Indigenous Knowledge

This paper presents the results of a consensus-driven process identifying 50 priority research questions for historical ecology obtained through crowdsourcing, literature reviews, and in-person workshopping. A deliberative approach was designed to maximize discussion and debate with defined outcomes. Two in-person workshops (in Sweden and Canada) over the course of two years and online discussions were peer facilitated to define specific key questions for historical ecology from anthropological and archaeological perspectives. The aim of this research is to showcase the variety of questions that reflect the broad scope for historical-ecological research trajectories across scientific disciplines. Historical ecology encompasses research concerned with decadal, centennial, and millennial human-environmental interactions, and the consequences that those relationships have in the formation of contemporary landscapes. Six interrelated themes arose from our consensus-building workshop model: (1) climate and environmental change and variability; (2) multi-scalar, multidisciplinary ; (3) biodiversity and community ecology; (4) resource and environmental management and governance; (5) methods and applications; and (6) communication and

There is increasing recognition of the significance of how traditional knowledges (TKs) can inform our understanding of the impacts of climate change and strategies for adaptation and mitigation. And yet there are potential risks to indigenous peoples in sharing TKs in federal and other non-indigenous climate change initiatives. We intend the term indigenous peoples to designate the diverse populations in the U.S. who could interact with federal and non-indigenous climate change initiatives in ways that involve TKs, whether in the U.S. they are federally-recognized, state-recognized, or unrecognized. We refer to “indigenous peoples” and “tribes” interchangeably in this document, unless we are talking about a specific group or a specific status related to recognition. These guidelines are intended to examine the significance of TKs in relation to climate change and the potential risks to indigenous peoples in the U.S. for sharing TKs in federal and other non-indigenous climate change initiatives. Although it is common to refer to "traditional knowledge(s)" as individual pieces of information, this term also refers to traditional “knowledge systems" that are deeply embedded in indigenous ways of life. These guidelines use the phrase "traditional knowledges" deliberately in plural form because knowledges are emergent from the symbiotic relationship of indigenous peoples and places - a nature-culture nexus. Tribes and indigenous peoples use “knowledges” to emphasize that there are diverse forms of traditional knowledge and knowledge systems that must be recognized as unique to each tribe and knowledge holder. These guidelines should be used to inform the development of specific protocols in direct and close consultation with indigenous peoples. [http://climatetkw.wordpress.com/] Federal agencies and national climate change initiatives are recognizing the significance of TKs, and are proposing and funding collaborative efforts between indigenous communities and federal and non-indigenous climate change entities in ways that involve TKs. This interaction requires an understanding of how individual tribes and knowledge holders choose to share or not to share TKs.

Worldwide, environmental conservation directives are mandating greater inclusion of Indigenous people and their knowledge in the management of global ecosystems. Colonised countries such as the United States of America, New Zealand and Australia have responded with an array of policy and programs to enhance Indigenous involvement; however, balancing Indigenous and non-Indigenous priorities and preferred management methods is a substantial challenge. Using Australia as a case study, we investigate past documentation and use of Indigenous biocultural knowledge (IBK) and assess the main contributions to ecosystem science and management. Focussing on the terrestrial environment, this innovative paper presents an integrated review of IBK documentation (IBKD) by conducting a spatial, temporal and content analysis of the publically available literature. A spatial analysis of the place-based documents identified Australian IBKD hotspots, gaps and opportunities for further collaboration. Sixty percent of IBKD has occurred off the Indigenous estate with only 19% of the total coinciding with current Indigenous Protected Areas. We also found that IBKD hotspots were different to Australia’s biodiversity hotspots suggesting opportunity for development of integrated biological and cultural hotspots. A temporal analysis of IBKD showed exponential growth since the 1970s and typical involvement of non-Indigenous researchers. Indigenous authorship remained negligible until the 1990s when there was an obvious increase, although only 14% of IBKD to date has acknowledged Indigenous authorship. Working through Australia’s broad biological conservation priorities, we demonstrate how IBK has and can be used to inform research and management of biodiversity, threatened species, aquatic ecosystems, fire, invasive species, and climate change. We also synthesise documented suggestions for overcoming cross-cultural awareness and communication challenges between Indigenous people and biologists, environmental managers and policy makers. Lastly, we suggest that inclusion of both tangible and philosophical engagement of Indigenous people in national conservation agendas may promote more holistic socio-ecological systems thinking and facilitate greater progress towards addressing the Indigenous engagement directive of international conservation agreements.

Indigenous and sustainability sciences have much to offer one another regarding the identification of techniques and methods for sustaining resilient landscapes. Based upon the literature, and our finding, it is evident that some Indigenous peoples have maintained distinct systematic, localized, and place-based environmental knowledge over extended time periods. These long-resident knowledge systems contain extensive information regarding not only how to maintain but also to steward biodiverse ecosystems. We believe these kinds of Indigenous observations and perspectives are critical for establishing or expanding collaborations with sustainability scientists.

Free offprint here: http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/PJJKT9PC9FTFYDEDDSKW/full/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011435

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, Munn (1992) argued that anthropology had neglected the future as a temporal focus. This concern continues to be echoed by anthropologists, even as a review of post-Cold War anthropology reveals that the future has become a recurrent, dominant temporality in the field. Reviewing texts from the past quarter-century that provide a diagnostic at the intersection of the anthropology of futurity and the future of anthropology, we argue that the urgency for an anthropology of the future --and concern over its neglect-- presumes some continuity prior to the challenges of an uncertain "now" under constant transformation and, simultaneously, a desire for a common and open future world. Deriving this insight from the work of Black and Indigenous scholars, we suggest that an anthropology attuned to futures is most fruitful when it foregrounds decolonizing perspectives on commonality, continuity, and openness and problematizes them as the implicit grounds of anthropological futurity.