01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 579

ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY

Robert McGhee

This paper contends that proponents of various forms of Indigenous Archaeology base their argument on a paradigm of Aboriginal essentialism (“Aboriginalism”) that is derived from the long-discarded concept of Primitive Man. The devel- opment of Aboriginalism is explored as a mutually reinforcing process between Indigenous and Western scholars, based on evidence that is at best anecdotal. The adoption of this flawed concept by archaeologists, Western publics, and Indigenous people themselves has led to problematic assumptions that have negative consequences for both the practice of archaeol- ogy and for the lives of those who identify themselves as Indigenous. Archaeologists can usefully challenge the historical assumptions on which the paradigm of Aboriginalism is based: the belief that local societies have endured as stable enti- ties over great periods of time, and the consequent projection of contemporary ethnic identities into the deep past. Such a challenge confronts a significant element of the intellectual climate that allows marginalized groups to exist as permanent aliens in the societies of settler nations.

Este trabajo sostiene que los proponentes de diferentes formas de “arqueología indígena” basan sus argumentos en un par- adigma de esencialismo aborigen (“aboriginalismo”) que se desprende del concepto, desterrado hace tiempo, del hombre primitivo. El desarrollo del aboriginalismo se examina desde la perspectiva de un proceso mutuamente complementario entre los especialistas indígenas y occidentales, basado en la evidencia que es, a lo sumo, anecdótica. La aceptación de este con- cepto viciado por parte de los arqueólogos, el público y la propia población indígena, ha llevado al establecimiento de hipóte- sis problemáticas que influyen de forma negativa tanto en la práctica de la arqueología como en la vida de los que se identifiquen como indígenas. Los arqueólogos pueden cuestionar con eficacia las hipótesis históricas en las que se fundamenta el para- digma del aboriginalismo: la presunción de que las sociedades locales han sido históricamente estables y perdurables durante largos períodos de tiempo, y la proyección de las identidades étnicas actuales en el pasado. Para ello, abordaremos un ele- mento importante del clima intelectual que permite a las sociedades marginadas seguir existiendo como extranjeros perma- nentes en las sociedades de las naciones coloniales.

he past two decades have seen a significant anthropology and archaeology are implicated in amount of academic energy invested in pro- constructing a concept that might be conveniently Tfessing the urgent need for developing an named “Aboriginalism.” The word has some cur- Indigenous archaeology in North America, and rency in Australia, but with variable meanings refer- indeed throughout the world. Books, essays, and ring either to support for Aboriginal rights, or to academic conferences have discussed, defined, and beliefs related to the relationship of contemporary designed a multiplicity of paths toward this goal Aboriginals to “authentic” aboriginality (Attwood (cf. articles and references cited in Conkey 2005; 1992). The term will be used here in a broader Dongoske et al. 2000; McNiven and Russell 2005; sense, based on the model of Said’s (1978) “Ori- Nicholas and Andrews 1997a; Peck et al. 2003; entalism” and referring to the concept that Indige- Smith 2004; and Watkins 2000, 2005). Very little nous societies and cultures possess qualities that effort has been expended, however, in examining are fundamentally different from those of non- the intellectual viability or the social and cultural Aboriginal peoples. This notion has wide currency desirability of this project. in European and North American academic and The current paper developed from an endeavor public thought, although it bears little resemblance to explore the extent to which the disciplines of to any reality outside the world of scholars and the

Robert McGhee I Canadian Museum of Civilization, 100 rue Laurier, Gatineau QC, K1A 0M8, Canada

American Antiquity 73(4), 2008, pp. 579–597 Copyright ©2008 by the Society for American Archaeology

579 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 580

580 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 politicians who appropriate academic theories. The to archaeology lest their uncritical acceptance com- idea of “Indigenous archaeology” is very much an promise the attributes of the discipline that make artifact of this process, and archaeologists’ accep- it a particularly effective means of talking about the tance or promotion of a distinct form of their dis- past. cipline that is appropriate to the study of Aboriginal Over several decades, I have enjoyed the history implicates the discipline in the production acquaintance of many Indigenous individuals— and maintenance of the dubious discourse on Abo- mainly Canadian First Peoples and Inuit—in a vari- riginalism. It also links archaeologists to the poten- ety of circumstances ranging from dogsled trips and tially negative impact that this discourse may have commercial fishing crews to archaeological pro- on the contemporary and future well-being of jects, museum consultation committees, and land Indigenous communities in North America and claims negotiation tables. The ideas presented in elsewhere. the following paper have largely sprung from the In dealing with a subject that is fraught with mis- contrast between these individuals and the stereo- understandings and emotional associations, a writer typical view of the Aboriginal that is common in is well advised to begin by summarizing his per- both the academy and among the publics of West- sonal viewpoint. My perspective differs little from ern nations. that espoused by Wylie (2005:63), who describes The growing interest and involvement of Indige- it as “modest realism” and “moderate pragmatic nous peoples in the archaeology of postcolonial objectivism.” As a secular humanist, my training states is a development that is undoubtedly bene- and experience supports a rationalist scientific ficial to the continued growth of historical knowl- approach to the investigation of the world and it’s edge. The expansion of Indigenous sovereignty past. I view archaeology as a set of techniques over lands containing archaeological remains has developed for the recovery of information related often enhanced the protection, preservation, and to human history, and as a project that is equally archaeological use of these remains. The specific applicable to the history of all human communi- interests brought to the field by Aboriginal schol- ties. I also see the discipline of archaeology as a ars have encouraged a welcome shift in emphasis means of maintaining candor, integrity, and an toward an appreciation of historical rather than sys- approach to objectivity in the work of its members tematic explanation, and of the role of the individ- through established methods of peer judgment in ual in history. The following discussion should not accord with a set of transnational standards. be interpreted as questioning the many beneficial Although agreeing that the construction of histor- archaeological projects that encourage the partici- ical narratives is necessarily influenced by the cul- pation and collaboration of Indigenous people, or tural assumptions and personal situation of the that promote the use of archaeological findings and narrator, I argue that a reasonably objective view interpretations in Indigenous programs of educa- of the past is attainable by historians who are con- tion and cultural revival. Difficulties arise, however, scious of bias arising from their individual ideolo- when archaeologists accede to claims of Aborigi- gies and life situations, as well as of alternative nal exceptionalism and incorporate such assump- views held by others both within and beyond the tions into archaeological practice. These are the academy. I recognize archaeology as one among proponents of the “Indigenous archaeology” that several means of talking about the past. Religious is perceived as problematic in the title of this arti- discourse, family and community history that may cle. be either oral or written, and fictional narrative are Randall McGuire’s often-cited paper “Archaeol- other important means of dealing with and using ogy and the First Americans” provides a good point the past. The past is a universe that is open to all, of entry into our exploration of Aboriginalism and and if archaeologists choose not to base their inter- Indigenous archaeology, with its question “Why are pretations on the evidence of oral tradition, religious scholars (archaeologists, historians and anthropolo- faith, or the imaginative use of other forms of infor- gists) the stewards of Indian pasts?” (McGuire mation, they should have no part in denying others 1992:817). The obvious answer is that historians the right to do so. I argue that such alternate meth- and archaeologists are the stewards of the past for ods must, however, be of only peripheral interest most nations and ethnic communities. McGuire, 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 581

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 581 however, assumes the American situation to be both than discussing potential contributions to knowl- anomalous and negative, and argues unconvincingly edge of the past, the interest of these proponents is that it arises from the perception of Natives as a van- focused on mitigating the presumed negative effects ishing race and from government policies deriving of archaeological practice on the living descen- from that assumption. The more appropriate ques- dants of the communities that are studied by archae- tion would seem to be “Why are so few Native Amer- ologists. icans engaged in archaeology?” An important part During the past several decades, the represen- of the answer to this query lies in the lack of educa- tatives of Indigenous cultural and political organi- tional and economic opportunity available to many zations have made archaeologists very aware of Aboriginal communities. However, another very sig- the prevalently negative perceptions of their disci- nificant factor is the widespread assumption that pline: archaeology’s narratives regarding Native techniques developed in a rationalist scientific tra- history compete with and often deny traditional dition are not appropriate to the investigation of the Indigenous views on the subject; archaeology Aboriginal past. removes ancient Native artifacts and human bones The assumption of exceptionalism also allows from their natural resting place and converts them Aboriginal individuals and groups to assume rights into commodities that are owned by non-Native over their history that are not assumed by or avail- institutions; archaeology uses Indigenous history able to non-Aboriginals. These privileges go as a resource that archaeologists and museums beyond those that are normally accorded to the exploit to build their reputations in non-Native soci- governments of sovereign territories, and include ety. Deloria’s (1995) monograph Red Earth, White proprietary rights over archaeological and other Lies provides a definitive catalogue of such com- heritage materials, jurisdiction over how these plaints, in which archaeology takes the brunt of a materials are investigated, and claims to authority more general attack on the problematic aspects of over the dissemination of information recovered by Western science. archaeological and historical research. Rather than The view that archaeological interpretations of question the assumptions from which such privi- the past denigrate Native cultural heritage and belief leges are derived, archaeologists have proposed a is widely held in the world of Indigenous political variety of accommodations. Some are benign, and cultural leadership. However, the most explicit involving constructive efforts to communicate, and serious charges come from archaeologists engage, and work in collaboration with local themselves, some of whom accuse the discipline Indigenous communities. However, the proponents of inadvertently, implicitly, or in collusion with of a more directed form of “Indigenous archaeol- state governments, depriving Indigenous peoples ogy” seek to appease Indigenous opposition by of both their past and their rightful existence in the incorporating non-Western values and perspectives present world. Watkins (2003:137) charges that the as sources and methods of investigation, or by rationalist perspective of science segregates explicitly aligning their efforts with the historical humans from nature, and thus views Indigenous interests of specific communities or groups. This history as merely a segment of global human her- paper argues that such efforts are not only theoret- itage; Native American philosophy, however, ically unsound, but are detrimental to both archae- “serves to integrate humans with the natural world ology and to Indigenous communities. through a philosophical understanding of the inter- relationship of human and nature” (Watkins What Is the Problem with Archaeology? 2003:37) This relationship presumably operates on a local level, linking people with the land that they This paper assumes that the central purpose of occupy, so that the concept of the American past archaeology, whether as an academic discipline or as part of a global human heritage that is amenable as a resource management practice, is the increase to scientific investigation “removes American Indi- of knowledge regarding human history. Interest- ans from the stage. It also removes American Indi- ingly, this crucial concern seems of little relevance ans from the present by denying them their past as to those who are most vigorous in promoting the the foundation on which their current cultures are development of Indigenous archaeology. Rather based” (Watkins 2003:137). 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 582

