VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 3
ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE AN EDITORIAL ESSAY
Alexander von Gernet
The new editor of Ontario Archaeology is fieldwork. I concur with the feelings of identifies archaeology as a form of written Daniel Wilson, a learned forebear who said discourse and outlines the three main func- that "to confine our studies to mere antiquities tions of the journal. The manner in which the is like reading by candle-light at noonday" personalities and ideologies of researchers (quoted in Wylie 1985:63). Moreover, I am in influence the adjudication and legitimation of accord with those who see archaeology as an knowledge is explored. Examples of deficien- intellectual labour (Shanks and Tilley 1988: cies in the use of documentary evidence are 186) and who appreciate that theories of cited to illustrate weaknesses in archaeologi- knowledge are as much a part of archaeo- cal writing. It is argued that a focus on schol- logical research as are field survey methods arship is essential if archaeologists are to and excavation procedures (Gibbon 1989:6-7). justify demarcating their discourse from The fact that someone who spends more time competing constructions of the past and with books than with pots has been appointed ensure that their labours have a lasting social editor of this journal suggests a growing value. It is concluded that the research com- awareness that there is more to archaeology munity has a collective responsibility to up- than soiling the knees in a one-metre square. hold the highest possible standards without Many Ontario archaeologists in my aca- limiting the diversity of approaches and demic generation studied at McGill under ideas. Bruce Trigger a scholar who has not under- taken fieldwork in decades but who has As a graduate student during the mid- produced a staggering list of internationally 1980s, I narrowly escaped being pigeonholed acclaimed contributions to archaeology. This into one of Kent Flannery s (1982) three cari- should not be surprising since, etymologically, catures of archaeologists: Old Timer of the the term "archaeology" refers not to the ex- Fifties, Born Again Philosopher of the Sixties, humation and scrutiny of material culture, but or ambitious Child of the Seventies. While to discoursing about ancient matters. Con- exemplary representatives of all three could sider this simple syllogism: if archaeology is still be found in the penultimate decade of the a science (MacNeish 1978; Watson et al. twentieth century, it was becoming increas- 1984), if science is a branch of literature ingly difficult to categorise my academic (Popper 1972:185), and if literature is a body generation, beyond the hackneyed dichotomy of writing on a subject (English 101), then between "processualists" and "postprocessual- archaeology is the production of texts. Hence, ists." To this day, were it not for the trace a journal is not merely the final phase in a amounts of glacial till which accumulate linear chain of information processing (Gar- under my nails for several weeks per annum, din 1980:5-6), but is in a sense the embodi- I might not be deemed an archaeologist of ment of a discipline. In short, Ontario Archae- any ilk or era. This is not because I have an ology is archaeology in Ontario, as are, of aversion to the adversities of the field. Al- course, Arch Notes, The Annual Archaeo- though recent seasons have seen me in the logical Report, Kewa, a number of Bulletins rocky and mosquito-infested bush of the and Occasional Publications, as well as other Canadian Shield, I continue to agree with serials, monographs and books. Paul Bahn (1989:8) that excavating is the most With this in mind, it becomes reasonable to fun you can have with your pants on. How- surmise that, should some calamitous legal, ever, I remain unconvinced that archaeology socio-political, or economic transformation 4 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994 suddenly precipitate a suspension of all files of individual contemporaries, will be fieldwork, archaeology would continue in the readily accessible to future researchers. For province and might even undergo a tempor- a time, every written contribution rests in ary fluorescence as excavators turn their short-term memory. However, unless it is a attention to the neglected task of analyzing work of Aristotelian or Darwinian influence, it and describing extant collections, revisiting eventually moves into a kind of long-term long-held axioms, and publishing fresh ideas memory. As Jean-Claude Guedon (1993:4) on old questions. That most of us have been notes, "the process of constructing long-term guilty of letting the digging outstrip the writing memory is of course principally a process of is evidenced by the oft-expressed lament that massive collective forgetting, though the vital evidence is cached in a secluded base- process can be reversed and items can be ment or among the folds of a colleague s grey unforgotten by dint of the scholarly work of matter, as well as by the plethora of referen- exhumation of items which have been neglec- ces to "personal communication." Even if a ted for decades or centuries." prohibition on fieldwork became permanent, Exhumation is a procedure especially we ran out of sites, and the writing caught up familiar to archaeologists. All agree that it with the excavating, archaeology would not would have been a great deal easier (albeit cease. Historians demonstrated long ago that not as stimulating) if past peoples had emp- new insights into past cultures are not depen- loyed shamanic prognostication to anticipate dent on new sources of "raw" data. our curiosity, had left maps, and had sent their garbage to a common repository for immediate cataloguing with pictographic THE FUNCTIONS OF ONTARIO Borden designations. If the failure of prehis- toric forecasting has led to the incon- ARCHAEOLOGY veniences of fieldwork, graduates of the burgeoning discipline of library sciences have, through ingenious classificatory and This journal has the three main functions indexing systems, made the exhumation of shared by all learned volumes: publication, items from our own culture s long-term mem- archiving, and legitimation as knowledge ory much easier that is, if the items have (Guedon 1993:4). been submitted and accepted for archiving in To publish is little more than to make the first place. publicly known. Since the photocopier, fax, Theoretically, a journal need only archive a computer disk, and electronic mail have single copy in a lending institution; the inter- greatly facilitated the informal dissemination library loan system ensures that it will event- of written ideas, a significant number of ually reach those who have a need to consult manuscripts are de facto publications. A it. In practice, libraries are interested in good example is the paper on Huron sweat maintaining their own comprehensive hold- baths originally presented by Allen Tyyska at ings, thereby reducing the number of steps the 1972 Annual Meeting of the Canadian required to access information. The archiving Archaeological Association and informally function of OA is fulfilled by the more than circulated thereafter. Tyyska s contribution 100 libraries and other facilities which have was "published" so widely that, more than a institutional membership in the Ontario Arch- decade later, other researchers continued to aeological Society. While some scientific offer summaries and critiques of his principal journals, particularly those which are despair- arguments (e.g., Finlayson 1985:409-410; ingly esoteric or outrageously expensive, are MacDonald 1988:18-19). If a photocopied obtained and held by very few institutions, a typescript can be disseminated and debated newsletter like Arch Notes, which has suc- in a research community as effectively as an cessfully piggy-backed on the same subscrip- article in a learned journal, then publication tion as its learned parent, may be retrieved in cannot be the raison d etre of OA. a number of research libraries. Hence, there Although some manuscripts appear to have is no strong link between academic status a lengthy endurance, it is doubtful that and accessibility. Moreover, as attested by Tyyska s paper, which remains in the private VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 5
