each group's intentions and interests.A brief history of American will be presented in an attempt to set the background for subsequent explorations. Next, attention will be turned towards a specific instance of conflict in the battle for Kennewick Man/The Ancient One. This specific conflict will provide the basis for Introduction an explanation as to why Native Americans are Native Americans 1 and American so dissatisfied with most archaeology. Finally, archaeologists have long had a tenuous and an exploration of potential solutions to the quarrelsome relationship. Both groups have conflict will be presented. In particular, the case come to see one another as having diametrically will be made for the inclusion of oral histories in opposed goals. Confrontations between the archaeology as well as the creation of a "Native groups have been waged in universities, American archaeology." museums, courts, and in the halls of public opinion. This process has led to a fundamental lack of understanding and misrepresentation of A Brief History of Archaeology2 The discovery of a new, unexpected "race" of people in the New World proved to be 1 Native American and/or Native is used to denote, and in a shocking event in the halls of Europe. Existing preference to, both American Indians and Native Hawaiians. American archaeologists is used to denote all archaeologists world-views were unable to explain who these in the United States. These terms are used for convenience and because of popular usage. One should note that these monolithic categorizations often obscure the differences 2 As the history of American archaeology is so extensive, a between many different, often competing groups. Although thorough analysis cannot be presented. Rather, this history is this essay does not focus on relations in Canada, many of the ad hoc and designed to emphasize conflict so as that the statements could apply. Conversely, because of the different modem day reader understands the contemporary debate and historical, legal, and political circumstances, many statements Native American grievances. Any number of more thorough will not apply. Please see Ferris (2003) for an examination histories are available including Trigger (1989) and Kehoe of the Canadian situation. (1998).

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology "Indians" were and how they had come to look previous architects. Such a myth was used to and live so differently. Efforts to explain these assert the "savagery" of Natives and to justify people became one of the driving forces of driving them from their land and ensure that they anthropology.3 Indeed, Yanagisako (2005) has would not be allowed to flaunt a history fJJ.led argued that the quest to explain the Indigenous with monumental architecture (Watkins 2000; "other" has served as the unifying goal of the Kehoe 1998). Trenchantly, Watkins (2000:5) four-fields approach to anthropology. For a states of the mound builder myth that, significant period of time anthropologists the extermination of attempted to explain these groups of people with American Indians by their unilinear schemes of evolution that westward moving portrayed them as primitive, static, and inert settlements of the United (Ferguson 1996; Hamilton 2004).A more States was made morally specific look at the conflict-ridden relationship easier by the apparent between Archaeologists and Native Americans primitiveness of the follows. natives, and the The Euroamerican interest in collecting controversy served well as artifacts and remains-objects thought of as a justification for valuable in and of themselves-from Native exterminating the Indian American sites dates back to the time of initial groups that had destroyed contact and has continued up until the present. North America's only Prior to the development of professional 'civilized' culture. archaeology and museums, Pilgrims are known to have exhumed Native graves shortly after Other abuses of Native Americans at arriving at Cape Cod in 1620 (Nichols, Klesert, the hands of anthropologists were not and Anyon 1989). Other individuals like uncommon. Several prominent individuals- Thomas Jefferson conducted their own especially at the Bureau of American excavations of remains that they unearthed- Ethnology-used archaeological evidence to intentionally or otherwise (McGuire 1989; argue that modem Natives were not descended Riding In 1992). One of the first and most from those who had left material traces in the infamous examples of the abuse perpetuated archaeological record (Trigger 1989). Similarly, through the field of archaeology is revealed in the work of influential "four-field" the "mound builder myth." In the late l800s, anthropologists like Kroeber suggested that archaeologists argued that these magnificent Natives were too "primitive" to change and thus earthen structures of the Southern United effectively dehistoricized them (Trigger 1989). States-approaching if not rivaling the Likewise, numerous skeletons and sacred objects sophistication of the structures found in were pilfered by leading anthropologists and Mexico--were built by a non-Aboriginal race museologists like Franz Boas (Trope and Echo- (Kehoe 1998). Most writers of the time-period Hawk 1992).5 Further, the "salvage" felt that the Native American inhabitants of the anthropology of Boas and his students as well as area were incapable of such engineering feats the theft