582 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 Taking a somewhat different approach, Zim- tions regarding Indigenous peoples, suppositions merman (2006) argues that conflict arises from fun- that are highly dubious but which are rarely and damentally opposed conceptions of the past. To very quietly questioned in the current academic archaeologists, the past is a distant entity that is evi- world. Clifton (1990:13) noted almost two decades denced by artifacts and other remains, whereas ago that standards of etiquette in the academic envi- “Indians know the past because it is spiritually and ronment include norms and taboos of deferential ritually a part of daily existence and is relevant only behavior in any dealings with Indigenous people. as it exists in the present” (Zimmerman 2006:171). “The taboo on scholars writing anything that is The outcome of archaeological practice and per- likely to annoy native peoples is one expression of spective is seen to be identical to that postulated by this explicitly partisan, condescending ethos” Watkins: “When archaeologists say that the Native (Clifton 1990:13), an ethos that extends to schol- American past is gone, extinct, or lost unless arly organizations, law, the mass media, and gov- archaeology can find it, they send a strong message ernment. This characterization of scholarly that Native Americans themselves are extinct” etiquette continues to be valid. Sheridan (2005:63), (Zimmerman 2006:171). This diagnosis resembles referring to relations between Native and non- that proposed by Martin (1987a:16), who argues Native scholars, characterizes current American that Native Americans fascinate historians “with ethnohistory as a field in which “No one is exactly their astounding ability to annul time, their remark- sure what the ground rules are, yet no one seems able capacity to repudiate systematically time and willing to have them spelled out because of con- history.” By constraining the study of Indigenous frontations that might ensue.” In ethnology, Suz- peoples to the perspective of rationalist linear his- man (2003:399) notes that “Despite the fact that tory, invalidating their cyclical world of myth, “we the indigenous rights doctrine is out of step with surely strangle these people” (Martin 1987a:16). much contemporary anthropological thinking, few Smith (2004:17) goes beyond the commonplace anthropologists have criticized it. Of the few who linking of archaeology to colonialism and scien- have, most have been careful to add the caveat that tific imperialism, in proposing that “archaeologi- their critique is intended for theoretical consump- cal discourse and knowledge may become tion only.” Dyck (2006) analyzes the development mobilized as a technology of government to gov- of similar limitations on the work of Canadian ern particular social problems and issues.” With a ethnographers during the late twentieth century, specific focus on practices in the United States and noting that: Australia, she concludes that archaeology is used in the late stages of an age of identity politics, as a means “to define, understand and regulate tru- considerable care has been invested in groom- culent populations and the social problems and ing anthropologists not so much as intellectu- issues that they present for the state” Smith als but rather as practically oriented (2004:17). professionals who wish to proclaim their sym- Whether seen as an instrument of a coercive pathies and solidarity with Indigenous peoples state or simply as a tool for sustaining academic and to place their services at the disposal of life and reputation, these scholars assert that archae- Aboriginal leaders [2006:87]. ology serves to deprive Indigenous peoples of their right to define their own place in the modern world, He remarks that the self-deprecation and self- and that it is an effective weapon of assimilation to censorship adopted by anthropologists working mainstream cultures. This analysis is well sum- with Canadian Aboriginals “contrasts vividly with marized by Custer (2005:3), who enthusiastically the determinedly independent and critical stances embraces the view that “Archaeologists have cre- exhibited by ethnographers who strive to chart ated a thought world which serves to support their the politics of nationalism, civil war, violence, own power and privilege, harms the interests of and human rights abuses around the world” (Dyck American Indian people, and aids the ongoing cul- 2006:87). This analysis can quite validly be tural genocide focused on Native Americans.” extended to the training and work of archaeolo- The arguments and conclusions listed in the pre- gists who support the notion of an Indigenous vious paragraphs are based on a number of assump- archaeology. 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 583

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 583 As a result of the assumed harm caused by specific region. The projection of current ethnic archaeology to Indigenous people and societies, definitions and identities into the past, as well as support for the concept of Indigenous archaeology the assumption that local societies have been his- is almost universally set in a framework of “ethics” torically stable and enduring over great periods of of archaeological practice. The fact that this fram- time, may be psychologically rewarding to con- ing has remained unexamined and unquestioned temporary communities. It has also proved legally must be attributed to the etiquette described in the useful in negotiations regarding land use and own- previous paragraph. This silence has given rise to ership. a sense that archaeologists who champion forms However, history and archaeology attest that of Indigenous archaeology are somehow “more assumptions regarding the endurance of unchang- ethical” than those who might question the concept. ing local cultural identities are unlikely to reflect I suggest that we might best lay aside this infer- what actually happened in the past. On the contrary, ence of comparative integrity before examining the the accumulated evidence of history demonstrates arguments presented in the remainder of this paper. that all of our ancestors have at some point lost their An equally questionable assumption that is homelands, taken over the homelands of others, made by proponents of Indigenous archaeology mixed with other societies and changed beyond relates to these individuals’essentialist views on the recognition over time (Lowenthal 2005:407). nature of Aboriginal peoples and societies, and of Claims of Aboriginal uniqueness, like those of the unique qualities and abilities that set Indigenous national or any other ethnic distinctiveness that are peoples apart from European and Euro-American based on belief in the persistence of ancient and populations (excellent examples of such views have unchanged societies, are clearly untenable from the been previously cited from Martin 1987a; Watkins viewpoint of Western historical and scientific schol- 2003; and Zimmerman 2006). Aboriginals are arship. assumed to have a special relationship with and The fact that archaeologists choose to partici- understanding of the natural world. Their percep- pate in the essentializing of the Aboriginal, despite tion of time as cyclical or continuously present is the fact that their knowledge and their rationalist more complex and less limiting than the linear con- view of the past denies the historical prerequisites cept of time on which Western historical scholar- for such a view, is difficult to comprehend. It is ship is based. Some follow Deloria (1995) in clearly associated with the fact that Indigenous characterizing Indigenous peoples as having access interests and demands regarding archaeological to a superior understanding of the past than that practice are enmeshed in the entire complex situ- offered by the Western historical tradition and West- ation of negotiation and accommodation between ern scientific methods. This ability is presumed to Aboriginal and settler populations in the Americas, result from an enduring relationship with local land- Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. scapes, and from a unique capacity of Aboriginal More specifically, Smith notes that Aboriginal his- historical and cultural traditions to preserve a torical assertions are “part of wider negotiations deeper, and in some sense a more truthful, narra- with governments and their policy makers about the tive of the past than that available to non-Aboriginal political and cultural legitimacy of Indigenous societies (Trask 1987:178). claims to specific rights, not least of which are These characteristics of an essentialized Abo- rights to land” (Smith 2004:16). In the analogous riginal culture can be rationalized only through an case of social/cultural anthropology, Plaice assumption that contemporary Aboriginals are the (2003:397) suggests that “In its guise as the disci- inheritors of long and essentially unchanging cul- pline interested in cultural diversity, it [anthropol- tural traditions that are tied to specific regions and ogy] could be construed as the academic wing of environments. Identification with local lands, a pro- the indigenous rights movement, whose role is to found understanding and commitment to steward- advocate the rights of vulnerable cultural minori- ship of local environments, and the creation and ties.” She notes that individual anthropologists, as transmission of deep historical and cultural knowl- members of liberal Western society, condone the edge, are generally understood as arising from “seemingly racist policies” of ascribing exceptional countless generations of persistent occupation in a qualities and rights to Aboriginal peoples simply 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 584