Paul Sweetman s (1993:10) complaint that his salient deficiencies in adjudication and, early archaeological work is now ignored, a hence, serve as instructive cautionary tales. I wide circulation does not mean that a paper restrict my commentary to clues found in the will escape neglect; but it does virtually guar- library, although the little I know of the inter- antee that, should the need and curiosity nal politics of Ontario archaeology has per- arise, the contribution will be readily unforgot- suaded me that much more interesting cases ten. could be plucked from the oral grapevine. The third function of a learned journal, legitimation as knowledge, is the most com- plex. From the outset it must be recognized PERSONALITY that this function is not necessarily linked to archiving. Tyyska s conference paper, by virtue of being widely discussed in the secon- Every small community of researchers dary literature, attained a measure of legit- struggles with the tension between a need for imacy that surpassed certain OA volumes criticism, vital to any healthy science, and a which continue to sport mint covers from desire to preserve friendly, collegial relations disuse. Nevertheless, archived materials are with co-workers. While both may be desir- much more likely to become part of establish- able, one is often sacrificed for the other and ed "knowledge." Since the library of Alex- occasionally both are lost. Human personality andria said to have contained the total and temperament not only impact on the aggregate of ancient knowledge has no ability of a research community to adjudicate modern representative, what constitutes the writing of an individual, but also affect the knowledge is now determined by selection. A ability of an individual to graciously accept recent study of literature loss in anthropology the opinions of peers. has demonstrated that 40 percent of the total Thomas E. Lee had such profound frustra- published output in the discipline is not held tions with the Establishment that he launched in any of the 70 American institutions compris- and edited his own private organ under the ing the Association of Research Libraries imposing title of Anthropological Journal of (Schwartz 1992:316). By using acquisitions Canada. This serial not only functioned as an policies to select specific serials and books outlet for peripheral writers, such as the from the ever-expanding pool of publications, hyper-diffusionist George Carter (Williams these libraries are indirectly involved in legit- 1991:277), but also emancipated Lee from the imation. strictures of peer assessment, allowing him to The libraries certainly play a part, but most set out on a 20-year crusade to try to salvage legitimation occurs either before a contribu- his reputation and discredit his mainstream tion goes to press or after it has already been detractors. In one memorable book review, archived. To legitimate is to authorize or for instance, he proclaimed that, while he had sanction through authoritative declaration. In only skimmed through J. V. Wright s (1972) academia this usually takes the form of pre- Ontario Prehistory ("subscribing as I do to the publication peer assessment and/or post- view that it is not necessary to eat all of an publication reviews, commentaries, and other egg to discover that it is rotten" ), he felt com- responses. It is essentially the adjudication of pelled to suggest that "little credit will accrue a written work by knowledgable readers. to the Queen s Printer, to the National Mus- Although this has an enormous impact on the eum, or to the Government at large in pub- production of knowledge, and on how the lishing at public expense what I, as a long- mainstream is distinguished from the fringe, experienced archaeologist, regard as un- we seldom consider it in any detail; now that adulterated garbage " (Lee 1973:26). an introspective and hermeneutic archaeol- A stimulus for Lee s cacophonous invective ogy is re-examining its own presentation and was the apparent refusal of the Establishment not only the "facts" about the past, it is time to accept a pre-Clovis date for the earliest we do. At the risk of sounding moralistic, I will components of the Sheguiandah site on cite specific examples from archaeological Manitoulin Island. In the 1950s this extraordi- discourse in Ontario which I believe illustrate nary excavation had received national atten- 6 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994 tion and the personal support of Lester Pear- book blasted by Lee, conceded that humans son, President of the UN General Assembly. had likely reached North America at least All was well until Lee began alluding to art- 30,000 years ago. I doubt that parochial ifacts recovered deep beneath glacial till and philosophies and academic prejudices, such offering estimates of 30,000 years B.P. It was as those which precluded recognition of not long before interest waned, and for the Ontario Paleoindians in the 1930s (Jackson et next three decades Sheguiandah was to al. 1987:15-17), account for the rejection of the become one of Ontario s most neglected early dates for Sheguiandah. major sites (Jackson and McKillop 1987:10-14). Lee s unorthodox response to failing his Lee s competence as an archaeologist does doctoral examination in anthropology at the not seem to have been a major issue. His University of Michigan likely set the stage for most comprehensive published report on his infamy in subsequent years (Lee 1980:28). Sheguiandah, while by no means exhaustive, Early strife with Establishment archaeologist includes detailed artifact descriptions, strati- James B. Griffin persisted into the 1980s when graphic charts, profiles, site plans, pollen Lee invited readers to judge Griffin by looking records, line drawings, photographs, as well up his surname in Webster s dictionary (Lee as a lengthy discussion of site formation 1980:29). One need only peruse the pages of processes (Lee 1957). Apparently, he was no the Anthropological Journal of Canada to slouch in the field and was not altogether recognize that Lee s personality probably remiss in publishing his findings. Nor did his played a part in his ostracism. It certainly initial speculations smack of dogma or interfered with his own ability to objectively haughtiness. On the contrary, Lee (1957:117, assess the opinions of archaeologists who 123) actively sought and received the advice disagreed with him. of numerous scientists in a spirit of inter- Despite the personality conflicts, Lee was disciplinary research that remained unsur- never entirely ignored and his contem- passed until W. Roosa s work two decades poraries continued to list him among the later (Noble 1982:174). major contributors to Ontario and Canadian So what led to the snub of Lee s con- archaeology (Noble 1973:66; Wright 1985:426). clusions on the antiquity of Sheguiandah? In In fact, his 1957 publication is on the "sug- later life, he tended to present himself as an gested reading list" found in the same Estab- embattled maverick whose brilliant insights lishment book he saw fit to deem rubbish on various archaeological matters had been (Wright 1972:115). This raises an interesting spurned for political reasons by jealous question about the process of selective legit- Moguls mired in immutable paradigms (Lee imation. At no time was it made absolutely 1980). Perhaps the Clovis hypothesis had clear why Lee s report on Sheguiandah could become such a paradigm. While Lee may serve as evidence for the Paleoindian (Plano) have accepted a realist view of science, the and Archaic periods (Wright 1972:17, 115), but Establishment may have adopted the type of not as evidence for a pre-Clovis occupation. extreme empirical scepticism that demands In my opinion, this has served the interests of unequivocal proof. Debates on early man in neither science nor the general public. The the New World are not always about data. illegitimation of a published interpretation by After all, some mainstream researchers have an author whose work has otherwise been recently accepted a pre-Clovis migration and legitimated as "suggested reading " cannot be colonization of the Americas simply by modi- accomplished orally behind the scenes, but fying their philosophy of science (Whitley and only through a corpus of archived peer re- Dorn 1993:641-642). On the other hand, Wright sponse. (1985:426) recalls that archaeology in the In the intervening years, Lee s persistence 1950s and 1960s "was not particularly bur- has not been met with a Copernican vindica- dened with doctrinaire constraints. " Such tion. Indeed, long after his death, a new statements must always be read with some generation of scholars has identified She- scepticism, but it is important to recognize guiandah as a Late Paleoindian site (Storck that Establishment views did change with new 1984:21), and has continued to relegate Lee s discoveries. Wright (1972:13), in the same interpretations to a minor footnote in the VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 7 prehistory of the Province (Ellis and Deller as it is sometimes known, was partially buried 1990:37). Now that researchers have revisited in the 1960s and 1970s when the New Archeo- the site, substantive archaeological and logy adopted middle-range theory and the geological justifications for this are finally systemic concept of culture, although the beginning to emerge. Nevertheless, Jackson funeral was postponed until recent develop- and McKillop (1987:14) remind us that the ments in cognitive archaeology (Whitley 1992). decades of neglect reflect badly on the scien- It has become increasingly apparent that the tific objectivity of archaeology in the province. methods and quality of inferences relating to prehistoric symbolism and ideation are little different from those relating to lower level IDEOLOGY subsystems (von Gernet 1992a; 1993a). What is "knowable" is not linked to the relative difficulty of recovering perishables and non- Personality differences among individuals perishables, intangibles and tangibles, or are exacerbated by ideological rifts along "mind" and material culture. Rather, it is a generational lines, between factions of con- function of the degree to which a generaliza- temporaries, or between professionals and tion observable in the present may be per- avocationals. Opinions on what is "important," suasively related to an unobservable past what is "knowledge," or what is "certainty," (von Gernet 1993a:68). Elsewhere, I have significantly affect the legitimation of re- offered an example using archaeological search, particularly if they become ingrained material from Ontario (von Gernet and Tim- and exclusive. mins 1987). Anyone who still insists that Ontario arch- While I personally find Adams ideas on the aeologists lack specific epistemological predi- nature of archaeological knowledge anachro- lections should read "Gnawing Gently on the nistic, everyone has the right to chew their Metacarpals " by Nick Adams (1994). In par- own metacarpals as they reinvent the meta- ticular, I draw attention to the following pas- physical wheel. What I am more concerned sage: about, is that these types of ideologies have the potential to