of Native American objects and remains and thus must have migrated in and violently by them created the myth of the "vanishing eliminated the creators.4 Not only was the Indian" which drove government relocation debate scholarly, it was political. Archaeological policies and has plagued Natives ever since material and "expertise" testifying to the (Hamilton 2004). complexity of the shapes and slopes of the More recently, the repatriation of mounds as well as the burials within some of Native American ancestral remains and funerary them was used to assert that Native Americans of objects under the Native American Graves the Southwest did not and could not build the Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)6 has structures. Rather, archaeologists argued that the current inhabitants had violently displaced the 5 Although it is not the case now, anthropology and museology used to be closely aligned.Numerous 3 In this paper, anthropology will refer to the Americanist anthropologists, including Boas, were employed by or four-field configuration.Statements will thus apply to all worked in collaboration with museums (Jones 1993). sub-fields. When statements pertain only to particular sub- 6 NAGPRA became law on November 16, 1990 after being fields, they will be identified. passed by the United States Congress. This law requires that 4 Henry R. Schoolcraft and Samuel F. Haven were two all federally funded universities, museums, and agencies notable exceptions to this statement (Watkins 2000). inventory their archaeological collection of Native American

TOTEM vo114 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology created conflict. In attempting to lobby for Kennewick Manffhe Ancient Ones legislation that would force institutions and On July 28,1996, two young boat academics to return their cultural patrimony, enthusiasts walking nearby the Native Americans faced a considerable amount at Kennewick, discovered a of opposition from archaeologists and physical protruding from the water. The police were anthropologists. For example, Native Americans contacted and , owner of Applied were vigorously branded as anti-scientific and Paleoscience, was brought in to perform forensic religious in publications and public forums skeletal analyses. Chatters unearthed what (Mihesuah 1996; Dumont Jr. 2003). Many turned out to be a nearly intact male skeleton archaeologists (see, for example, Meighan 2000) (Chatters 2001). asserted and continue to assert the great tragedy On account of the unusually well that has been precipitated by repatriation. Such preserved nature of the remains as well as the authors argue that priceless pieces of humanity's associated objects of the site, Chatters initially common history has been lost forever and that believed that the skeleton was that of a relatively the results have been disastrous to science, even recently deceased European settler. Chatters also though such statements have been proven reported that the physical characteristics of the factually incorrect (Rose, Green, and Green remains resembled those of "Caucosoid" 1996; Dongoske 1996).7 populations rather then ""-a group In discussing such matters, it is always to which Native Americans are usually classed. critical to note the significant power differentials Caucosoid and are terms used to between Native Americans and the wider social, denote the phenotypic expression of certain economic, political, and cultural spheres that characteristics that are associated with certain they are contained within. Discussions of these populations. topics must always be located in their specific Chatters began to question this historical context. Though one may like to think classification because the colour of the remains of the above as historical events with no are often associated with great antiquity. relevance today, many Native Americans do not. Furthermore, a Cascasde projectile-point was To these groups, this troublesome relationship found imbedded in the right illium. Cascade has continued through to the present and is projectile points are typical of Southern Plateau epitomized in the recent Kennewick Man/The assemblages from 8,500 years before present Ancient One debacle. Many of the historical (B.P.) to 4,500 RP., though similar styles were events outlined above have analogs in the events used up until the nineteenth century in parts of that are described below. the western United States (U.S.). Adding to the confusion were the physical characteristics (such as the shape of the eye orbits) of the remains that are associated with neither European nor Indian populations (Chatters 2000, 2001). remains and funerary obj ects and prepare them for In an attempt to resolve these repatriation. Further, the law provides a procedure to be ambiguities, Chatters ordered radiocarbon and followed when Native American remains and objects are DNA testing. performed on unearthed or intentionally excavated on federal land. The law stipulates that Native American groups must be the left fifth metacarpal (the "pinky fmger") consulted when relevant material is found (Dongoske 1996). returned an isotopically-corrected age of 8,410 NAGPRA has played a significant role in redefining the +/- 60 years B.P (7,300 - 7,600 B.C.). Although relationship of Native Americans and Archaeologists. It has DNA from the skeleton remained intact, testing been of such significance that a serious exploration