584 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 because they find it distasteful to watch the disin- people” has recently acquired on the world stage tegration of traditional societies (Plaice 2003:397). of political and social ideas: There is little doubt that archaeologists in settler The interesting thing about the relative newness societies are susceptible to the same temptations. of this concept is that it refers to a primordial Sheridan (2005:76) suggests that the only intel- identity, to people with primary attachments to lectually honest way for a historian to approach land and culture, “traditional” people with last- such situations is by taking a stance of “strategic ing connections to ways of life that have sur- essentialism,” through conjecturing an essential vived “since time immemorial.” That this difference between Aboriginals and non- innovation should be so widely accepted is a Aboriginals in order to help shift the center of power startling achievement [Niezen 2003:3]. away from the hands of the colonizer. Sheridan’s intellectual honesty would seem to be more fairly Other anthropologists view the same phenomenon characterized as political commitment. It is also less optimistically, interpreting it as the resurgence worth noting that the social theorist G. C. Spivak in both anthropological and political discourse of (1988), who initially defined the concept of “strate- the concept of “primitive people” under a new dis- gic essentialism” as an effective tactic in colonial guise (Béteille 1998; Clifton 1990; Kuper 2003). struggles, has long since renounced its use. Dun- The official recognition by national governments, canson (2005:28) quotes Spivak as remarking in a as well as by the United Nations and other inter- 1990 interview that “Essentialism is like dynamite, national organizations, of Indigenous peoples as or a powerful drug: judiciously applied, it can be societies with common attributes, common prob- effective in dismantling unwanted structures or alle- lems, and common rights, appears to have rescued viating suffering; uncritically employed, however, this long-discredited concept from the anthropo- it is destructive and addictive.” logical rubbish heap. As noted above, anthropolo- In a broader context, the intellectual stance of gists and archaeologists have been susceptible to archaeology with regard to the Indigenous is a side- abetting this resurrection by agreeing to ascribe to bar to discussions regarding human rights, cultural Indigenous communities a common set of intel- pluralism, and modes of accommodation in multi- lectual and moral characteristics that set them apart cultural societies (Ignatieff 2001; Kymlicka 1995; from non-Aboriginal societies. Niezen 2003; Taylor 1994). These debates neces- This development is perhaps not surprising, sarily revolve around questions of cultural rela- despite a century of social theorizing on cultural tivism in contest with assumptions regarding the diversity that has valorized the equality of human universality of rights, moral values, and the will to capabilities, and drawn clear distinctions between political self-determination. Do universal human the genetic and cultural attributes of societies. Biolsi rights trump local traditional or religious practice? (1997:136) suggests that “Anthropology as a dis- Is there a place for collective rights as opposed to cipline has not been able to escape [the] conceptu- the rights of the individual? What are the limits of alization of the primitive, which is deeply self-determination in pluralist societies? Questions embedded in the way Western civilization in gen- such as these hang in the background of any con- eral and American civilization in particular, con- frontation between the universality of scientific stitutes itself. In fact, the Western, modernist practice and the particular values and beliefs of concept of the primitive is what makes anthropol- local societies. Unfortunately, these debates have ogy intellectually possible.” Whether or not we produced little guidance to the negotiation of spe- agree that this is true with regard to the discipline cific situations such as those arising in the archae- of ethnology, it is certainly not for the archaeolog- ology of ancestral Indigenous peoples. ical study of ancestral Indigenous peoples. If archaeologists are tempted to perceive the subjects Savages, Primitives, Natives, Aboriginals, of their study (and their contemporary descendants) Indigenes: A Short History of Aboriginalism as primitives, they do so not from intellectual neces- sity but from consciously or unconsciously draw- Niezen (2003:3) notes with astonished approval ing on stereotypes that have a long and compelling the momentum that the concept of “Indigenous allure within the Western cultural tradition. 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 585

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 585 The seductiveness of these abstractions may be served as a means of commenting on the immoral- illustrated by the great historical depth that they ity and corruption that poets and scholars saw in possess, and the use to which they have been put. their own world. Tacitus’ (1914) Germania, an Following Diamond (1974) and others, Biolsi ethnography of the peoples who lived beyond the (1997:135) summarizes the view that Western Rhine frontier, blended repugnance of their sloth society requires a fictional “primitive” to define and disorder with respect for their honor, hospital- its “civilized” self: “The primitive is a concept ity, bravery, sexual morality, and democratic mode generated out of the social and cultural dynamics of governing. Historians such as Tacitus of state-level societies and modernity.... The self- (1914:29–32) and Cassius Dio (1925:3–5) wrote identity or subjectivity of people in state societies fictional speeches for barbarian military leaders in ... requires a concept of the primitive both to bound which they praised the barbarians’ bravery, and to give content to the concept of the civilized.” endurance, and ability to live with and from nature, The argument derives from the same dialectical in contrast to the weakness and cowardice of thinking that spawned Said’s (1978) contention Romans who depended on their military technol- that “the Orient” was invented as a necessary con- ogy to secure victory. These exercises in fictional trast through which Western scholars could cele- rhetoric were meant for Roman ears, and their for- brate the social efficiency, technical preeminence, mat was clearly designed to allow critical views of and the moral and intellectual superiority of their Roman society to be expressed by scholars who own societies. Although this may be true in the obviously preferred that such views not be openly case of Orientalism, an examination of the his- expressed as their own. torical use that Western society has made of the The concept of the noble barbarian seems to fictional primitive suggests a very different inverse have disappeared with the decline of Roman civi- mode of comparison. Among social theorists and lization, perhaps because of an increase in firsthand other academics, primitive societies are more experience of tribal peoples, and the transforma- often ascribed splendid qualities that are lacking tion of Europe into semiautonomous social units in those of the civilized world. This perception that no longer had a barbarian “other” with which may also explicate the mechanism by which the to compare themselves. However, the penchant for concept of the Noble Savage became a basis for romanticizing barbarian character, for relating this the self-definition of many contemporary Indige- character to an idealized Golden Age when humans nous peoples. were closer to the land, and for using the barbar- Scholars in the Western intellectual tradition ians as a foil to demonstrate the failings of con- have long compared their own societies with that temporary European society, reappeared in the of a mythological Golden Age, or with the soci- descriptions of peoples that were encountered by eties of barbarian or savage peoples that retained the explorers of the European Renaissance. It is the characteristics of that age. Like the social the- quite apparent that these similarities are more than orists of the past few centuries, those of Imperial coincidental, as fifteenth-century voyages of dis- Rome experienced ever-widening knowledge of covery coincided with the efforts of scholars and strange lands and stranger populations. Roman translators to recover the long-forgotten texts of the poets and philosophers reacted to these new peo- Classical past. The historical and geographical ples in an interesting fashion: they consistently knowledge of the Classical world was a primary admired the hospitality, courage, morality, and love source of information for the explorers of the of freedom that appeared to characterize barbarian Renaissance, and for those who recorded and inter- societies, and that mitigated their indolence and preted their accounts of discovery. Porter (1979:45) ignorance. Some barbarians were described in notes that antiquity supplied “ready made ‘myths’ terms reminiscent of the ancient inhabitants of the which literate explorers could use as an allusive Golden Age, and this period of simplicity and ease framework for the accounts of their exploits.” Clas- seems to have continued in some manner to exist sical allusions occur throughout the reports of fif- among the peoples who lived beyond the bounds teenth- and sixteenth-century discoveries, and most of civilization. prominently in discussions of the Native peoples The description of barbarian societies also encountered. 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 586