interfere with legitimation because they place arbitrary and a priori Through archaeology we can gain cer- limitations on what archaeology can accom- tain knowledge, or a close approximation plish. How, for example, might someone, thereof, of how, when and where people whose welt anschauung is already committed lived in the past, how they got their to the unsubstantiated generalization that groceries, the kinds of tools they made reconstructions of ideology are inherently and used, how they interacted with their more conjectural than reconstructions of neighbours, and even their physiologies social organization, evaluate Fox and Molto s and their pathologies. We stand on a (this volume infra) paper on evidence for less secure footing once we begin to shamanism at Long Point? extrapolate about social organization Ontario archaeologists are not immune and structure from the archaeological from letting their ingrained "isms" intrude into data. And we are out of our depth in the their adjudication of scholarly work. An ex- quaking bog of conjecture once we att- ample may be found in a published review of empt to describe the realm of symbolism James Pendergast s (1991) monograph on the Massawomeck. Peter Reid judges the work to and ideology from the material frag- " ments in our collections [Adams 1994:10; be thorough, critical and carefully research- emphasis in original]. ed," but laments that it "reflects the particular- ism which, even at this late date, underlies most of Canadian archaeology." He ventures If this sounds familiar, it is because Chris- the opinion that "facts and narratives strung topher Hawkes (1954:161-162) said essentially together from facts are not in and of them- selves important," but "become important only the same thing 40 years ago. Hawkes "climax " of degrees of difficulty," or ladder of inference when related to questions of...culture process 8 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994
(Reid 1991:15). This betrays a lingering fidelity cal discourse is generated and situated in a to the nomothetic ambitions of what has itself social and political arena (Shanks and Tilley become a well-aged "New" Archeology, whose 1988:186), it is not possible to avoid ideology. practitioners were more interested in general- This should not mean abandoning the search izations about human behaviour than in the for a value-free archaeology. As Trigger particulars of native history and prehistory (1984a:368) has noted, "The findings of arch- (Hodder 1985:7; Trigger 1980:671). In my aeology can only have lasting social value if opinion, Pendergast (a retired lieutenant they approximate as closely as possible to an colonel and winner of the 1991 Crabtree objective understanding of human behaviour." Award for avocational archaeology), should I have been impressed with the ability of not be reproached for failing to espouse an researchers to maintain at least some objec- epistemology which, while fashionable in tive distance, even in the politically charged American graduate schools in the 1960s and and sensitive disciplines relating to native 1970s, is unlikely to have entered conversa- studies. For example, the suggestion (promu- tion in the Officer s Mess. Moreover, the lgated by certain natives, non-natives, his- dogmatic assertion that "important" narratives torians and anthropologists) that Europeans about the past address lofty questions relat- taught Amerindians how to scalp has been ing to processual matters simultaneously effectively repudiated by a detailed study of impugns the valuable contributions of our the historic and prehistoric records (Axtell preprocessual forerunners (William J. Wintem- 1981). A similar analysis has demonstrated berg comes to mind) and our postprocessual that the "fiction" asserting that the Iroquois did contemporaries. Such debate has its place in not practice cannibalism (Arens 1979:128-129) the ponderous discourse known as "archaeo- cannot supplant the historical and arch- logical theory" but seems inappropriate in a aeological "fact" that they did (Abler 1980). review of a substantive work that lays no Given that those researchers most interested claim to profundity. in reversing popular stereotypes about abori- ginal peoples have nevertheless risked docu- menting the types of horrors which might SCHOLARSHIP arouse the interest of Amnesty International, I remain hopeful that research, writing, ad- judication and legitimation can survive politi- Avoiding the intrusion of "isms" does not cal or ideological pressures. mean that a work published in a learned Scholarship is among the few qualities of forum should escape scholarly critique. In- discourse that can be appraised, if not with deed, Pendergast s (1991) monograph de- complete objectivity, at least with some semb- serves admonition for reasons unrelated to lance of fairness. The evidential support for his world view. Unlike Reid (1991:15), who any archaeological statement is derived from praises Pendergast s thorough and careful newly excavated artifacts or from the texts of research, Bill Fitzgerald (1992) places con- other writers. Competency in scholarship is siderable emphasis on errors in fact or the revealed by the strength of linkages a writer uncritical use of documentary sources (a constructs between evidence on the one good argument for having several indepen- hand, and interpretations and conclusions on dent reviewers). He concludes that Pender- the other. Opinions differ on what level of gast s final product "resembles historical strength is acceptable, although most agree fiction more than it does a reasonable inter- that, in adjudicating competency, the empha- pretation of the scanty historical and non- sis should be more on the structure and less existent archaeological evidence " (Fitzgerald on the content of the writing. 1992:129-130). While Fitzgerald s assessment The shortcomings Fitzgerald (1992) has seems excessively uncharitable, it is more identified in Pendergast s (1991) work present pertinent than the one offered by Reid since a striking paradox: while Ontario archaeo- logists have continued in the footsteps of it is based primarily on an evaluation of erudition, not ideology. some of our indefatigable ancestors, whose It could be argued that, since archaeologi- meticulous analyses of artifacts were in the VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 9 best tradition of empirical observation and book stores. Contrary to prevailing senti- classification, they do not always apply their ments, prehistoric archaeology, while not skills to documentary materials. Perhaps this entirely dependent on texts, is certainly text- is based on the curious misconception that, aided; the old notion of a "text-free" mode of unlike in the field of history, the raw materials reasoning (Hawkes 1954:161) can no longer of archaeology are non-textual, and that be sustained. writing merely represents the end-product of Given their reliance on documentary rec- research. Yet, if this were so, none of our site ords, it stands to reason that archaeologists reports would contain a bibliography, but require at least some competence in exe- would consist entirely of original plates, line gesis, literary criticism, or other forms of drawings, statistics, and descriptive narrative. textual analysis. Indeed, some archaeologists In fact, each of the papers published in the list "ethnohistory" among their interests or previous five volumes of this journal contain areas of expertise. Nevertheless, it is an an average of close to 40 references. These unfortunate circumstance (perhaps attrib- sources, which are woven into the authors utable to the type of over-specialised training arguments in the form of parenthetical cita- in which archaeology is considered to have tions, serve as evidence in a manner little affinities with geology but not with history), different from recently unearthed material that a black belt in digging tombs does not culture. Scholarship can be assessed with prevent reckless floundering in dusty tomes. reference to both types of evidence; my pref- To stifle the inevitable response that this is erence, here, is to focus on the former. innuendo, in accord with the principle of entering critique into the published record, and at the risk of inducing blushes among USE OF DOCUMENTARY colleagues, I offer a sample from the writing of Ontario archaeologists. MATERIALS In an article appearing in an early issue of this journal, an apparent association between pipe effigies and matrilineage totems painted Although uninformed theoretical debates on Huron longhouses (Noble 1969:24) was continue to muddy the waters and make based on a specific text in Gabriel Sagard s consensus elusive, I believe those who spend Le grand voyage. Apparently, the author was sufficient time contemplating the philosoph- unaware that this was one of the many pas- ical issues eventually come to the realization sages selectively plagiarised by Sagard from that archaeological knowledge is primarily Marc Lescarbot s earlier description of the dependent on an inferential argument known Micmac and New England Algonquians as analogical reasoning (Wylie 1982; 1985). (Sagard 1939:98 cf. Lescarbot 1907-14:3:98- Some Ontario archaeologists, like Norman 99). In a similar vein, an article in the Hand- Emerson who employed a psychic truck book of North American Indians asserts that driver to help reconstruct the lifeways of the Sagard mentioned tobacco cultivation and inhabitants of the Black Creek Site (Goodman trade among the Petun (Garrad and Heiden- 1977:159; Williams 1991:295-296) have attem- reich 1978:395) when, in fact, the original pted to skirt such reasoning. However, those passage had clearly been plagiarized from scholars not favoured with an aptitude for Samuel