of it would necessitate its own essay. For further information, was inconclusive (Chatters 2000). please see Dongoske (1996), Trope and Echo-Hawk (1992), Four days after the radiocarbon dates and United States Congress (1992). were returned, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 7 There may be an economic motivation to resisting group with authority over the Federal lands repatriation. One may note that a great number of scholars have made their entire careers exploiting the graves and sites where the remains were found, halted any further of various Native American groups. Amold (1999) has scientific research on the remains and took asserted that archaeological material may be conceived of in possession of the skeleton. The corps published similar ways to mineral resources in that they are appropriated (often by colonial governments) and managed. In a similar example, one "pothunter" remarked that the only 8 Though not seen in popular usage, "The Ancient One" is the difference between himself and a "professional archaeologist name that Native Americans have applied to remains is that I sell what I find" (Mihesuah 1996:233). Though discussed in this section that are most commonly identified as these statements may be extreme, they do seem to contain an Kennewick Man. The conjunction of the two terms is used element of truth. as an inclusive gesture to both Native Americans and others.

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology their intention to repatriate the remains in the launched an appeal of Jelderks' decision. local Tri-City Herald on September 17 and 24, Similarly, the US. Justice Department filed an 1996 to a group of five tribes-the Umatilla, appeal of the Jelderks' decision on October 29, , , Wanapum, and Colville-as 2002. On February 4, 2004, the court upheld outlined by provisions of the Native American Jelderks' decision citing the lack of adequate Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (United means or evidence to establish cultural States Congress; The Tri-City Herald 2006). affiliation. The court subsequently refused a These groups, filing a joint claim, intended to request by the tribes to have the case reheard in immediately rebury the remains in an front of a full court on April 20, 2004 undisclosed location. Remains discovered by the (Bonnichsen et al v. United States). Shortly after corps had previously been repatriated to the the tribes declared that they would not continue tribes with little problem. their legal battle, the US. Justice Department Similarly, within days of Chatters declared that it would not appeal the decision on examination of the remains, local media picked July 22, 2004 (The Tri-City Herald 2006). up the story and were followed shortly by major Scientists subsequently began to study the media outlets. Within a very short period of remains. Within the past several weeks, time, stories about the remains-now dubbed information has been released on the fmding of "Kennewick Man"-eirculated around the globe. the studies. Additionally, it has also been Problematically however, the press frequently reported that the remains have fmally been misrepresented the remains as "Caucasian" as reburied at an undisclosed location. Because the opposed to "Caucosoid" (Johansen 1999). events are so recent, little scholarly attention has With the rising popularity of the story, been given to this. Some popular attention has the corps became inundated with requests to been devoted to the subject, in the March 13, study the remains. American scientists wanted 2006 issue of Time, for example (Lemonick and to study the skeleton to gain insight into a Dorfman 2006). myriad of questions that have driven anthropology since its inception. Moreover, the The Implications of the Kennewick ManlThe Asatru Folk Assembly-a California-based Ancient One Controversy group practicing a pre-Christian Norse religion- The conflict for access to the remains also hoped to acquire the remains because they essentially polarized the different camps believed that the skeleton was indicative of a involved. Native Americans and archaeologists, European presence on the continent at an earlier groups that had been attempting to mend bridges, date than is often assumed. The group even were left standing further apart than ever before. believed that they might be able to establish the Likewise, many within academic disciplines remains as those of an ancestor (Johansen 2001). were divided over ethical fault-lines as well as With the corps still intending to those between science and humanism. repatriate the remains, a group of high-profile Relationships are only recently being bridged American archaeologists, physical again. Other implications are glaringly evident. anthropologists, and other scientists launched a The use of population based racial legal challenge against the corps on October 17, identification and its frequent portrayal in the 1996. Likewise, the Asatru Folk Assembly popular media as racial essentialism remains one launched a lawsuit on October 26, 1996 (The of the most controversial aspects of the ordeal. Tri-City Herald 2006). The case appeared This is particularly true for those groups- before U.S. Magistrate Judge John Jelderks. including many Native Americans-who reject After much legal wrangling and the value and relevance of notions such as race. testimony, Jelderks eventually ruled in favour of For example, many Native Americans have the scientists on August 30, 2002. In his historically adopted members into their groups decision, he criticized the government for their that have little resemblance to themselves, hasty decision to repatriate and their slow including Europeans (Johansen 1999). These movement throughout the ordeal. Further, he racial concepts could have significant political cited the insufficiency of oral tradition and implications at a time when race has significant geography in attempts to repatriate material as social and political relevance in the US. old as the remains (The Tri-City Herald 2006; Watkins 2000). On October 29,2002, four tribes-the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Colville, and Yakama-