586 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 Ellingson (2001:22–26) credits the Parisian sociétés inférieures (published in English as How lawyer Marc Lescarbot with inventing both the dis- Natives Think [1966]) characterized primitive cipline of Anthropology and the concept of the thought as prelogical, mystical, and impervious to Noble Savage. After spending the year 1606–1607 “rational” learning through experience. at the fur-trading post of Port Royal on the Bay of The rationalist tradition in anthropology, argu- Fundy in eastern Canada, Lescarbot argued that the ing the psychic and intellectual unity of mankind, local Mi’kmaq shared with European nobility the has always been challenged by a romantic tradi- patterns of moral and social life that had been pre- tion that has perpetuated a view of the Primitive as served from an ancient golden age. The lawyer saw a special class of human who is probably not quite these patterns as deriving from the practice of hunt- ready to join contemporary world culture and soci- ing, an activity that in France was reserved to the ety. This perspective survived the Enlightenment Nobility, and that was associated with the charity discussions of social philosophy, gained strength and generosity of an ancient world (Lescarbot in the literature and oral traditions of nineteenth- 1928:267 [1609]). Lescarbot’s analysis of New century colonial administration and Christian mis- World society was widely translated and played an sionary activities, and gained academic credibility important role in the development of social theory with the development of anthropology as a schol- during the following century. arly discipline. In contradiction of standard histories of anthro- pology, Ellingson (2001) is correct in asserting that The Culpability of Anthropology neither Jean-Jacques Rousseau nor any other social philosopher of the Enlightenment thought of the A reading of the history of anthropology supports Noble Savage as anything more than an ancient the- Ellingson’s (2001:4) contention that “the Noble oretical possibility, a hypothetical creature who Savage was indeed associated with both the con- served as a useful rhetorical foundation for theo- ceptual and the institutional foundations of anthro- ries on the development of human society. Despite pology.” Following Stocking’s (1987:243–256) Locke’s (1980:49 [1690]) famous dictum that close analysis of the discipline’s origins, he detects “Thus in the beginning all the world was America,” the concept arising in scholarly disputes carried out he used the descriptions of Aboriginal peoples in against the background of the U.S. Civil War that the same way as he did those of Biblical and Clas- was being fought over African slavery. On the one sical times, as examples of those that have pro- side were the anatomists who argued the biologi- gressed to various points along the theoretical cal inferiority of Africans and other Indigenous pathway from nature to the development of civil peoples, on the other were the archaeologists and society. A century later, Hume’s Enquiry Con- ethnologists who believed in the equal capacity of cerning Human Understanding clearly states the all humans. By the late 1860s, the latter faction had view that noble savagery did not exist, and that triumphed and their views, which in England had human nature was consistent throughout the world developed from those of the Quaker-led Aborig- and throughout history (Hume 1975:65 [1777]). ines Protection Society, became the defining dis- Lewis (1999) derives the discipline of anthro- course of the new discipline of anthropology. pology, and especially the Boasian school of Amer- “Equal but very different” could have been their icanist anthropology, from this intellectual watchword, as the developing field defended the tradition. He laments what he takes to be the recent position of its philanthropic intellectual ancestors abandonment of its basic principles in favor of an against the racialist views of colonial soldiers and “us and them” perspective in which comprehension administrators. Of the later nineteenth century, of other cultures is illusory. However, this post- Stocking (1987:273) notes that “If few in this modernist perspective also has a long intellectual period questioned the white Europeans’ evolu- tradition in anthropology. Whereas Boas’ (1911) tionary mission, many anthropologists continued The Mind of Primitive Man argued that all human in kindly scholarly fashion to play the roles of minds operate on identical principles and differ defender of savage ways of life and explicator of only through cultural input, Lévy Bruhl’s contem- savage modes of thought—roles clearly premised poraneous Les fonctionnes mentales dans les on a sense of moral obligation.” 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 587

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 587 Of the same period, Kuper (1988:9, 14) argues ing of economists, sociologists, or orientalists. that the development of a concept of “primitive By the mid–twentieth century, the unique society” was sustained by the dynamics of schol- thought patterns of Aboriginals had become an aca- arly behavior: “Primitive society then became the demic reality. Anthropological linguists (Hoijer preserve of a new discipline, which soon developed 1964 [1950]; Lee 1938; Sapir 1931; Whorf 1956 a sophisticated set of techniques for kinship stud- [1937]) convinced many scholars that thought ies. When this happened, the survival of the idea processes were necessarily conditioned by the con- of primitive society was ensured.” The concept, struction of individual languages. The great diver- together with related notions concerning primitive sity of Aboriginal languages became a measure of mentality, primitive religion, and primitive art, the diversity that could be expected in thought pat- became the central orthodoxy of anthropology. terns, and of how different these could be from From this base it permeated the political and his- those of Europeans. The evidence suggesting wide torical consciousness of Western intellectual soci- diversity in thought patterns and world views, how- ety, where it has persisted to the present day. ever, did not prevent anthropologists from contin- Extending Kuper’s analysis, we could note that uing their long tradition of sustaining the stereotype although anthropology announced itself as “the of the “primitive” mind. Although La Pensée study of Man,” this assertion was eroded during the Sauvage is not as prescriptive as the English title early twentieth century by a florescence of acade- The Savage Mind would suggest, as late as the mic disciplines that also studied humanity, includ- 1960s Claude Lévi-Strauss could still essentialize ing economics, psychology, oriental studies, and the primitive mind: sociology. Anthropology retreated to a smaller but The characteristic feature of the savage mind more defensible academic niche: the study of is its timelessness; its object is to grasp the ancient humans and of the small societies that lived world as both a synchronic and a diachronic beyond the mainstream of world events. Social and totality. ... The savage mind deepens its knowl- cultural anthropology became the study of the edge with the help of imagines mundi. It builds Indigenous, the “peoples without history” whose mental structures which facilitate an under- ways of life were thought to have changed little standing of the world in as much as they resem- since ancient times. The interests of anthropology, ble it. In this sense savage thought can be as an academic discipline, would seem to have lain defined as analogical thought [1966:262]. in emphasizing the unique characteristics of Abo- riginal cultures, those traits that set them apart from In this early phase of the postmodernist move- the peasant and urban societies that at the time were ment, the Aboriginal had become a class of humans studied by other academic disciplines. This allowed whose minds worked in ways that were different great scope for developing the “equal but very dif- from those of civilized Westerners, and that might ferent” concept, especially as it could be applied be incomprehensible to Western science. In more not only to social and economic life but to the recent years this idea has been most thoroughly worldview, languages, and belief systems of Abo- expounded by Sahlins (1995) in his celebrated riginals. Although Indigenous people generally debate with Gananath Obeyesekere on whether lived with less technology, and at a less complex Western rational analysis can comprehend why socioeconomic level than the colonial peoples who Native Hawaiians chose to kill Captain James had displaced them, the doctrine of “equal but very Cook. different” suggested their potential for possessing Kuper (1988) contends that the concept of prim- and developing less tangible qualities, and such itive society was developed and maintained by the qualities began to emerge from anthropological structural needs of the academic discipline of descriptions. The unique character of these sub- anthropology. This argument can be extended jects, developed especially during the period of through consideration of Keesing’s (1989) impor- “culture and personality” studies in the first half of tant, yet very little recognized, article titled “Exotic the twentieth century, provided clearly defined Readings of Cultural Texts.” Keesing argues that boundary markers for the discipline of anthropol- the reward structure of anthropology (like those of ogy, markers that could be used to repel the poach- geographical exploration and travel writing) has 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 588

588 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 encouraged the announcement of new and increas- This rhetoric had no effect on the Jesuit’s neg- ingly exotic phenomena and interpretations. He ative views of the Mi’kmaq, but the lawyer–eth- cites the example of a colleague, invited to prepare nologist Lescarbot may have been less critical. a paper in honor of Claude Lévi-Strauss, who Mi’kmaq self-regard as braver, more honest, and eagerly set to work analyzing the concept of “direc- more generous than the French may have been a tion” as it was perceived by the Indigenous people primary source of Lescarbot’s depiction of the whom he had studied. Eventually he realized that native Acadians as inheritors of the same moral their concept and practice of direction naming and qualities that characterized the royalty and nobil- orientation was identical to his own, so he didn’t ity of Europe. Lescarbot, whose decision to come bother to complete and publish the paper. This sort to Acadia was occasioned by a recent injustice and of contribution would return little reward to its his consequent disenchantment with Parisian soci- author, and would rarely if ever get published or ety, may have been more disposed to accept Mi’k- even written. I suspect that the process of selective maq opinion of their own culture. A shared view reporting has been very significant in the develop- of social comparisons may have been developed ment of a paradigm defining Aboriginals as peo- during a long winter of discussions between Mem- ples who possess, among other unique or unusual bertou and the lawyer. Such a mutually reinforc- attributes, an extraordinary and holistic under- ing process would have served different purposes standing of their environments; who recognize time for the disillushioned French philosopher of soci- as a synchronous or cyclical rather than a linear phe- ety, and for the Mik’maq engaged in defining their nomenon; who have enhanced qualities of spiritual relationship with the new settlers, but it would have realization; and whose oral traditions provide all supported the establishment of a shared belief in of the information required to preserve an ancient the unique differences that existed between Euro- and unchanging view of the world and how it should pean and Aboriginal societies. be inhabited. An important mechanism in the self- The preceding pages have argued that Aborigi- identification of Indigenous peoples with the fic- nalism, the paradigm of “The Aboriginal” as an tional primitive of European scholarship has been individual and a society that is essentially different the development of recursive feedback between the from the non-Indigenous, is a delusion that has writings of European scholars and the Aboriginal been fostered by the practice of anthropology. But subjects of their texts. The process began very early of course Aboriginals have had their own say in the in the encounter between European and American matter. Lescarbot’s characterization of the Mi’k- peoples. Thomas More’s 1515 fiction Utopia maq, described above, may have been based less described the discovery of an island in the West on observation than on discussions with French- Indies that was home to a perfected human society speaking Native acquaintances. His leading infor- characterized by common ownership, religious tol- mant on Mi’kmaq life, Membertou, was also the erance, and a political system based on consensual local leader who explained Mi’kmaq society to the decision rather than imposed authority. Utopia is Jesuit Fr. Pierre Biard five years later. Biard Plato’s Republic crossed with the idealized New reported that: World societies described from the voyages of Columbus and Vespucci. It is clear that More did They consider themselves ... braver than we not invent the Utopian community as a plan for an are, boasting that they have killed Basques and ideal civilization but as a foil designed to highlight Malouins. ... They consider themselves better the problems and faults of contemporary English than the French; “For”, they say, “you are society. Yet barely 20 years after its publication always fighting and quarreling among your- Bishop Vasco de Quiroga began to found commu- selves; we live peaceably. You are envious and nities in Michoacan based on the customs of the are all the time slandering each other; you are Utopians. The creation of an ideal society seemed thieves and deceivers; you are covetous, and appropriate, as the bishop explained that “with are neither generous nor kind; as for us, if we much cause and reason is this called the New World, have a morsel of bread we share it with our not because it is newly found, but because in its neighbor” [Thwaites 1896–1901:1:173]. people, and in almost everything, it is like as was 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 589