de Champlain s discussion of the clairvoyance or unwilling to suspend a scien- Neutral (Biggar 1922-36:3:99 cf. Sagard 1939: tific scepticism of the paranormal usually end 158). Fortunately, neither oversight is crucial up in the library where their imaginations are to an influential conclusion. inspired by the recorded observations and More recently, Thor Conway (1983:16-17) insights of archaeologists, other anthropolo- not only has Champlain traversing a region gists, as well as ethnologists, missionaries, the explorer failed to reach until years later, and explorers. Ironically, evidence is mount- but confuses a seventeenth-century Algonquin ing that exposure to narratives is also the " sacred site on the lower Ottawa River (Biggar primary source for "psychic archaeology 1922-36:2:301-302) with a site on the French (Feder 1990:163-166), although the narratives River identified by twentieth-century Nipissing are more likely to have been found in popular 10 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994 oral tradition. In this case, the error complete- For instance, an article published in the ly undermines the author s principal argument Canadian Journal of Archaeology advances that a specific Ontario locale has a 370-year the argument that there existed a chiefdom or record of spiritual associations. ranked society in seventeenth-century Ont- Regarding a work as a "primary" source ario. For the most part, the evidence consists solely on the grounds that it was written in the of a native oral account, "not made public seventeenth century is a common mistake previously," and allegedly "preserved by a that results from a failure to appreciate the special lineage of females who have con- complexity of ethnohistorical texts. True, a tinued to memorize and transmit the story single researcher may not be able to handle over the past 340 years" (Noble 1985:133). prehistoric artifacts and ethnohistorical mat- Now, here is a document of breathtaking erials with the same degree of skill (Bishop importance; yet, the reference is simply cited 1982:256; Wright 1968:97-98). Yet, documents as an anonymous "manuscript and notes " in are an integral part of archaeological re- the possession of the author. No efforts are search, and one would hope that archaeo- made to explain how a transcript of an oral logists, who already acknowledge the impor- tradition by an unnamed informant of un- tance of considering site formation processes specified ethnicity came into the private (Schiffer 1987), make every effort to under- possession of an archaeologist; whether the stand how texts are constructed. There is informant is still alive to corroborate the story; more to the direct historic approach than what, if any, interview methods were used in citing a Works Of or "Journey To." compiling the transcription; and why this As tributes pour in for the late Kenneth unparalleled account was not first legitimated Kidd, it is worth recalling that praise, even by professional ethnologists and archived in when well deserved, should never bridle a an accessible institution. By any reasonable critical assessment of the work of any schol- standards of scholarly inquiry, the credibility ar. While his valuable contributions to the of such an apocryphal source is no different archaeology of Ontario have secured for him than the twentieth-century novel cited by Kidd. a respectable reputation, he did commit to That an elaborate argument based on such print a most embarrassing blunder. Although spurious supporting documentation was trained as an historian (Wright 1985:425), Kidd published in a major journal can only be evidently forgot the maxim that "the whole regarded as a grievous deficiency in adjud- training of the historian is designed to help ication. The problem is compounded when him dispose of deliberate manufactures" the secondary literature conceals the original (Elton 1967:97). In a Royal Ontario Museum source by citing the legitimated CIA article. In publication he once quoted an excerpt from fact, the latter has already been employed in what he believed was a seventeenth-century an international journal to support a rather journal written by a Dutch traveller among the fanciful argument that the Neutral practiced Mohawk (Kidd 1954:20). Curious to know why husbandry of white-tailed deer by penning a document germane to Iroquoian studies and tending them inside enclosures (Noble had remained in obscurity, I located the and Crerar 1993:22-23, 35). "journal" and discovered, to my initial disbelief and ensuing vexation, that it was a twentieth- century novel cleverly disguised to appear THE COMPETITORS like an ethnohistorical source (Yager 1953). Such errors have a maddening endurance in the secondary literature. Indeed, this par- Some will argue that lapses in scholarship ticular mistake was repeated nearly two should be ignored since (a) they are uncom- decades later by an American archaeologist mon, (b) they will soon be forgotten, and (c) who cited the same passage in a book pub- efforts to expose them might be viewed as lished by a university press (Rutsch 1973:20). unnecessary pedantry that merely diminishes Unfortunately, autodidact ventures into a colleague s reputation; after all, we all ethnology convince some archaeologists that make mistakes (I have discovered enough of they have qualifications in this field as well. them in my own work). To this I respond that VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 11
(a) it is the belief in infrequency that leads to invariably leads to trouble, particularly if the a lack of vigilance and concomitant freq- competition appropriates your brand name. uency, (b) historians of science ensure that In a recent issue of a popular native news- archived statements are unforgotten, and (c) paper it is argued that 12,000 years B.P., the the reputations of individuals are of lesser date most widely cited with respect to the significance than is the credibility of a dis- earliest evidence for definite human occupa- cipline as a whole. It must be kept in mind tion in North America, is " untrue" and " a that a published contribution not only reflects falsehood popularly taught in all schools. " the output of an individual author, but is Remarkably, this opinion is not based on the added to the corpus of archived material usual oral traditions alluding to a creation ex produced by a collectivity. Archaeology is ac- nihilo and occupancy since time immemorial. countable beyond the pale of its coterie, as Instead, it is claimed that archaeologists and both publicly and privately funded research is anthropologists have found evidence for sites mediated by a wider social context. There is and artifacts dating as early as 70,000, much more at stake. 150,000, 250,000, and even 500,000 years B.P., Archaeologists once enjoyed a virtual but that these "truthful studies of North hegemony over North American prehistory American Indian antiquity, " have been " hidden and almost exclusive control in the field, the for political reasons" (Thohaho ken 1993:6). laboratory, and the museum. In recent years Some might dismiss this as akin to the other parties have successfully eroded this belief, common in some circles, that the privilege. For example, not long ago a native archaeological recovery of Noah s Ark on Mt. organization convinced the Commissioner of Ararat is being thwarted, not by the nonex- the Department of Culture and History in istence of the vessel beyond the diluvian West Virginia that excavation of the Cotiga accounts of the Book of Genesis, but by Mound should not be permitted unless a Turkish machinations and CIA or KGB treach- consulting firm agreed to prohibit menstruat- ery (Balsiger and Sellier 1976). It is, however, ing fieldworkers from handling the artifacts easy to see how such a claim can be serious- (Fogelman 1993:327). Many interventions do ly entertained and widely accepted. The not occur in the field, but emerge in various "archaeologists" who are alleged to have forms of "politically correct" discourse. These uncovered the hidden truth are not main- range from justifiable revisionism intended to stream researchers who have accepted pre- overturn demeaning stereotypes (Doxtator Clovis evidence but, rather, popular pseudo- 1992), to simply outrageous drivel catering to scientists who have advanced entirely dif- specific interest groups. ferent prehistories (Thohaho ken 1993:6). A decade ago professional anthropologists When Barry Fell s diffusionist work Bronze and historians were warned that their work Age America (1982) and Brian Fagan s under- was in danger of being submerged under a graduate textbook People of the Earth (1985) burgeoning popular culture (Trigger 1984b: are published and distributed by the same 19). Ten years later the competition over the company and archived by the same institu- right to construct and write the past shows no tions, we should expect both a confusion over signs of abating. For the most part, archaeo- what constitutes "archaeology" and suspicions logists respectfully accept limited interven- of politically motivated school curricula. tions (Fox 1989), but they have much greater The archaeological community can only difficulty with wholesale alternatives. Some of survive in this landscape by defining a niche the competitors are native writers who endor- that is clearly distinct from all others (Gero se proprietary history with the racist sug- 1989:103). The contrast must focus on the gestion that they alone have the right to quality and not the implications of the dis- interpret their past. Others are non-natives course. It is not enough to merely state, for who profit from best-sellers outlining "revolu- example, that Barry Fell is racist or deni- tionary" new insights into North