Epistemic Colonialism at the West Berkeley Shellmound

Clicks: 26
ID: 329259
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #75 of 1,787 articles by views in Oxford University Press eBooks

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,787 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract This chapter illustrates epistemic colonialism in operation through a detailed examination of the legal proceedings surrounding a development proposal that threatened the West Berkeley Shellmound, a sacred and ancestral place of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation in the territory of Huchiun, on the eastern shore of what is now known as San Francisco Bay. Although the city of Berkeley supported Lisjan Nation in court, and despite the well-documented alignment between Indigenous oral scholarship and archaeological scholarship regarding the Shellmound, the US legal system still failed to protect the oldest known sacred place in the East Bay. The author argues that this failure is the result of mutually reinforcing misconceptions of Indigenous heritage in both archaeology and law, which facilitate the destruction of Indigenous heritage through development and evidently persist in practice despite recent developments in state and federal law that are intended in theory to recognize Indigenous testimony. The author focuses particularly on the problematic concept of “archaeological integrity” and its centrality within cultural heritage law. This case study offers an instructive example of how archaeological scholarship can effectively silence Indigenous oral scholarship, despite its irrelevance to Tribal understandings of heritage.
Reference Key
openalex_W7213986296 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Lucy Gill Beyhan
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Oxford University Press eBooks
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197557686.013.0030
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197557686.013.0030
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.