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 589 the first Golden Age” (Porter 1979:47). It seems interpretations, on the surface his statement appears likely that these ideas were promulgated to the to validate the concept of Aboriginalism. Other bishop’s subjects, the actors in his experiment to archaeologists (Watkins 2003; Zimmerman 2006) recreate the Golden Age. are less careful in expressing essentialized stereo- A remarkable and much more recent example types of Aboriginal people. Such voices of schol- of feedback between European scholarship and arly authority serve to support the myths of Aboriginal belief can be found in the use of the Aboriginalism in the public mind, and Indigenous “Adario dialogues” written by the Baron de Lahon- people in particular must be susceptible to such a ton, a soldier who spent several years in Canada gratifying view of their inherent qualities. Simard during the late seventeenth century. The most inter- (1990:360) compares the situation to that of tradi- esting section of Lahonton’s (1703) published tional Québecois who were prone to accept the account of his ventures is a series of long and obvi- dominant Anglais view of themselves. “Generation ously imaginary conversations with a Huron chief after generation [Aboriginals] have integrated into named Adario, a character who is usually thought their own practical and intellectual life the domi- to have been based on a noted warrior and diplo- nant culture’s Owner’s Manual for being Indian” mat named Kondiaronk who had died after failing (Simard 1990:358). The chapters of the manual to sabotage the Great Peace of Montréal. written by scientists who describe Aboriginals as Adario is presented as a philosopher of the possessing uniquely admirable qualities of thought, Golden Age, and his role is to describe the superi- and exceptional abilities to understand the world, ority of Huron culture in order to point out the would be especially tempting to integrate into the absurdity of Christian beliefs, the immorality of self-perception of Indigenous people. priests, the dishonesty of French legal and com- The transformation of scholarly writing into tra- mercial practices, and the corrupt nature of French ditional knowledge has been well documented by society. The argument is presented clearly and affa- Symonds (1999:119), who notes that in the Scot- bly, and Lahonton is obviously using his imaginary tish Highlands oral histories telling of the traumatic debater in the same way as Roman historians used eighteenth- and nineteenth-century clearances of barbarians, or as Thomas More used Utopia, to agricultural populations have been replaced by tra- speak truth to power without endangering his own ditions based on the accounts of popular histori- prospects. However the Adario dialogues have ans. The work of writers such as John Prebble become a favorite of aboriginal historians and cul- (1963) are now incorporated into traditional knowl- tural leaders, perhaps best exemplified by Georges edge and “have become the new oral history” Sioui’s (1992) For an Amerindian Autohistory. (Symonds 1999:119). Nicholas and Andrews Here, a leading aboriginal historian presents Adario (1997b:277) note the problem of “readback” when as an actual Huron philosopher recording, through interpreting historical information provided by his friend Lahonton, the truth about the Aboriginal Aboriginal consultants; this caution should per- way of life in ancient North America. This paragon haps be expanded to include information on the not only demonstrates the clear superiority of self-perception of the consultants and their culture. Native American culture and society but “Adario The readback process must have occurred repeat- had already foreseen the need for a world govern- edly among literate Indigenous communities whose ment and may be said to have helped lay the intel- culture and history have been described by anthro- lectual foundations for the great social revolutions pologists and archaeologists, sometimes in clearly of our own time” (Sioui 1992:81). A carefully essentialist terms. The assimilation of the Aborig- nuanced but flattering introduction to the book was inal stereotype is unquestionably abetted by the written by a leading archaeologist, the late Bruce acceptance of the obverse Whiteman stereotype— Trigger (1992), and epitomizes the intellectual materialistic, uncharitable, dishonest, cowardly, dilemma faced by archaeologists in attempting to environmentally ruthless—as formulated by accommodate the historical perspectives of Indige- Lescarbot, Lahonton’sAdario, and countless other nous peoples. critics of Western society from Tacitus to contem- Although a careful reading of Trigger’s testi- porary anthropologists (Marcus and Fischer monial absolves the scholar of supporting Sioui’s 1986:111). 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 590

590 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 Aboriginalism and Indigenous Archaeology “such dichotomies obscure equally interesting dif- ferences between the diverse cultures in the ‘other’ Do Indigenous people and societies possess inher- category,” and that in the particular case of histor- ent qualities and abilities, with special reference to ical perspectives “such simplistic thinking tends to historical matters, that distinguish them from non- attribute opposed functions to oral art forms and Aboriginals? Despite the prevalence of assumptions written literature.” The series of essays collected based on the traditional construction of the Primi- by Layton from scholars on all continents presents tive, neither anthropology, archaeology, or any other a diversity of non-Western, indigenous, and rural field of study provides persuasive evidence in sup- approaches to history, yet provides no evidence of port of the view that Indigenous people possess a a simple nonlinear view of time past. Statements distinctive view of time and of history, a unique by individuals that they and their community view understanding of the natural world, or oral traditions time as cyclical, or think of the past as eternally that allow recovery of knowledge related to the dis- present, cannot be judged as other than anecdotal. tant past. Recent approaches to the subject rely on Similar anecdotal evidence can be cited from the the presentation of rhetoric rather than of empirical experience of the present author, who has found that evidence. Donald Fixico’s (2003) The American Indigenous individuals have no obvious problem Indian Mind in a Linear World enumerates signif- internalizing the concept of linear time that is a nec- icant differences between Indigenous and European essary component of living in the contemporary ways of understanding the world, the most basic of world. The same class of evidence suggests that which is the assumed fact that Indian thought pro- Westerners share with other humans a sense of ceeds from the understanding that circles and cycles cyclical time in the recognition that every seasonal are central to the universe, relating all times and all and communal celebration, be it Halloween, Christ- things. Thus “the linear mind looks for cause and mas, Passover, Eid, Diwali, or Green Corn Festi- effect, and the Indian mind seeks to comprehend val, is the same celebration come round again, relationships” (Fixico 2003:8) among phenomena carrying its own freight of emotional recognition. as disparate as events, dreams, and ceremonies. Indeed, the notion of cyclical time as a unique In a work subtitled Towards a Critical Indige- attribute of non-Western peoples may be traceable nous Philosophy, Dale Turner (2006) repeatedly to the questionable assertions made by the student states the duty of Indigenous intellectuals to pro- of religions Mircea Eliade (1954) in The Myth of tect and defend the legitimacy of Indigenous ways the Eternal Return. of knowing the world. He is particularly interested On the related subject of the historical accuracy in the power of Indigenous philosophy as the basis of oral traditions, those of aboriginals seem to be for political discussions and negotiations of rights, at most marginally different from those of any other sovereignty, and nationhood. Turner stresses the society. Nabokov’s wide-ranging and sympathetic idea that, if they are to be politically effective,Abo- analysis of American Indian modes of history riginal worldviews must be made comprehensible “endorses efforts to transcend old characterizations to dominant Euro-American societies. However he of Indians as victims or stereotypes and their tra- (Turner 2006:116) is uncertain whether “indige- ditions as monolithic and intractable. The many nous philosophies are articulable in English” (and Indian pasts ... are as much stories of philosophi- presumably in other non-Indigenous languages), cal, ideological, and symbolic creativity and syn- and makes no attempt to articulate the ways of thesis, inevitably processed through definitions of knowing which are basic to his argument. Rather self, community, and destiny, as they are beads of than providing empirical evidence of Indigenous discrete incidents hung on narrative strings” difference both Fixico and Turner argue that empir- (Nabokov 2002:237). Instead of supporting claims ical evidence, in the sense familiar to the rational- of superior and more accurate knowledge of his- ist scientific tradition, is irrelevant to an torical events, Nabokov stresses the importance of understanding of Indigenous thought. the individual storyteller, the context of narration, Layton (1994:4) discusses the problem of set- and the importance of multivocality as a founda- ting up an intellectual dichotomy between Western tion of Native historical approaches. He compares and non-Western modes of thought, noting that this complex perspective with the simple essen- 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 591