American grates native people by attributing much of prehistory. Mainstream archaeologists may their cultural heritage to Old World visitors scoff at these purveyors of alternative litera- (Kehoe 1987:19; Trigger 1989:315). In fact, in a ture, but underestimating the competition recent American Antiquity article, one promi- 12 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994 nent native scholar, suspicious of the manner Canadian prehistorians would be surprised to in which Fell was dismissed by the Establish- learn that their interpretations of the past are ment, has implied that he may have been considered by many native peoples to have correct after all, adding that, "until we great social and political relevance." Never- [Indians] are in some way connected with theless, attitudes toward archaeology are not world history as early peoples, perhaps even all the same. At one end of the spectrum is as refugees from Old World turmoils and the Blackfoot elder who admitted that arch- persecutions, we will never be accorded full aeology had done more for the betterment of humanity" (Deloria 1992:597). Given these native peoples than all of the missionaries views, the only way to effectively deal with and government agents had ever done" competitors is to identify specific deficiencies (quoted in Fox 1989:31). At the other end are in scholarship, as Williams (1991:265-268) has those who believe that archaeology is nothing done, and to publish a critique. Recent criti- but an extension of Eurocanadian, colonial cisms (e.g., Michlovic 1990) notwithstanding, control over interpretations of the past, and such demarcation does not necessarily mean who view our research results as a denigrat- taking the high ground or abandoning an ing assault on native spirituality. I fear that anthropological commitment to cultural rela- those who attempt to convert individuals from tivism. But it does mean that archaeology this persuasion are wasting their time, since must have its own house in order. it mirrors the classic encounter between When the competitors are native peoples, science and religion. All that can be done is archaeologists often feel sympathy and de- to point out that this confrontation is not marcation efforts become troublesome. I am unique to relations between natives and not convinced that an "integrative approach," newcomers, and that scientific research and merging oral traditions and scientific data respect for religion are not incompatible (Echo-Hawk 1993), will lead to any resolution. (Trigger 1982:6; von Gernet 1994). More appropriate, perhaps, is the notion of Having served on organizing committees "sharing the past" (McGhee 1989:17) since this for First Nations cultural events, I find that implies that the demarcation of archaeology most native reactions to archaeological re- can survive the acceptance of a pluralistic search follow neither of these two extremes past. Fortunately, native peoples are not but may be situated somewhere in between. always competitors but are just as likely to be This likely reflects an uneasy compromise consumers. between the need to revitalize or maintain pre-contact values and traditions, and a recognition of the power and importance of THE CONSUMERS: NATIVE science and humanism in the twentieth cen- PEOPLES tury. When native traditions and archaeologi- cal discoveries are perceived to be con- gruent, the latter are often cited in support of the former. It is as if the stories taught by the The regrettable scarcity of aboriginal schol- elders, while already intrinsically valid repres- ars, which continues to make anthropology a entations of the past, are believed to have predominantly Eurocanadian profession, has even greater validity when confirmed by not meant that the results of anthropological independent evidence. research are ignored by individuals of native In a recent polemic, the Wendat scholar ancestry (Dyck and Waldram 1993:10-11). I Georges Sioui pays homage to "so distin- am reminded of John Honigmann s Sarcee guished a thinker as Bruce G. Trigger," but informant who, prior to an ethnographic advocates an "autohistorical approach" writ- interview, "confessed to having borrowed from ten from a native perspective which, inter the Calgary Library many books dealing with alia, would "help safeguard the right of an the Plains Indians" (Honigmann 1956:36). Amerindian group to territories denied it by There is no question that archaeological texts traditional non-Amerindian history" (Sioui are among the resources being consulted by 1992:xvii, 82). As expected, this important indigenous peoples (Spurling 1988:74). book is infused with the wisdom and philo- Robert McGhee (1989:14) believes "many VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 13 sophy of a native world view. Ultimately, prehension" (Tooker 1988:327). however, Sioui s autohistory is not much different from the constructs of the Western intellectual tradition. To support his argument THE CONSUMERS: COURTS that the Wendat of Lorette have traditional rights to Quebec territory he not only recites oral traditions, but also refers to archaeologi- My involvement as an expert witness in the cal evidence of a close ethnic relationship Federal Court of Canada has convinced me between the Huron and the St. Lawrence of the importance of archaeological, ethnohis- Iroquoians. His conclusion that, for many of torical, and ethnographic evidence in helping his people, the 1649 diaspora was a return to to resolve some of the most crucial and Quebec, "the capital of their former country" outstanding issues with respect to the rela- (Sioui 1992:82-89), arises from his unique tionship between natives and newcomers in perspective (some might say political this country. While there are provisions for the agenda), but archaeological analyses serve testimony of lay witnesses who are called as supporting documentation. This suggests upon to recite oral traditions, our judicial that archaeologists would be ill-advised to system places considerable emphasis on completely abandon research questions expert testimony and supporting materials. relating to ethnicity. Such questions are being This emphasis has been challenged on the asked with or without our involvement, and grounds that it gives an arbitrary preference we should make every effort to either con- to the culturally specific conception of history tribute to the answers, or expose the weak- derived from Western thought and ignores nesses inherent in equating material culture other approaches to understanding the past with ethnicity (e.g., von Gernet 1993b:77-78). (Fortune 1993). There is, however, no indica- The use of archaeological discourse in tion that this preference will change in the native autohistories has important implica- near future. Hence, significant financial and tions. Imagine how Noble s (1985:134, 141) human resources are being invested by all conclusion that the Neutral Iroquois had sides to ensure that relevant anthropological "progressed" to a level of organization com- evidence is considered. prising "a well-defined class hierarchy" an If archaeologists think their contributions assertion reminiscent of Lewis Henry Mor- are safely tucked away on the F5000 shelf or gan s (1851:54-59) evolutionary construction in some other isle of an academic library that placed the Iroquois at the pinnacle of the (where they will be consulted once every "hunter state" and on the verge of ascending decade until they are scanned onto some to civilization might be interpreted by the zillion-megabyte computer disk and are lost Iroquois. Some might dismiss it as an attempt by an indexing glitch), they should think by a white man to demonstrate that certain again. Chances are that, irrespective of natives were not much different from Euro- whether you personally testify, at least one of peans and to challenge the pan-Indian emph- your archived publications will be scrutinized asis on a set of shared values common to paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sen- egalitarian societies. On the other hand, tence, and word by word, not only by wit- others might proudly cite it as evidence of an nesses, but also by plaintiffs, defendants, autochthonous achievement in the develop- interveners, lawyers, and judges. The links ment of their own civilization. Popular accep- between your data and conclusions will be tance of the latter interpretation is entirely deconstructed, reconstructed, challenged and possible despite the fact that Noble s con- defended all without your consent, your clusion is, as indicated earlier, based on opinion or, for that matter, even your aware- apocryphal documentation. After all, there are ness. It means little whether your contribution precedents. One need only recall the wide- is found in a peer-reviewed, scholarly publi- spread belief that the League of the Iroquois cation such as OA, a newsletter such as Arch served as a model for the United States Notes, or an unpublished work such as a Constitution, a belief ultimately based on, licence report. Moreover, your reputation as what one authority calls, a "scholarly misap- a professional or avocational is of no par- 14 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994 ticular interest; nor is your personality or bent always supported by the evidence. I have for particularism, processualism, postprocess- documented one recent case in which the ualism, or any other "ism." All that matters to Head of a Department of Anthropology off- the Court, is that your archived conclusions ered voluminous testimony on the past prac- and opinions are supported by the weight of tices of certain Amerindian groups that turned evidence provided. If accepted, the opinions out to be an elaborate fiction constructed to themselves become "evidence," and are cited advance the cause of his clients litigation in the secondary and tertiary literature that (von Gernet 1993c). Landmark judgments in constitutes the voluminous testimony sub- Canadian law have been tainted by the mere mitted at trial. Since many courts require suspicion of such bias (Asch 1992:235-236; experts not only to furnish bibliographies in Fortune 1993:91). Archaeology can best fulfil support of their testimony, but also copies of its obligations to native peoples, not by letting their sources, texts not written by the wit- sympathies and middle-class guilt motivate nesses are reproduced to become part of the advocacy, but by upholding the standards official record of the proceedings. It is, in which have become the hallmark of erudition. essence, an appropriation of discourse about Apologists who point out the impossibility of the past for the purpose of rendering decis- objectivity carry little weight here. What is ions about the future fate of real people living called for is, as colleagues outside of archae- real lives. ology are beginning to recognize, a matter Publishing a paper is often accompanied less of objectivity than of rigor (Asch 1992: by a mollifying reassurance that the contents 237). are protected by copyright. Adding the title to a curriculum vitae also contributes to a feel- ing of proprietorship. Ultimately, however, FOSTERING INTERNAL archaeological texts, much like ethnographic DIVERSITY studies (Dyck and Waldram 1993:10), can be appropriated as "political facts." While we cannot restrict the construing or misconstru- The health of archaeology depends not ing of our research by others, we do have only on our obligation to the rest of society, control over the linkages between the evi- but also on diversity within our ranks. While a dence and conclusions we provide. Given focus on scholarship sets certain boundary that our research has the potential to affect conditions on how discourse is structured, it the lives of living contemporaries, it behooves allows researchers to pursue interests which us to exercise that control in a most rigorous might otherwise be obstructed by Establish- manner. An error, like the one made by ment ideologies. I am convinced that the Conway (supra), can become a "fact" sig- tremendous creativity we have witnessed in nificant enough to affect the outcome of a archaeology in other parts of the world can land claim. Even if detected, it has the poten- tial to cast doubt on the veracity of other be nurtured here simply by forsaking recon- dite limitations on what is acceptable. Who statements and to raise apprehensions about knows what would have happened if Bill the integrity of other "expert" evidence tender- Russell had been encouraged to publish ed. some of his innovative meditations (see Varley Brian Spurling (1988:75) has proposed that 1993). native communities "must be regarded as In soliciting manuscripts for OA, my prede- clients and, to the extent circumstances cessor announced that "First preference will warrant, archaeologists their consultants and be given to articles that go beyond descrip- advocates." This advice fails to address the tion of sites or assemblages to make state- problematic nature of such relationships ments of analytical or theoretical significance " (Dyck and Waldram 1993). Well-intentioned (Reid 1987:4). I have no such preference. The advocacy by scholars has led to statements well-worn publications by Wintemberg, which about native peoples which are demonstrably can still be read with profit (Trigger 1978:10), false (Axtell 1981:19-20). The fact of the matter suggest that descriptions serve as fundamen- is that native claims and causes are not tal building blocks for culture-chronological VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 15 reconstructions, comparative analyses and when it examines the (pre)histories of par- the development of higher-level inferences. As ticular peoples such as the Algonquin and the the Vice-President of the Society for American Huron, as it is when it employs these (pre)his- Archaeology said in the inaugural issue of tories to illuminate continuity and change American Antiquity, We may have no Fol- among forager and horticultural societies in soms, but our little collection, provided it is general. In my view, there are no analytical, catalogued, will have some value to the world methodological, or theoretical grounds for after we depart. And nobody, not even an distinguishing between historical and proces- archaeologist, can expect to live forever " sual approaches (von Gernet 1993a:77). Nor (Harrington 1935). The Ontario Archaeological is this a matter of an "either/or " choice. As Society has had a history of attracting ex- Alfred Kroeber (1952:63) once said, history cellent avocational archaeologists who have "does not ignore process, but it does refuse to little interest in formulating theory but who are set it as its first objective. " prepared to furnish meticulous descriptions of If this journal is to embrace any "ism" under important sites or artifacts. Space must be my editorship, it is eclecticism. This does not reserved for these, provided they are accom- mean that everything will be acceptable. On panied by plates, drawings, maps, and acc- the whole, I agree with Michael Graves urate references to literature describing (1994:7) concern that "archaeologists identify similar collections. The information gained by the intellectual perspective within which translating basement hoards into archived research is done and then hold that research texts justifies cutting the trees required to to its own standards (and those widely shared disseminate such descriptions. in the discipline), especially as regards logi- Sites and artifacts cannot exist in a vac- cal consistency, theoretical coherence, and uum, and at least some contributors (not empirical sufficiency. " Moreover, provided an necessarily the individuals providing the author maintains fidelity to scholarship, it descriptions) will feel the need to address matters little whether his/her insights are methodological, analytical, or theoretical derived from a materialist or an idealist matters of a more general nature. In accord philosophy. I will even consider arguments with recent developments, this journal will not made in the complete or virtual absence of embrace a "narrow view of science that would material remains. For example, while no identify being scientific with adopting a par- physical vestiges of Paleoindian boats have ticular philosophical view about correct stan- been recovered, the existence of such water- dards of confirmation and explanation " (Sal- craft can be demonstrated (Engelbrecht and mon 1982:180; emphasis in original). Many Seyfert 1994). Similarly, it can also be shown years have now passed since the New Arch- that prehistoric Iroquoians ingested powerful eology was exposed as an ideology based on hallucinogens in an ideational setting; while a defective model of science (Lamberg-Kar- this setting has never been excavated, it can lovsky 1989:6), and it seems obvious that our nevertheless be "known" (von Gernet 1992b). research can flourish with or without it. For- In both cases the evidence is not in the tunately, many Ontario researchers never did ground but in the library, and the arguments quite get the hang of either the are advanced without recourse to conjecture hypothetico-deductivemethod or processual analysis and, and with the principled application of inferen- hence, avoided the seduction of travelling this tial reasoning. Rigour and creativity need not exclusive road to knowledge. This may foster be mutually exclusive. a much needed creativity and make it some- what easier to adapt to a post-whatever theoretical terrain. There is no reason why CONCLUSIONS Ontario researchers must be passive con- sumers rather than active contributors to archaeological theory. It has been argued that material culture It should by now be clear that I reject the can be "read" much like a text (Hodder 1986; neo-evolutionary dichotomy between science Tilley 1990), and that there is little difference " and history. Archaeology is just as "scientific between the interpretation of artifacts and the 16 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994 interpretation of documentary sources (Young should demarcation efforts lead to insulation 1988:11). Archaeology not only reads what from other fields of study. Cross-fertilization emerges from the ground, but relies heavily with various sciences and humanities has on written materials in the origination and already served us well and should continue to reproduction of its own discourse. In either be a desideratum. case, learned journals such as OA serve as Archaeology may be about matters in the long-term vehicles for an interminable cycle past, but it is mediated by a present social of reading and writing. context (Leone 1981). This context is no longer In his essay on intellectual craftsmanship, confined to the dinner tables of the Emerson, C. Wright Mills (1959:218) opined that "to write Kidd, or Pendergast households. Just as is to raise a claim for the attention of read- society has shaped archaeology, archaeology ers," and "also to claim for oneself at least is highly relevant to society (Trigger 1984a: status enough to be read." A journal offers 357-358). This suggests that archaeologists opportunities to advance such claims by must recognize and change the moral myopia publishing, archiving, and legitimating know- that confines their sense of responsibility to a ledge. Legitimation, accomplished primarily single Establishment (Wylie 1992:593). The through adjudication by readers, is affected increasing use of our research by native by individual personalities and