Using Collaborative Archaeology To Bring Overlooked Truths To Light

Professor Matthew Liebmann is a Professor of American Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. His research focuses on North American archaeology, especially the history and archaeology of indigenous people in the Southwestern U.S. What drew me to his research is the practice of collaborative archaeology, working closely with indigenous communities to ensure that the research reflects their perspectives. He has conducted collaborative research with the Pueblo of Jemez, a federally recognized indigenous tribe located in New Mexico, to shed light on how Native communities responded to Spanish colonization in the 16^th-18th centuries. His book, “An Archaeological History of Pueblo Resistance and Revitalization in 17th Century New Mexico,” analyzes the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, the most renowned colonial uprisings in the history of the American Southwest.

In his book, Prof. Liebmann explores the Pueblo uprising and its aftermath through analyzing ceramics, architecture, and rock art of the Pueblo Revolt era. I sat down with him to learn about the field of indigenous archaeology and collaborative archaeology, and his next project.

V: How did studying architecture, ceramics, and rock art give a clearer picture of the Pueblo revolt efforts?

Prof. Liebmann: Before archaeological work on this period, the only sources we had were written records of the revolt, which largely reflect the Spanish perspective, especially up to 1680 and then again when the Spanish returned in the early 1690s. My work, building on that of previous researchers and my advisor Bob Preucel at Brown University, uses material culture to fill in those gaps and better understand what was happening in the Pueblo world after the Spanish left, as well as during the battles for reconquest.

Most of my work is non-invasive, in collaboration with the tribe, which requested that sites not be disturbed and remain as they were at the start of the study. I work in a relatively recent archaeological period and in an area where remains are highly visible, which allows me to conduct mapping and architectural analysis, collect pottery from the surface, and study rock art and imagery. I did not set out to focus on any one type of evidence, such as architecture or pottery, but instead worked with the materials available that could support the analysis.

V: That’s helpful context. Why do we have to dig so much deeper to find the unbiased truth about resistance to conquest?

Prof. Liebmann: Anytime we use terms like “unbiased” or “truth,” they can be a bit loaded, because they assume we have all the right answers and that others were wrong. Over the past 50 years, there has been a growing understanding that all history comes from a particular perspective. When we are limited to data produced by colonial powers, it becomes difficult to create a less biased account.

The phrase “history is written by the winners” is often used. While that may be somewhat oversimplified, it reflects the idea that records are produced by those in power. They record not only what they saw and experienced, but also what they want others to see and hear.

Archaeology is valuable because it focuses on the materials of everyday life. Instead of relying only on monuments that celebrate victories, it looks at things like the objects people discarded. Archaeologists often say that garbage does not lie, which is mostly true. At the same time, garbage does not speak for itself. It requires interpretation, and it can be difficult to determine what it is saying.

As a result, archaeology involves a great deal of work, often in uncomfortable conditions, to extract meaning from materials that may not seem significant at first. It takes patience and effort to understand how information that has long been overlooked can help explain these past time periods.

V: So, garbage is, like, the rawest form of truth.

Prof. Liebmann: It is hard to lie with your garbage, but you still have to be careful. For example, in colonial sites, especially in New England, archaeologists often find many alcohol bottles. That usually indicates that alcohol was being consumed, which is true, but those bottles could also have been reused for other purposes after the alcohol was gone. So, finding a beer bottle does not necessarily mean people were drinking heavily. It does show that someone drank beer at some point, but the bottle may have ended up in the ground after being used for other things.

The reverse can also be true. In places like Boston, archaeologists often find glass bottles that were marketed as medicines in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. People consumed them for supposed ailments, but many of these products had high alcohol content. This allowed people to consume alcohol without openly acknowledging it.

These examples show that there is no single, straightforward interpretation of material culture. You have to carefully consider context, along with other findings and historical records, to build the most complete understanding of the past.

V: Very true.  Let’s talk about your role as the former Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) Program Director. Can you share more about the impact a specific repatriation had?

Prof. Liebmann: I began working with the Jemez Pueblo tribe shortly after they carried out what was, and likely still is, the largest repatriation of human remains on record. About 2,000 of their ancestors, who had been excavated from the Pueblo of Pecos and held at Harvard University, were returned. This happened before I worked at Harvard, but over the years, tribal members have told me that the ground at Pecos felt different once their ancestors came home. They described a shift in how the place felt and what it meant to them.

Members of the community continue to return to Pecos each year to honor their ancestors. The return of those ancestors seems to have brought a sense of closure that allows present-day tribal members to experience Pecos National Historical Park differently.

I am careful not to speak on behalf of the tribe, as they are best positioned to express their own perspectives. However, in my work with them, I have observed that each return, whether of artifacts or human remains, has been accompanied by a strong sense of healing and closure that is deeply appreciated by the community.

V: That is so nice! Even though the colonial era has ended, what kinds of colonialist ideologies remain, and how do they weaken the voices of communities?