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 591 tialism displayed by Martin (1987b), much to the logical practice causes for Indigenous communi- detriment of the latter. In discussing the San Pedro ties were discussed earlier in this paper. The disci- Ethnohistory Project, one of the most sophisticated pline is accused of disrespecting the religious and and rewarding examples of collaboration between historical beliefs of Indigenous people, of disre- archaeologists and Indigenous historians, Ferguson garding the desire of Indigenous communities to and Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2006:247) state, “We define their own pasts and therefore their unique do not advocate that archaeologists simply accept places in the contemporary world, of denying traditional histories in their entirety as literal truth. sophisticated Aboriginal concepts of cyclical or ... Nonetheless, we think archaeologists should seek eternally present time and imposing on Indigenous to identify the social and cultural processes impli- history the simple Western notion of linear time, cated in tribal narratives about the past.” and of being an agent of coercive governments in Turning to other presumed qualities of the abetting acts of cultural genocide. Indigenous, Krech (1999, 2005) and Mann (2005) Proposed solutions to these problems involve the have assembled sufficient evidence to discredit the development of forms of Indigenous archaeology romantic idea of Native Americans as natural con- that depart radically from the practice of archaeol- servationists whose ancestors did nothing to alter ogy as an academic and heritage management dis- or harm the natural environment. No evidence has cipline. Few of these proposals have the clarity of been presented to support a belief that Indigenous Deloria’s (1995:15) direct statement that “Much of people possess a greater knowledge of their land Western science must go” before Aboriginal peo- or a more intense feeling for their land than do non- ple can obtain a clearer understanding of their past. Aboriginal individuals, especially those who spend Some (Custer 2005) argue that archaeology can be a great deal of time outdoors in one particular patch practiced with a clear conscience only if it is car- of country. The frequent assertion that Aboriginal ried out at the request of, and under the direction lives are permeated by a sense of spirituality that and control of, an Indigenous community. Others is not available to non-Aboriginals has been criti- simply assume that “indigenous rights should cized even by Deloria (1997:213), who laments always trump scientific inquiry” as Gillespie that “a self-righteous piety has swept Indian coun- (2004:174) notes of the papers collected by Zim- try, and it threatens to pollute the remaining pock- merman et al. (2003). With particular reference to ets of traditionalism and produce a mawkish unreal Australia, McNiven and Russell (2005:239) see the sentimentalism that commissions everyone to be claims of archaeologists to academic freedom as ‘spiritual’ whether they understand it or not.” no more than “part of the colonial fantasy of natu- In summary, scholarly literature provides con- ralized superiority and hegemonic control.” siderable evidence hostile to the tenets of Aborig- Nicholas (2005:v) recommends that archaeology inalism. In support of the concept that Aboriginal be willing to accept restrictions placed by Indige- peoples have unique attributes that distinguish them nous communities on the dissemination of data, and from all other societies, one finds only assertions to accept publication moratoriums that may allow that are unsubstantiated by evidence or interpreta- the subject community time to explore ways of tion. The idea of Indigenous societies that are benefiting from the data before others do. morally and spiritually superior to those of Euro- Beyond the sharing of authority over the use of pean ancestry has an intellectual allure, perhaps archaeological resources and the information parallel to that of benevolent extraterrestrial visi- derived from them, proponents of Indigenous tors. Such uncorroborated beliefs, however, do not archaeology generally require what Ridington form a useful base for the construction of a special (1999:20) calls “sharing theoretical authority” by form of Indigenous Archaeology that is appropri- moving beyond the canons/cannons of formal aca- ate to the unique needs of Aboriginal peoples. In demic discourse. Such projects strip archaeology fact, most archaeologists’assertion of these needs, of the scientific attributes that make it a particularly and their proposals for accommodating them, are powerful narrator of the past, and accord it at most distinctly condescending to those whom they intend equal weight relative to Indigenous oral tradition to honor or placate. and religious discourse. Zimmerman (2006:173) The supposed problems that current archaeo- predicts that “Accountability to Native Americans 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 592

592 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 will create a very different discipline, one that will ciation’s code of ethics, which states that “in not be scientific, according to our current stan- research, an anthropologist’s paramount responsi- dards.” He proposes that the loss of scientific cred- bility is to those he studies” (Culhane 1992:72). ibility may be compensated by access to a greater Trigger (1997:x) offers a similar warning that range of Indigenous knowledge, especially in the “If archaeologists knowingly treat the beliefs of realm of the sacred, a suggestion rooted in the Indians differently than those of Euro-Canadians, stereotyped view of Indigenous peoples as holders there is a danger that the discipline will descend of sacred knowledge. into mythography, political opportunism, and bad The problem of accommodating scientific science.” He also warns that “For archaeologists to demands to the requirements of local communities take sides in political issues of this sort [in this has been addressed more honestly and profitably case, denial of the Asiatic origin of Native Ameri- by anthropologists. Noting the difficulties of rec- cans] risks interference in Native life that may be onciling empirical positivism with the faith-based scarcely less patronizing than the interference of assertions that underlie the belief systems of most Indian agents and missionaries was in the past” communities, Brown states that: (Trigger 1997:x). We cannot foresee the conse- quences of archaeological support for statements Collisions between faith and fact are inevitable and perspectives that are consistent with Aborigi- ... and there will be difficult moments when nal belief but not with scientific evidence, any more cultural anthropologists must decide whether than Indian agents and missionaries could accu- we are griots and griottes [praise-singing rately forecast the outcome of their activities. In any bards] for our ethnographic partners or active case, as Kuper (2003:400) reminds us, “Even if we participants in a transcultural community of could accurately weigh up the medium- and long- scholars who answer to truth standards that term political costs and benefits of saying this or many of our ethnographic collaborators find that, our business should be to deliver accurate incomprehensible or offensive. Presumably we accounts of social processes.” are both [2006:992]. Predicting the benefits of Indigenous archaeol- Playing a game that has two distinct and often ogy is a theoretical exercise, because the thorough opposed sets of rules is neither easy nor often use- revision of the discipline envisaged by its advocates ful to either the player or to disparate audiences. has yet to be implemented, and the advantages of Kuper notes that: accommodating a scientific discipline to the desires of a specific nonscientific community are not at all If anthropology becomes ... “the intellectual clear. Proctor (2003:223) perceptively notes that wing of the indigenous rights movement,” if “Historians are familiar with the obstructive impact we report only what is convenient and refrain of ill-willed ideologies on science; less familiar are from analysing intellectual confusions, then examples of political goodwill’s stifling science.” our ethnographies will be worthless except as Indigenous archaeology, as proposed by its sup- propaganda. Even as propaganda they will porters, would appear to provide an exceptionally have a rapidly diminishing value, since the apt example of such a negative outcome. If the integrity of ethnographic studies will be harmful effects of such a practice were restricted increasingly questioned by the informed pub- to its influence on the disciplines of archaeology lic [2003:400]. and history, our concerns might be limited. How- The doubts of an informed public regarding the ever it can be argued that the impact of subverting veracity of anthropological reporting were expressed scientific archaeology to the wishes or the control by Chief Justice McEachern of the British Colum- of local communities, extends beyond the bound- bia Supreme Court in the important Canadian land aries of the academy. claims case of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. As one example of such an impact, we might The judge excluded the testimony of anthropologist examine the relationship between archaeology and Richard Daly, which was considered suspect because the Native land claims process in North America he adhered to the American Anthropological Asso- and elsewhere. Smith (2004) and others charge that 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 593

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 593 archaeology often serves, or is seen to serve, as a The demands for Indigenous archaeology do pawn of coercive government. There is no doubt not arise in response to an intellectual problem but, that archaeology is useful to national governments rather, from the emotions and political reactions of engaged in dealing with Aboriginal populations, but scholars to Aboriginal communities that are socially perhaps not in the way suggested by the proponents and economically marginal, and that conceive of of Indigenous archaeology. Anyone who has par- this situation as the result of historical mistreatment ticipated as an archaeologist in Canadian land at the hands of Western society. Nicholas and claims negotiations soon realizes that government Andrews (1997a:12) feel that “As archaeologists negotiators generally encourage, or do little to mit- and anthropologists from a dominant society, we igate, the development of an emotional atmosphere have an obligation to contribute to the well-being surrounding the subject of archaeological remains. of First Peoples.” Such a reaction is indeed Such an atmosphere increases the value of control admirable, if very patronizing. Any community over the treatment and disposition of these remains, must find means to alleviate the misery of its most which then becomes a significant token that can be marginal members, and archaeology’s association traded away in return for concessions on economic with the heritage of such peoples is a profoundly resources or other items of greater interest to gov- political engagement. ernment. Trigger (1997:viii) has also noted that However, archaeologists must recognize that by politicians favor “ceding control over cultural mat- using the authority of their discipline as a means ters to Native people as a less expensive and dan- of advancing causes based on assumptions of the gerous way to compensate them for centuries of unique needs and capabilities of Indigenous peo- injustice than giving them extensive political and ples, they risk following the trail blazed by ances- economic powers.” If archaeologists are concerned tral anthropologists who first established at the thought of becoming government pawns, Aboriginals as a special category of humans. This they should realize that—in Canada at least, and I academic concept was to prove extremely useful suspect elsewhere—this process is most easily in the theory and practice of colonial administra- accomplished by acceding to the belief that Abo- tion, generally to the detriment of the peoples riginal peoples have unique needs to possess and administered. In conspiring to believe in the para- control their archaeological past, thus artificially digm of Aboriginality, and in reinforcing it by pro- inflating the value of this resource when measured viding historical justification, archaeologists are against the provision of economic and political complicit in maintaining the intellectual conditions powers to Indigenous communities. under which poor and marginalized Indigenous A more important outcome of the legitimization societies can continue to exist into the future. Rather of Indigenous archaeology lies in its reinforcement than abetting such tragedies, we might emulate of stereotypes of Indigenous uniqueness. Wax Kuper (1988:243) in hoping that “although certain (1997:53) has identified the problems caused by the things have been done badly in the past, we may ease with which Native American leaders find polit- still aspire to do them better in future. ... If we lib- ical leverage in presenting themselves to the world erate ourselves, we may be able to free others. “as passive and abused ‘noble savages,’ torn from Anthropologists developed the theory of primitive the mythic wilderness of the ages of European society, but we may make amends if we render it exploration.” Sahlins (1995:119) notes that acade- obsolete at last, in all its protean forms.” Archae- mic efforts to defend Aboriginal ways of life by ologists can make an important contribution to this “endowing them with the highest cultural values goal by exposing the myths of stable enduring soci- of western societies” have the paradoxical result of eties on which the idea of the Primitive or the Abo- “delivering them intellectually to the imperialism riginal is founded. that has been afflicting them economically and politically.” In preserving and maintaining this Changing Archaeology essentialist self-image, they encourage perpetuation of their public stereotype as Primitives, as a spe- As many readers will conclude, there is little in this cial class of human who will always be marginal essay that has not been said before. In fact, the use to the dominant culture and society. of extensive quotations has been meant to fortify 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 594