ideologies. peoples writing autohistory and by courts While these influences may be difficult to (re)writing history means that we are obliga- avoid, I have cited reasons why an emphasis ted to provide the highest quality research on scholarship, both by writers and by read- possible with the financial, technological and ers, is imperative for the vitality of archaeol- intellectual resources currently available. ogy. While a writer routinely acknowledges the There is no question that this focus is, itself, assistance of others, a curious etiquette often part of an ideology the Western intellectual compels him/her to add that the author is tradition that encompasses science, secular solely responsible for the contents, " or words humanism, a linear conception of history, and to that effect. This is intended not only to a decided partiality for written over oral fortify proprietary claims, but to deflect cul- narration. However, despite a persuasive pability away from peers should anything turn post-modernist critique, it remains apparent out to be inaccurate or untenable. Quality that this ideology is not just like any other control in our published, archived, and legiti- competitor, but is widely recognized as the mated discourse is, however, a collective most influential intellectual force of our time. responsibility that requires vigilance by those It is of no trivial interest that the most recent whose names do not appear on the first claims made by creationists are based on page. Deficiencies must be exposed, and "scientific" rather than on biblical grounds efforts to do so not misinterpreted as effron- (Kehoe 1987; Stunkel 1982). It is also sig- tery. nificant that many alternative approaches to The current OA will become and remain a the past (e.g., Goodman 1977) are published cultural artifact long after we are deceased. under the rubric "archaeology. " Given that It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that this "archaeology" is not a registered trademark artifact reflects our best collective effort. As for a single Establishment and that licensing editor, I pledge to do my part by seeking applies to digging rather than to writing, it is improvements to the peer review process, important to clearly demarcate what is off- introducing democratized decision-making ered in this journal from the competitors who through an editorial board, and preparing a peddle their goods with similar pretensions. comprehensive guide for standardized manu- Such demarcation should not, of course, be script production (this volume infra). I also accompanied by the supercilious proclama- plan to make space available for book re- tion or unwritten implication that our archaeo- views, discussions, and critical responses to logy reconstructs the past, but by the modest contributions published in this journal. reminder that our archaeology constructs a Finally, I wish to emphasize that my re- past that is as close to an objective under- marks are not intended to impugn past edit- standing as we are capable of achieving. Nor orial policies. In fact, I believe a relatively VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 17 healthy journal was placed in my lap. No one, Axtell, J. however, should be satisfied with the status 1981 The Unkindest Cut, or Who Invented quo. Jim Wright (1985:431) recalls some ad- Scalping? A Case Study. In The vice he once received on an autographed European and the Indian: Essays in publication: "Dear Wright: Go and do better. the Ethnohistory of Colonial North Best regards, Diamond Jenness." Passing the America, by J. Axtell, pp. 16-35. Ox- torch to a new generation is a tacit admon- ford University Press, New York. ishment of a similar kind. I look forward to the Bahn, P. challenge. 1989 Bluff Your Way in Archaeology. Ravette Books, Horsham, West Sussex, England. Acknowledgments. I thank the Ontario Balsiger, D., and C. E. Sellier, Jr. Archaeological Society for the invitation to 1976 In Search of Noah s Ark. Sun Classic take on this challenge. Peter Reid completed Books, Los Angeles. the initial processing of some of the contribu- Biggar, H. P. (editor) tions appearing in this volume, thereby facili- 1922-36 The Works of Samuel De Champ- tating my task during this transitional period. l ain. 6 vols. Champlain I also thank all those writers, both living and Society, Toronto. deceased, who are cited in my references; Bishop, C. A. you are responsible for inspiring my argu- 1982 The Indian Inhabitants of Northern ments and for the contents of my essay. Ontario at the Time of Contact: Finally, I thank Bruce Trigger (the " elder" in Socio-Territorial Considerations. In my culture) who, more than anyone, taught Approaches to Algonquian Archaeol- me to respect scholarship in our written ogy, edited by M. G. Hanna and B. traditions and to appreciate how those tradi- Kooyman, pp. 253-273. Proceedings tions are mediated by our society. of the 13th Annual Chacmool Con- ference. University of Calgary, Cal- gary. REFERENCES CITED Conway, T. 1983 Oral History Relating to a Nipissing Indian Sacred Site. Arch Notes Abler, T. S. 83(6):14-17. 1980 Iroquois Cannibalism: Fact Not Fic- Deloria, V., Jr. tion. Ethnohistory 27:309-316. 1992 Indians, Archaeologists, and the Adams, N. Future. American Antiquity 57:595- 1994 Gnawing Gently on the Metacarpals. 598. Arch Notes 94(1):9-15. Doxtator, D. Arens, W. 1992 Fluffs and Feathers: An Exhibit on 1979 The Man-Eating Myth. Oxford Univer- the Symbols of Indianness. A Re- sity Press, New York. source Guide. Revised ed. Woodland Asch, M. Cultural Centre, Brantford, Ontario. 1992 Errors in Delgamuukw: An Anthropo- Dyck, N., and J. B. Waldram logical Perspective. In Aboriginal 1993 Anthropology, Public Policy, and Title in British Columbia: Native Peoples: An Introduction to Delgamuukw v. The Queen, edited the Issues. In Anthropology, Public by F. Cassidy, pp. 221-243. Oolichan Policy and Native Peoples in and Institute for Research on Public Canada, edited by N. Dyck and J. B. Policy, Lantzville, British Columbia Waldram, pp. 3-38. McGill-Queen s and Montreal. University Press, Montreal. 18 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994
Echo-Hawk, R. C. Fogelman, G. L. 1993 Working Together Exploring Ancient 1993 Events Around the Country That Worlds. Society for American Arch- Affect Archaeology, Amateur Archae- aeology Bulletin 11(4):5-6. ology, and Collecting. North Ellis, C. J., and D. B. Deller American Archaeologist 14:325-332. 1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Fortune, J. R. Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, 1993 Construing Delgamuukw: Legal Ar- edited by C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. guments, Historical Argumentation, 37-63. Occasional Publication of the and the Philosophy of History. Uni- London Chapter, Ontario Archaeo- versity of Toronto Faculty of Law logical Society 5. London, Ontario. Review 51:80-117. Elton, G. R. Fox, W. A. 1967 The Practice of History. Sydney Uni- 1989 Native Archaeology in Ontario: A versity Press, Sydney. Status Report. Arch Notes 89(6):30- Engelbrecht, W. E., and C. K. Seyfert 31. 1994 Paleoindian Watercraft: Evidence Gardin, J. C. and Implications. North American 1980 Archaeological Constructs: An Archaeologist, accepted for publica- Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology. tion. Cambridge University Press and Fagan, B. M. Editions de la Maison des Sciences 1985 People of the Earth: An Introduction de 1'Homme, Cambridge and Paris. to World Prehistory. 5th ed. Little, Garrad, C., and C. E. Heidenreich Brown, Boston. 1978 Khionontateronon (Petun). In North- Feder, K. L. east, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 1990 Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: 394-397. Handbook of North Science and Pseudoscience in Ar- American Indians, vol. 15, W. C. chaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, Sturtevant, general editor. Smith- California. sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Fell, B. Gero, J. M. 1982 Bronze Age America. Little, Brown, 1989 Producing Prehistory, Controlling the Boston. Past: The Case of New England Finlayson, W. D. Beehives. In Critical Traditions in 1985 The 1975 and 1978 Rescue Excava- Contemporary Archaeology, edited tions at the Draper Site: Introduction by V. Pinsky and A. Wylie, pp. 96- and Settlement Patterns. National 103. Cambridge University Press, Museum of Man Mercury Series, Cambridge, England. Archaeological Survey of Canada Gibbon, G. Paper 130. National Museums of 1989 Explanation in Archaeology. Basil Canada, Ottawa. Blackwell, Oxford. Fitzgerald, W. R. Goodman, J. 1992 [Review of] The Massawomeck: 1977 Psychic Archaeology Time Machine Raiders and Traders into the Chesa- to the Past. Berkley, New York. peake Bay in the Seventeenth Graves, M. W. Century, by J. F. Pendergast. 1994 New Directions in Americanist Ar- Canadian Journal of Archaeology chaeology. American Antiquity 59:5-8 16:129-132. Guedon, J. C. Flannery, K. V. 1993 Electronic Journals: The Way of the 1982 The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable Future? Bulletin of the Canadian for the Archeology of the 1980s. Federation for the Humanities 16(1- American Anthropologist 84:265-278. 2):3-6. VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 19