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology Evidence of this is seen, amongst other television programs like where it is places, in a recent article in American Antiquity. suggested that present day populations are Authors Owsley and Jantz9 (2001:566) state that, somehow less Indigenous (Dumont Jr. 2001; When comparing early Johansen 1999). with available modem The controversy surrounding populations, we note that Kennewick Man/The Ancient One has also most of them fall far outside served as a rather stark reminder that the normal range of recent archaeology has and seemingly continues to population variation. More marginalize Native Americans. Bruce Trigger specifically, they especially (1980) has convincingly argued that the practice fall outside the range of of archaeology has served to portray Native American Indian populations Americans in a pejorative light. Other scornful and are so different that it critics, including Vine Deloria Jr. (1992) have may be more correct to refer made analogies between the practice of to them as Paleoamerican archaeology and some practices of Nazi rather than Paleo indian as Germany. II many do.

Though the authors mayor may not have a Why are Native Americans Dissatisfied with political agenda, their attempt to identify and Mainstream Archaeology? defme Native Americans clearly has a political A number of the aforementioned edge. Their revision has the effect of distancing practices and events in the historical relationship present day populations from their ancestors, between Native Americans and archaeologists thus undermining their 'Indigeneity' and could explain a lot of the antipathy between the groups. serve to limit their political agenda (Watkins There are, however, a number of other complex 2004). Native Americans may be especially reasons that help to explain why Native suspicious of the motivations and actions of Americans have found that archaeology has physical anthropologists and archaeologists, as it nothing to offer them. An exploration of several was they who previously refmed the concept of of these issues follows below. race and insisted on hierarchies between and Archaeology's inability to respond to amongst different sorts of people (Dewar 2001; Native concerns lays partly in its inability to Hamilton 2004).10 understand Native American voices from the Further, the battle for Kennewick historical record. The archaeologist uses his or Man/The Ancient One also reminds people that her own values, beliefs, and moral vision as there are, contra many in archaeology, political implicit controlling forces of Native American aspects to the study of and access to the past. representation and voice. Though it may not be The assertion that Kennewick Man/The Ancient made explicit, archaeologists ask their readers to One represents a European presence on the accept that they have the authority to speak for continent at an earlier time than is generally those being investigated or that they have some assumed has been used as a means to weaken esoteric knowledge gleaned from their recondite Native American claims to land and specific investigations (Zimmerman 2001). On one level, rights, including the ability to build casinos as Native American voice provides the authority well as gain access to remains under NAGPRA. from which archaeologists speak about the past. Kennewick Man/The Ancient One and several Some archaeologists even go so far as to suggest other skeletons of great antiquity have been used that they speak for the people of the past and are as a means to undermine Native Americans' the only ones capable of doing so. Native political interests. This is glaringly apparent in Americans who challenge the usurping of Native popular media, including major newspapers and American voice challenge the very nature of knowledge about the past (Zimmerman 2001). Native American views vary quite 9 It should also be noted that these authors played a role in markedly from those outlined above. Though it the Kennewick Man/The Ancient One controversy. Both individuals work at the , have worked with the remains of Kennewick Man/The Ancient One, and II In this particular episode, Deloria was criticizing the use of were members of the group of eight scientists that sued the "scientific" authority to identify and define Native American U.S. Army Corps for access to the remains (Dewar 2001). cultural groups. Deloria is known for his scathing critique of to It should be noted that most contemporary anthropologists anthropology from his first major publication in 1969, Custer reject any biological notion ofrace. Diedfor Your Sins, through to his recent death.