594 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008 that impression. This poses the question why, and Russell (2005:236) propose that archaeologists despite such broad agreement among analysts of accept a “host/guest” relationship with Indigenous archaeology and anthropology, do many practi- communities, which “have every right to control tioners of the disciplines continue to pursue, or at archaeological research in whatever way they least accept the legitimacy of Aboriginalist goals? wish.” Neither these nor other proponents question The broad majority of archaeologists who are the intellectual grounds on which Indigenous peo- opposed to Aboriginalist views, and to archaeo- ples require unique interests in and rights over her- logical practice based on these perspectives, itage materials. This may be a convenient stance at appears to be constrained by the same code of the present moment, but there are no assurances that silence regarding disagreements on Aboriginal such a position will be of long-term benefit to any- issues that was reported by Clifton (1990) and more one. On the contrary, refraining from questioning recently by Sheridan (2005). The prevalent and the intellectual basis of current political assump- inappropriate framing of discussions on Indige- tions can be expected to reinforce the political and nous archaeology as an issue of ethics arises from legal constraints under which archaeology currently this situation, and in turn has contributed to its rein- works. The consequent neglect of historical forcement. Removal of the debate from the context research on the history of Indigenous peoples will of ethics, and resituating it as a matter of intellec- be interpreted, correctly, as the result of the racist tual and political concern, would do a great deal to attitudes of Western scholars toward the interests advance clarification and ultimately a resolution of of Indigenous populations. the issues involved. Dyck (2006:92) notes that North American Another factor in the silencing of critics arises ethnographers who do not insist on their rights to from the fact that archaeologists are enmeshed in a free and independent anthropological voice will an academic culture that is still committed to the be increasingly constrained by “habits of self- tenets of a declining postmodernist movement. censorship and situational silence.” This analysis Tenure, advancement, and the adjudication of applies equally to North American archaeology. It research grants often involves the judgment of aca- is surely absurd that many members of a mature demic colleagues whose perspectives include the academic discipline refrain from publicly stating encouragement of equivocality in historical inter- their commitment to one of the most basic intel- pretation, and the importance of political perspec- lectual tenets of their field, that all humans are tive as a major factor influencing the reliability and ancestrally related and have similar ranges of capa- trustworthiness of scholarly research. As noted by bilities. Or that these same scholars publicly Clifton almost two decades ago, universities, grant- endorse, or at least do not oppose, a belief that they ing agencies, academic societies, museums, and know to be patently false—that Indigenous people other institutions still have an almost irrational fear form a class of humans with unique qualities and of offending Indigenous groups, and of the poten- abilities that are not shared by non-Aboriginals. tial problems that might result. The situation seriously impairs a field of study that Many archaeologists are also concerned regard- could potentially make a significant contribution ing access to the Indigenous archaeological to the understanding of Indigenous cultures and resource, which in most jurisdictions is now depen- their place in the contemporary world. It can be dent on consultation with or the permission of local resolved only by full and candid discussion, yet Indigenous communities. Continued access to such a debate seems unlikely to take place under archaeological materials is the subtext of many present circumstances. publications proposing the development of Indige- Lacking the opportunity for open discussion of nous archaeology. Ferris (2003:172–3), after doc- these matters, Sheridan’s (2005:77) concept of an umenting recent changes in legal attitudes that can intellectual division of labor in historical studies be expected to provide increasing rights of North may be relevant to archaeologists: “The challenge American Native groups over archaeological mate- of Native American studies ... is to present indige- rials, suggests that archaeologists adapt to this sit- nous perspectives in rigorous and reflexive ways. uation by shifting from “a parasitic to a symbiotic” The role of non-Indian scholars is to learn from relationship with Aboriginal partners. McNiven these perspectives without surrendering the insights 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 595

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 595 and rigor of their disciplines.” In this view, “Indige- References Cited nous Archaeology” should be considered a branch Attwood, Bain of “Aboriginal Studies,” rather than as a compo- 1992 Introduction. In Power, Knowledge and Aborigines, nent of the academic discipline of archaeology. edited by Bain Attwood and John Arnold, pp. i–xvi. La Beyond this definitional solution, change in the Trobe University, Melbourne. Béteille, André archaeological discipline can be effected primarily 1998 The Idea of Indigenous People. Current Anthropol- through the actions of individuals, actions that reflect ogy 39(2):187–191. a belief in the universal nature of human history and Biolsi, Thomas 1997 The Anthropological Construction of “Indians”: Hav- the value of historical knowledge. These actions iland Scudder Mekeel and the Search for Primitives in include getting to know Indigenous people as indi- Lacota County. In Indians and Anthropologists, edited by vidual acquaintances, rather than as contemporary Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, pp.133–159. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. avatars of an ancient ideal; dealing with the past as Boas, Franz a place inhabited by real people and real commu- 1911 The Mind of Primitive Man. Macmillan, New York. nities, rather than by the abstract entities postulated Brown, Michael E. 2006 Comment on Strang (2006). Current Anthropology by both processual paradigms and Aboriginalist 47(6):992. belief; and working cooperatively with Indigenous Clifton, James A. people toward this goal, engaging them in archae- 1990 Introduction: Memoir, Exegesis. In The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies, edited ological research and learning from their genuine by James A. Clifton, pp.1–28. Transaction, New knowledge of their societies and the historical Brunswick, NJ. processes that have formed them (McGhee 2004). Conkey, Margaret W. 2005 Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection? Archaeologists who are convinced that their dis- Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies, 2005. Archae- cipline is engaged in a project that is capable of con- ologies 1(1):9–59. tributing to a better understanding of the present Culhane, Dara 1992 Adding Insult to Injury: Her Majesty’s Loyal Anthro- world must be willing to support this conviction pologist. BC Studies 95:66–92. with determination. On the one hand, they cannot Custer, Jay F. be intimidated by those who claim ethnically based 2005 Ethics and the Hyperreality of the Archaeological Thought World. North American Archaeologist special rights of access to archaeological materi- 26(1):3–27. als, or special historical knowledge and abilities that Deloria, Vine,Jr. are not available to those who practice science in 1995 Red Earth, White Lies. Scribner, New York. 1997 Anthros, Indians and Planetary Reality. Indians and the Western tradition. On the other hand, they must Anthropologists, edited by Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. stand against those in the academic world who Zimmerman, pp. 209–221. University of Arizona Press, claim extreme forms of cultural relativism, equiv- Tucson. Diamond, Stanley ocality among diverse approaches to knowledge, 1974 In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization. and the impossibility of relatively objective histor- Dutton, New Brunswick, NJ. ical research. Something as important as the human Dio Cassius 1925 Roman History VIII, Dio Cassius Books 61–70. Loeb past deserves both courage and thoughtful schol- Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, arship on the part of those who claim to make it MA. their study. Dongoske, Kurt E., Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Dochner (edi- tors) 2000 Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeol- ogists. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, Acknowledgments. y colleagues and I wish to thank the man DC. associates whose discussions contributed to the ideas pre- Duncanson, Ian sented in this paper. Over the past 15 years these have 2005 Refugee Meanings. In Contemporary Issues of the included fellow members of the Assembly of First Semiotics of Law, edited by Anne Wagner, Tracey Sum- Nations/Canadian Museums Association Task Force on merfield, and Farid Samir Benavides Vanegas, pp. 19–34. Museums, members of the Consultation Committee on the Hart, Oxford. First Peoples Hall at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Dyck, Noel and my curatorial colleagues at the latter institution. We have 2006 Canadian Anthropology and the Ethnography of “Indian Administration.” In Historicizing Canadian often found ourselves in disagreement over the matters dis- Anthropology, edited by Julia Harrison and Regna Darnell, cussed here, but have hopefully come to appreciate each oth- pp. 78–92. UBC Press, Vancouver. ers’ sincerity and intentions. I am also grateful to the four Eliade, Mircea anonymous reviewers who provided useful critiques of an 1954 The Myth of the Eternal Return. Princeton University earlier draft. Press, Princeton. 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 596