Harrington, M. R. Lee, T. E. 1935 Editorials. American Antiquity 1:1-5. 1957 The Antiquity of the Sheguiandah Hawkes, C. Site. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 1954 Archeological Theory and Method: 71:117-137. Some Suggestions from the Old 1973 National Museum Phantasies. An- World. American Anthropologist thropological Journal of Canada 56:155-168. 11(1):26. Hodder, I. 1980 The Gathering Storm. Anthropologi- 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. In Ad- cal Journal of Canada 18(2):28-31. vances in Archaeological Method Leone, M. P. and Theory, vol. 8, edited by M. B. 1981 Archaeology s Relationship to the Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, Present and the Past. In Modern Orlando. Material Culture: The Archaeology of Hodder, I. Us, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approach- Schiffer, pp. 5-14. Academic Press, es to Interpretation in Archaeology. New York. Cambridge University Press, Cam- Lescarbot, M. bridge. 1907-1914[1618]The History of New France . Honigmann, J. J. 3 vols, edited by W. L. 1956 Notes on Sarsi Kin Behavior. Anthro- Grant. Champlain Society, Toronto. pologica 5:17-38. MacDonald, R. Jackson, L. J., and H. McKillop 1988 Ontario Iroquoian Sweat Lodges. 1987 Patterns in Ontario Prehistory: The Ontario Archaeology 48:17-26. Sheguiandah Site, 1952-1956. Arch McGhee, R. Notes 87(1):9-15. 1989 Who Owns Prehistory? The Bering Jackson, L. J., H. McKillop, and S. Wurtzburg Land Bridge Dilemma. Canadian 1987 The Forgotten Beginning of Journal of Archaeology 13:13-20. Canadian Palaeo-Indian Studies, MacNeish, R. S. 1933-1935. Ontario Archaeology 1978 The Science of Archaeology? Dux- 47:5-18. bury Press, North Scituate, Massa- Kehoe, A. B. chusetts. 1987 Scientific Creationism: World View, Michlovic, M. G. not Science. In Cult Archaeology 1990 Folk Archaeology in Anthropological and Creationism: Understanding Perspective. Current Anthropology Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the 31:103-107. Past, edited by F. B. Harrold and R. Mills, C. W. A. Eve, pp. 11-20. University of Iowa 1959 The Sociological Imagination. Oxford Press, Iowa City. University Press, New York. Kidd, K. E. Morgan, L. H. 1954 Fashions in Tobacco Pipes Among 1851 League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee, the Iroquois Indians of Ontario. Bull- Iroquois. Sage and Brother, Roch- etin of the Royal Ontario Museum of ester. Archaeology 22:15-21. Noble, W. C. Kroeber, A. L. 1969 Some Social Implications of the 1952 History and Science in Anthropology. Iroquois In Situ" Theory. Ontario In The Nature of Culture, by A. L. Archaeology 13:16-28. Kroeber, pp. 63-65. University of 1973 Canada. In The Development of Chicago Press, Chicago. North American Archaeology. Essays Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. in the History of Regional Traditions, 1989 Introduction. In Archaeological edited by J. E. Fitting, pp. 49-83. Thought in America, edited by C. C. Anchor and Doubleday, Garden City, Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 1-16. Cam- New York. bridge University Press, Cambridge. 20 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994
1982 Potsherds, Potlids, and Politics: An Shanks, M., and C. Tilley Overview of Ontario Archaeology 1988 Social Theory and Archaeology. During the 1970 s. Canadian Journal University of New Mexico Press, of Archaeology 6:167-194. Albuquerque. 1985 Tsouharissen s Chiefdom: An Early Schwartz, C. A. Historic 17th Century Neutral Iro- 1992 Literature Loss in Anthropology. quoian Ranked Society. Canadian Current Anthropology 33:315-317. Journal of Archaeology 9:131-146. Sioui, G. E. Noble, W. C., and J. E. M. Crerar 1992 For An Amerindian Autohistory. An 1993 Management of White-tailed Deer by Essay on the Foundations of a Social the Neutral Iroquois A.D. 999-1651. Ethic. Translated by . Sheila Fisch- Archaeozoologia 6(1):19-70. man. McGill-Queen s University Pendergast, J. F. Press, Montreal and Kingston. 1991 The Massawomeck: Raiders and Spurling, B. Traders into the Chesapeake Bay in 1988 Archaeology and the Policy the Seventeenth Century. Transac- Sciences. Canadian Journal of Ar- tions of the American Philosophical chaeology 12:65-85. Society 81(2):1-101. Storck, P. L. Popper, K. 1984 Research Into the Paleo-Indian Oc- 1972 Objective Knowledge: An Evolution- cupations of Ontario: A Review. On- ary Approach. Clarendon Press, tario Archaeology 41:3-28. Oxford. Stunkel, K. R. Reid, P. 1982 Understanding "Scientific 1987 Ontario Archaeology. Arch Notes Creationism." In Confronting the 87(5):4. Creationists, edited by S. Pastner Reid, P. and W. Haviland, pp. 51-60. North- 1991 [Review of] The Massawomeck: eastern Anthropological Association Raiders and Traders into the Chesa- Occasional Proceedings 1. peake Bay in the Seventeenth Sweetman, P. Century, by J. F. Pendergast. Arch 1993 Letter to the Editor. Arch Notes Notes 91(3):15-16. 93(4):10. Rutsch, E. S. Thohaho ken 1973 Smoking Technology of the Abori- 1993 Our Home and Native Land. Native- gines of the Iroquois Area of New beat November 1993:6. York State. Farleigh Dickinson Univ- Tilley, C. (editor) ersity Press, Rutherford. 1990 Reading Material Culture: Structur- Sagard, G. alism, Hermeneutics and Post-Struc- 1939[1632] The Long Journey to the Country turalism. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. of the Hurons, edited by G. Tooker, E. M. Wrong. Translated by H. H. 1988 The United States Constitution and Langton. Champlain Society, Toron- the Iroquois League. Ethnohistory to. 35:305-336. Salmon, M. H. Trigger, B. G. 1982 Philosophy and Archaeology. Acad- 1978 William J. Wintemberg: Iroquoian emic Press, New York. Archeologist. In Essays in North- Schiffer, M. B. eastern Anthropology in Memory of 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeo- Marian E. White, edited by W. E. logical Record. University of New Engelbrecht and D. K. Grayson, pp. Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 5-21. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology 5. Franklin Pierce College, Rindge, New Hampshire. VON GERNET ARCHAEOLOGY AS DISCOURSE 21
1980 Archaeology and the Image of the 1993c The Plains Cree, Woods Cree, Sar- American Indian. American Antiquity cee, and Blackfoot Before and 45:662-676. After Their Treaties with the Crown. 1982 Ethnohistory: Problems and 2 vols. Federal Court of Canada Prospects. Ethnohistory 29:1-19. Trial Division Action T-66-86. Depart- 1984a Alternative Archaeologies: National- ment of Justice, Ottawa. ist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man 1994 How Long Have Native People Been 19: 355-370. Here? Nativebeat March 1994:6. 1984b Indian and White History: Two von Gernet, A., and P. Timmins Worlds or One? In Extending the 1987 Pipes and Parakeets: Constructing Rafters: Interdisciplinary Meaning in an Early Iroquoian Con- Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, text. In Archaeology as Long-term edited by M. K. Foster, J. Campisi, History, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 31- and M. Mithun, pp. 17-33. State Univ- 42. Cambridge University Press, ersity of New York Press, Albany, Cambridge, England. New York. Watson, P. J., S. A. LeBlanc, and C. L. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Redman Cambridge University Press, Cam- 1984 Archeological Explanation: The bridge. Scientific Method in Archeology. Varley, C. Columbia University Press, New 1993 Meditations on Time, Mind and Man- York. ufacture: Excerpts from the Notes of Whitley, D. S. William Russell. Arch Notes 93(41:25- 1992 Prehistory and Post-Positivist 37. Science: A Prolegomenon to Cogni- von Gernet, A. tive Archaeology. In Archaeological 1992a New Directions in the Construction of Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Prehistoric Amerindian Belief M. B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100. University Systems. In Ancient Images, Ancient of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Thought: The Archaeology of Ideol- Whitley, D. S., and R. I. Dorn ogy, edited by A. S. Goldsmith, S. 1993 New Perspectives on the Clovis Vs. Garvie, D. Selin, and J. Smith, pp. Pre-Clovis Controversy. American 133-140. Proceedings of the 23rd Antiquity 58:626-647. Annual Chacmool Conference. Univ- Williams, S. ersity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 1991 Fantastic Archaeology. The Wild 1992b Hallucinogens and the Origins of the Side of North American Prehistory. Iroquoian Pipe/Tobacco/Smo- University of Pennsylvania Press, king Complex. In Proceedings of the Philadelphia. 1989 Smoking Pipe Conference, Wright, J. V. edited by C. F. Hayes III, pp. 171-185. 1968 The Application of the Direct Histori- Rochester Museum and Science cal Approach to the Iroquois and the Center Research Records 22. Roch- Ojibwa. Ethnohistory 15:96-111. ester Museum and Science Center, 1972 Ontario Prehistory An Eleven-thous- Rochester, New York. and-year Archaeological Outline. 1993a The Construction of Prehistoric Idea- Van Nostrand Reinhold, Toronto. tion: Exploring the Universality- 1985 The Development of Prehistory in Idiosyncrasy Continuum. Cambridge Canada, 1935-1985. American Anti- Archaeological Journal 3:67-81. quity 50:421-433. 1993b Archaeological Investigations at Wylie, A. Highland Lake: 1991 Field Season. 1982 An Analogy by Any Other Name is 3rd Annual Archaeological Report, Just as Analogical: A Commentary Ontario 1992: 74-79. on the Gould-Watson Dialogue. Jour- nal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:382-401. 22 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 57, 1994
1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In Yager, W. E. Advances in Archaeological Method 1953 Orite of Adequentaga: The Journal of and Theory, vol. 8, edited by M. B. Johannes Van Dyk, 1634-1635, edited Schiffer, pp. 63-111. Academic Press, by R. B. Hill. Reporter, Walton, New Orlando. York. 1992 Rethinking the Quincentennial: Con- Young, T. C., Jr. sequences for Past and Present. 1988 Since Herodotus, Has History Been a American Antiquity 57:591-594. Valid Concept? American Antiquity 53:7-12.
Alexander von Gernet Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto (Erindale), 3359 Mississauga Rd. N., Mississauga, Ontario L5L 106