Prof. Liebmann: The colonial era may have ended for Euro-Americans who think of it as rule from across the Atlantic, but for Native Americans, colonialism continues today. Many live on reservations that were created within a larger colonial system, while others live in urban or off-reservation settings. Even so, Indigenous nations do not have the same level of sovereignty they held before the United States was established and before European colonization began. So, it is difficult to say that colonialism is over.

There is now greater acknowledgment of Native sovereignty, and Indigenous communities continue to assert and reestablish that sovereignty. At times, the U.S. government recognizes these claims, and at other times it does not. Anthropology, however, developed during a period when Native sovereignty was largely not acknowledged. As a result, many archaeological and anthropological practices were shaped by colonial and paternalistic attitudes toward Indigenous peoples. This legacy is something anthropology is still dealing with and will continue to deal with.

One way to address this legacy is to recognize the sovereignty of Native nations and move away from treating archaeologists as the sole stewards of the archaeological record. Instead, it is important to acknowledge the interests and claims of heritage stakeholders and to work with them throughout the entire research process, from project design to interpretation and presentation.

This approach produces better archaeology. It introduces new questions and new lines of data that might not be considered if archaeologists were working in isolation. Archaeology has made progress in this direction, and many archaeologists, especially younger ones, want to do more collaboration. At the same time, it is important to recognize that descendant communities may be skeptical because of the history of the past 150 years.

V: I had not thought of colonialism this way, so thanks for sharing.

Prof. Liebmann:  It is a matter of perspective. If you think of colonialism as one group ruling over and controlling another group, there are people in the United States today who feel that they are still being ruled over.

V:  Your response connects to my next question. How can we shift away from colonial practices? For example, you perform collaborative archaeology and work with communities to ensure they have a say in what you search for.

Prof. Liebmann:  It starts with acknowledging the value of doing this kind of work. For a long time, some archaeologists did not see that value and viewed collaboration as a hindrance or a hurdle. So, the first step is recognizing what comes out of these relationships.

When you begin to engage in collaborative work, you start to see questions you were not asking before. Other people view the past differently and have their own needs, interests, and questions, which can lead archaeologists to approach research in new ways. For a long time, archaeologists were hesitant to do this kind of work. In the U.S., especially from the 1960s through the 1980s, there was a strong emphasis on being unbiased, which was often interpreted as not being influenced by outside perspectives. Many researchers worried that collaborating with specific communities would negatively affect their work.

Starting in the late 1980s, and gaining momentum in the 1990s and early 2000s, attitudes began to shift as people recognized the benefits of collaboration. In many cases, this shift was also driven by legal requirements. The passage of NAGPRA required archaeologists to engage with Native communities, and through that process, many began to see the real advantages of incorporating Indigenous perspectives.

This also contributed to the growth of Indigenous archaeologists in the field. While there is still a need for more representation, it is a positive trend that continues to develop and is important for the future of archaeology.

V: Yes, and I'm sure that they know their land the best.

Prof. Liebmann: Exactly!  Very much so.

V: What projects are you working on at the moment? 

Prof. Liebmann: At the moment, I am writing a book that examines what archaeology can tell us about the history of colonial America, especially the earliest interactions between Europeans and Native Americans. I am focusing on how archaeology demonstrates the value of the discipline and how it can offer a different perspective on the past, one that you do not get from reading historical documents alone. Historical documents still play a major role, but I am exploring how our understanding of the past changes when archaeological data is brought into the discussion.

V: That's super cool.

Prof. Liebmann: I hope so. It is a lot of work, and I am still in the early stages, but it is growing out of a class I teach at Harvard called American Invasions. The course focuses on what was once called the contact period, specifically the archaeology of that period in North America, from the early 1500s through the early 1800s.

V: Very interesting! My last question is what got you interested in the field of archaeology?

Prof. Liebmann: I got into archaeology as an undergraduate at Boston College. I was a sophomore and did not know what I wanted to major in, so I was assigned a random advisor who happened to be an archaeologist. We got along very well, and he asked if I wanted to go on a dig. I went on my first dig during the summer between my junior and senior years, and that was my introduction to archaeology.

After college, I went to work on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where I taught high school. I decided I wanted to bring those two experiences together. I was then accepted at the University of Pennsylvania, where Bob Preucel was my mentor and advisor. He introduced me to New Mexico and to working with the Pueblos, and that is how I ended up where I am today.

V: Wow! So, it just kind of happened. 

Prof. Liebmann: Yeah, there was a lot of serendipity. I often say that many people in archaeology, who kind of like yourself, have known from a young age that they wanted to do it. Some even have drawings from when they were eight years old saying they wanted to be archaeologists, and they usually get involved early, often in high school. That is probably more the norm than my experience. I kind of fell into it and, by comparison, got into it fairly late compared to others, but it all worked out in the end.

V: It did! Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it.