct from recognizing their subjectivity—but also
in order to ask them to convey to us what the “facts” of the somehow constructed them as more than human, because, as
past are. I consider and call this an epistemic injustice double we all know, we humans do lie and do forget.11
bind—one that simultaneously and systemically blocks us The rhetoric within archaeology continues to proffer us as
from understanding or decoding ourselves, and one that inten- stewards of the past, and thus we as archaeologists are called
tionally clouds past meanings of things through a silencing upon to interpret, advocate, and speak on behalf of things.
so that even our contemporary entanglement with them is Assuming that all knowledge gathered at the archaeological
effectively orchestrated. And yet, archaeologists are often field site has a specific methodology associated with it, the
placed in positions of translation for these ancient objects. It desire to decolonize a practice creates a discourse in which
is through us that they speak. This paradox is most apparent variables include visibility and artifact density to personal bias
when contending with things on trial, or utilized for witness based on privilege, scientific and cultural imperialism, and, in
testimony, as forensic evidence often is. some cases, racism. What made Mengele’s skull such a fascinat-
Foregrounding the development of a forensic aesthetic ing case study is that it became clear that, like archaeological
through a discussion of the Nuremberg trials and the hunt evidence, there was something deep and buried that had to
for Josef Mengele’s body, Thomas Keenan and Eyal Weizman be uncovered and then brought to trial. We assume factual
bring attention to the “aesthetic, political and ethical com- legitimacy of the materials collected underground, as if their
plications” that emerge with the introduction of the object, buriedness, their inaccessibility, renders them truthful. And
specifically, Mengele’s remains within the context of a trial.8 for the first time, when thinking of the various other forms
Mengele’s body was discovered in 1985 of testimony in the Nuremberg trials as being considered
in Brazil. The use of forensics in identi- equal—the document, the witness, and the subject/object—it
fyingMengele’s skull established a third occurred to me that as the witness may forget, as the docu-
form of testimony in addition to that of ment/archive may be subjective, so too may the object lie; or
the document and the witness and that in more kind light, it may change its color from tan to yellow
was the testimony of forensics. “In the brown, altering interpretation. The moment the object that I
period coinciding with the discovery have been structured to believe in as always being truthful is
of Mengele’s skull, scientists began to not, it opens up a new space of inquiry. This space was not
appear in human rights cases as expert created to prove that objects lie, but to provide a different
witnesses, called to interpret and speak possibility for them to exist ontologically … and thus, resist.
on behalf of things.”9 This is not a sur- And as that space of inquiry continued to expand, it meant
prising move, as forensic anthropologist that not only could objects resist, but that when confronted
Clyde Snow has said, “Bones make good with hegemonic powers, they may also actually be silenced.
witness. Although they speak softly, they And this is where I want us to pause, at the thought that the
never lie and they never forget.”10 Snow artifacts have been silenced through the encounter with a
has, in such a quote, not only anthromor- colonial impulse to categorize them into ways of being that
phized human remains—which I would are static.
160 161
TWO DAYS AFTER FOREVER UZMA Z. RIZVI
9 Ibid., 13.
162 163