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 is difficult to generalize, Native American views says, "in the postmodern world, truth seems to be of the past appear to share several common elusive ... truth arises from multiple perspectives" themes. The idea that the past is only knowable (Kelly 1999). through discovery is deemed absurd. For The above is not to suggest that Native traditional Native American world-views, the Americans are opposed to archaeology, physical past lives in the present, with the present being anthropology, or museology in every form. viewed as the only real temporal realm. Past Rather, they are opposed to practices that ignore events may provide illustrations for present their concerns, violate their beliefs, and usurp action, but nature does not change. their voice. As Don Sampson, a one-time Situations only differ from the past in observable representative of the Confederated Tribes of the factors such as people involved or the location of Umatilla-quoted in Watkins (2003:72)-says, events (Zimmerman 2001). To essentialize, the we do not reject science. past is the present; they are not separate realms In fact, we have but are in a continuous process of becoming. anthropologists and The past is used as a unifYing spiritual other scientists on staff knowledge that cannot be constrained by any and we use science version of time made by . This is not to every day to help in suggest that Native Americans lack the ability or protecting our people desire to use chronologies. Instead, they do not and the land. However, have a rigid chronology. Such chronologies are we do reject the notion not critical when time is viewed as eternal, that science is the cyclical, and endlessly repetitive (Zimmerman answer to everything 2001). The Native American approach to and should take knowledge of the past is through orality-a precedence over the nearly complete emphasis on the spoken word. religious rights and Oral history recounts the "mythic" and makes the beliefs of American past and the present the same. It places emphasis citizens. on the lives of people and events, not objects, and takes precedence over other kinds of Likewise, a simple survey of tribal archaeology knowledge about the past, including programs reveals that there is a substantial Euroamerican historical and archaeological amount of archaeology that is practiced by methods. Many Natives know their past Native Americans. Some Native groups like the exclusively through traditional histories Chumash, for example, have made arrangements transmitted by oral performances, ritual for reburial that allow for continued access by observances, dances, and other means (Watkins archaeologists and physical anthropologists. 2003). Likewise, groups such as the Onondaga have These contrasting world-views have reacquired wampum belts while acknowledging strong implications for archaeological research. that they "should continue to be made available The Native American focus on people leads them for research by qualified scholars" (Sullivan to reject the fetishism of archaeologists that 1992). Further, some Native groups-the Hopi treats objects as sentient or animate. Further, the for example-are interested in osteological archaeological use of Native American voice is a analysis of remains and how it may benefit them matter of cultural survival. For Native (Baker et al 2001; Dongoske 1996). It is simply Americans, the past lives in the present and does not accurate to suggest that all Native Americans not exist as a separate entity. To say that the past are anathema to anthropological analyses. Many is gone or lost unless archaeological research is groups fund their own archaeology programs and performed suggests that Native Americans are a number of non-Native archaeologists make themselves gone (Zimmerman 2001). Similarly, their living in the employ of Native groups if the past is still alive, excavated human remains (White Deer 1998; Dongoske 1996). Moreover, are still alive and must be respected as living there are presently over 150 tribal museums in persons. Native American ways of knowing the the U.S.(Gulliford 2000). Not only do these past are as rigid as those of archaeology's. establishments display items for tribe members When issues become politicized, the issues and tourists, they are also able to preserve easily become overt battles over control of the cultural artifacts and perpetuate the tribe's past. However, history can never be reducible to culture in a way consistent with their beliefs, claims of truth (Zimmerman 2001). As Kelly values, and desires (Erikson, Ward, and