596 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 73, No. 4, 2008

Ellingson, Ter 1999 The Misrepresentation of Anthropology and its Con- 2001 The Myth of the Noble Savage. University of California sequences. American Anthropologist 100(3):716–731. Press, Berkeley. Locke, John Ferguson, T. J., and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh 1980 [1690] Second Treatise of Government. Hackett, Indi- 2006 History is in the Land; Multivocal Tribal Traditions anapolis. in Arizona’s San Pedro Valley. University of Arizona Press, Lowenthal, David Tucson. 2005 Why Sanctions Seldom Work: Reflections on Cultural Ferris, Neal Property Internationalism. International Journal of Cul- 2003 Between Colonial and Indigenous Archaeologies; tural Property 12(3):393–423. Legal and Extra-Legal Ownership of the Archaeological Mann, Charles C Past in North America. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2005 1491:New Revelations of the Americas Before Colum- 27:154–190. bus. Knopf, New York. Fixico, Donald L. Marcus, George, and Michael M. J. Fischer 2003 The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: Amer- 1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental ican Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge. Rout- Moment in the Human Science. University of Chicago ledge, New York and London. Press, Chicago. Gillespie, Jason D. Martin, Calvin 2004 Review of Zimmerman, Larry J., Karen D. Vitelli and 1987a An Introduction Aboard the Fidèle. In The American Julie Hollowell-Zimmer (2003). Canadian Journal of Indian and the Problem of History, edited by Calvin Mar- Archaeology 28:172–175. tin, pp. 3–26. Oxford University Press, New York. Hoijer, Harry Martin, Calvin (editor) 1964 [1950] Cultural Implications of Some Navaho Lin- 1987b The American Indian and the Problem of History. guistic Categories. In Language in Culture and Society, Oxford University Press, New York. edited by Dell Hymes, pp. 142–148. Harper and Row,New McGhee, Robert York. 2004 Between Racism and Romanticism, Scientism and Hume, David Spiritualism: The Dilemmas of New World Archaeology. 1975 [1777] Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In Archaeology on the Edge, New Perspectives from the Clarendon Press, Oxford. Northern Plains, Occasional Paper 4, edited by Brian Ignatieff, Michael Kooyman and Jane Kelley, pp. 13–22. Canadian Archae- 2001 Human Rights as Politics and Ideology. Princeton ological Association, Calgary. University Press, Princeton. McGuire, Randall H. Keesing, Roger M. 1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. American 1989 Exotic Readings of Cultural Texts. Current Anthro- Anthropologist 94(4):816–836. pology 30(4):459–469. McNiven, Ian J., and Lynette Russell Krech, Shepard III 2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colo- 1999 The Ecological Indian. Myth and History. Norton, nial Culture of Archaeology. AltaMira, New York. New York. Nabokov, Peter 2005 Reflections on Conservation, Sustainability, and Envi- 2002 A Forest of Time: American Indian Ways of History. ronmentalism in Indigenous North America. American Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Anthropologist 107:78–86. Nicholas, George P. Kuper, Adam 2005 On mtDNA and Archaeological Ethics. Canadian 1988 The Invention of Primitive Society. Routledge, Lon- Journal of Archaeology 29(1):iii–vi. don. Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews 2003 The Return of the Native. Current Anthropology 1997a Indigenous Archaeology in the Post-Modern World. 44(3):389–402. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Kymlicka, Will Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. 1995 Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minor- Andrews, pp. 1–18. Archaeology Press, Burnaby, BC. ity Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1997b On the Edge. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and Lahonton, Louis-Armond de Lom d’Arce, Baron de First Peoples in Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and 1703 New Voyages to North America. Benwicke, Goodwin, Thomas D. Andrews, pp. 276–279. Archaeology Press, Wotton, Tooke and Manship, London. Burnaby, BC. Layton, Robert Niezen, Ronald 1994 Introduction. In Who Needs the Past: Indigenous Val- 2003 The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Pol- ues and Archaeology, edited by Robert Layton, pp. 1–20. itics of Identity. University of California Press, Berkeley Routledge, London. and Los Angeles. Lee, Dorothy Peck, Trevor, Evelyn Siegfried, and Gerald Oetelaar (editors) 1938 Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language. Phi- 2003 Indigenous Peoples and Archaeology. University of losophy of Science 5:89–102. Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary. Lescarbot, Marc Plaice, Evie 1928 [1609] Nova Francia, A Description of Canada, 1606. 2003 Comment on Kuper (2003). Current Anthropology Routledge, London. 44(3):396–397. Lévy Bruhl, Lucien Porter, H. C. 1966 How Natives Think. Washington Square Press, New 1979 The Inconstant Savage, England and the North Amer- York. ican Indian 1500–1660. Duckworth, London. Lévi-Strauss, Claude Prebble, John 1966 The Savage Mind. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 1963 The Highland Clearances. Seeker and Warburg, Lon- Lewis, S. Herbert don. 01.AQ 73(4) McGhee 10/7/08 8:44 AM Page 597

McGhee] ABORIGINALISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 597

Proctor, Robert N. Trigger, Bruce 2003 Three Roots of Human Recency. Current Anthropol- 1992 Foreword. In Georges Sioui For an Amerindian Auto- ogy 244(2):213–239. history, pp. ix–xv. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Mon- Ridington, Robin tréal. 1999 Theorizing Coyote’s Cannon; Sharing Stories with 1997 Foreword. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Thomas King. In Theorizing the Americanist Tradition, Peoples in Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and edited by Lisa Philips Valentine and Regna Darnell, pp. Thomas D. Andrews, pp. vii–xiii. Archaeology Press, 19–37. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Burnaby, BC. Sahlins, Marshall Trask, Haunany-Kay 1995 How “Natives” Think, About Captain Cook, for Exam- 1987 From a Native Daughter. In The American Indian and ple. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. the Problem of History, edited by Calvin Martin, pp. Said, Edward W. 171–179. Oxford University Press, New York. 1978 Orientalism. Random House, New York. Turner, Dale Sapir, Edward 2006 This is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indige- 1931 Conceptual Categories in Primitive Languages. Sci- nous Philosophy. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. ence 74:578. Watkins, Joe Sheridan, Thomas E. 2000 Indigenous Archaeology. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, 2005 Strategic Essentialism and the Future of Ethnohistory CA. in North America. Reviews in Anthropology 34:63–78. 2003 Archaeological Ethics and American Indians. In Ethi- Simard, Jean-Jacques cal Issues in Achaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, 1990 White Ghosts, Red Shadows: The Reduction of North Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. American Natives. In The Invented Indian: Cultural Fic- 129–141. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA. tions and Government Policies, edited by James A. Clifton, 2005 Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on pp. 333–369. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ. Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:429–449. Sioui, Georges Wax, Murray L. 1992 For an Amerindian Autohistory. McGill-Queen’s Uni- 1997 Educating an Anthro: The Influence of Vine Deloria, versity Press, Montréal. Jr. In Indians and Anthropologists, edited by Thomas Biolsi Smith, Laurajane and Larry J. Zimmerman, pp. 50–60. University of Ari- 2004 Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural zona Press, Tucson. Heritage. Routledge, London. Whorf, Benjamin Lee Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty 1956 [1937] Linguistic Consideration of Thinking in Prim- 1988 Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography. In itive Communities. In Language, Thought and Reality, Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, edited by Gay- Selected writings of BeNew Jerseyamin Lee Whorf, edited atri Chakravorty Spivak, pp. 197–221. Routledge, New by John B Carroll, pp. 65–86. Wiley, New York. York and London. Wylie, Alison Stocking, George W., Jr. 2005 The Promise and Perils of an Ethic of Stewardship. 1987 Victorian Anthropology. Collier Macmillan, London. In Embedding Ethics, edited by Lynn Meskell and Peter Suzman, James Pels, pp. 474–468. Berg, Oxford. 2003 Comment on Kuper (2003). Current Anthropology Zimmerman, Larry J. 44(3):399–400. 2006 Sharing Control of the Past. In Archaeological Ethics, Symonds, James Second Edition, edited by Karen D. Vitelli and Chip 1999 Songs Remembered in Exile? Integrating Unsung Colwell-Chanthaphonh, pp. 170–175. AltaMira, Walnut Archives of Highland Life. In Archaeology and Folklore, Creek, CA. edited by Amy Gazin-Schwartz and Cornelius J. Holtorf, Zimmerman, Larry J., Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell- pp.105–125. Routledge, London. Zimmer (editors) Tacitus Cornelius 2003 Ethical Issues in Archaeology. AltaMira, Walnut 1914 Tacitus I: Agricola, Germania, Dialogus. Loeb Clas- Creek, CA. sical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Taylor, Charles 1994 Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press, Prince- ton. Thwaites, Reuben Gold (editor) 1896–1901 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 vols. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland. Received December 20, 2007; Accepted April 22, 2008.