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM:The UWO Journal of Anthropology Wachendorf2002; Jones 1993). Native twentieth-century archaeology and are still Americans want to gain control over the strong academic currents today. Ronald J. construction of their culture-history, even Mason (2000:264), for example, asserts oral through the deconstruction of that history, if histories are to be respected, but are necessary. "challengeable when they are thought of as data rougWy on par with, say, dendrochronology, Indigenous Archaeology? seriation, or site distribution maps." Moreover, Many archaeologists have increasingly he asserts that oral histories are roadblocks, come to realize and respond to their role and rather than aids, and that his view is more or less their discipline's complicity in the representative of a great many of anthropologists marginalization of Native Americans as well as (Mason 2000). There are, however, a growing the erasure of their history and the number of researchers that have begun to misappropriation of their cultural patrimony. concern themselves with oral history and its Further, the post-processual, post-colonial, post- application to historical matters, including modem, scientific constructivist, and Native archaeology. American critiques have made significant The reconciliation of oral history with inroads into archaeology and have helped to archaeological material has been a desirable goal reorganize museums, collections, and behaviour. to many Native Americans with a conciliatory Many archaeologists now assert that the attitude (Mihesuah 1996). This goal has fmally relevance of the discipline hinges on the ability come close to fruition, though is largely in its of practitioners to engage the various infancy. A number of historians, anthropologists communities that their work impacts (Colwell- and archaeologists have begun to critically Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2004). This is examine the subject. Such authors have often especially so of the descent communities that found that document sources are no more archaeologists work around. Integrating Native accurate than oral histories. When recalling that Americans into archaeology is a means to all documents are produced by humans of achieve this goal. There are, however, a number varying agendas, beliefs, ages, sex, class, of possible ways to go about this. The use of oral language, culture, et cetera, it becomes glaringly histories as well as fostering the development of apparent that documents are little, if any, more a uniquely "Native American archaeology" are reliable than other sources. In discussing this two possible means amongst many others. These issue, Vansina (1985) provides an example of a approaches will be considered below. battle that the author observed in Libya.Vansina Oral history, as outlined above, is the found that participants of differing location and Native American approach to knowing their roles recounted the events of the battle past.12 This differs sharply from the European differently. Moreover, they often incorporated tradition that has been virtually institutionalized their idiosyncratic emotional states into their in archaeology. A number oflate nineteenth- recounts. Any documentary sources that century archaeologists (including Thomas occurred from this battle would thus be highly Jefferson) accepted the traditional accounts of suspect. The point of the above is not to show Native Americans and thought they provided the irrelevance of documentary sources, but both a viable and a valuable link between rather to depict their tentative and variable archaeological sites and contemporary nature. populations (Thomas 2000). In the early Rather than saying that oral histories are twentieth-century, however, prominent less accurate than any other source, as per Mason archaeologists like R. H. Lowie strongly (2000), it seems more accurate to suggest that denounced oral tradition. Thomas (2000:240) they are less valued. This is likely due to the quotes Lowie as stating that,"I cannot attach to prestige that is given to archaeologists and their oral histories any historical value whatsoever "scientific" credentials as well the bias that is under any conditions whatsoever." Attitudes explicit in marginalizing another culture's like this were dominant in the majority of epistemology. In fact, Deloria (1995) has gone so far as to suggest that oral history actually guarantees that information will not be 12 This is also the way in which a number of groups in Africa, the Pacific, and Asia have traditionally recounted their contaminated as will scientific material. 13 history. Oral history is often also referred to as oral tradition. I avoid this use, however, because of the negative connotations of this word, especially in the light of the 13 Deloria has been a long-time critic of-amongst other problematic stereotypes that have plagued Native Americans. things-the notion of scientific neutrality. He suggests that

TOTEM vol 142005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology Archaeologists of the "New World" do not The recently emerged field of generally have to work with any documentary ethnohistory is one example of the integration of sources. Rather, they make inferences based on oral history, archaeology, and other fields of the evidence via analogs (see Wylie 1985). research, including linguistics and documentary Archaeologists particularly unsympathetic to the sources. In one example, Kerry Abel (2005) post-processual critiques of the previous decades uses archaeological evidence as well as oral (e.g. Mason and Meighan) are generally reluctant history to eloquently illuminate parts of the to acknowledge the multiplicitous interpretations distant history ofthe Dene of Northern Canada. that are possible from any number of artifacts or Not only does such an interpretation about, in burials and other material in the record. this instance a catastrophic flood, lend strength Likewise, though such individuals generally to the archaeological data, but the oral history as acknowledge that archaeology is a 'weak' or well. Abel manages to use Dene oral history and 'small' science, they often do not want to correlate it to a known volcanic eruption that acknowledge the tentative nature of the helps explain population migrations, such as that interpretations, the human tendency to err, or that of the Navajo and Apache. Moreover, she also 'truth' is not an objective condition (Clark 1998). recounts Dene oral history that talks of strange Those adhering to a positivist paradigm must people traveling through their land that do not realize that no one individual or group has a resemble them at all, which may have some monopoly of the truth. 14 Likewise, they must relevance for archaeologists interested in acknowledge that all interpretations of the past migration patterns. are political. Advancing cooperation as well as In another example, Whitely (2002) has developing a dialogical and fruitful relationship found that Hopi oral histories about the depends upon concessions from all sides. 15 emergence of genealogical lines correspond very Acknowledging the limitations of oral well to the location of known archaeological history-just as with documentary sources or sites. Likewise, their histories refer to events analogy-is an important place to begin if it is to (droughts, migrations, and hardship, etc.) that be productively engaged. Lack of rigid can be examined in the archaeological record or chronologies and the selectivity of information used as interpretive tools. Further, these events are frequent characteristics of oral histories. are often associated with named sites and can However, the single best means to confront these thus explain particular events at these sites. shortcomings is through the use of diverse Whitely goes on to suggest that even though oral sources that cohere with one another (Vansina histories may be associated with mythical 1985).16 In this way, oral history could be creatures as well as compress the time of events, viewed as one of many heuristic devices in the these can still be interpreted metaphorically, for archaeologist's tool-kit. A number of studies they are often rich in meaning and message. have found that use of oral history holds a Lastly, Whitely notes that the Hopi oral history significant amount of promise for archaeology may be labeled genealogical, in contrast to the and other historical studies. analogical practice of archaeology. This approach is of value because it can often recount the introduction of various practices (religious, subsistence, etc.) to a single location and group. science is hostile to non-Western worldviews and practices. It thus stresses the string of events that are Likewise, he suggests that many scientific theories are relevant to archaeologists looking to provide rich actually quite weak and do not stand up to scrutiny. Whether and meaningful accounts of past. one accepts his judgments in their entirety is left to the discretion of the reader. In yet another example, authors Chip 14 Indeed, this may be the biggest reason that the post- Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. 1. Ferguson processual critique was so successful in its recent advance (2004) conducted research along the San Pedro 15 This is not to suggest that various 'schools' of Valley in Arizona. Though they acknowledged archaeological thought have made little contribution to archaeology, but rather, to promote dialogue. It must be the strong foundation that previous remembered that these statements border on generalizations archaeological research had provided about the and that many archaeologists, even adherents to various history of the indigenous inhabitants (Zuni, paradigms, may not identify with these statements. Also, it Navaho, O'odham, , Western Pueblo, should be noted that the estrangement of oral history and scientific anthropology may also be seen as part of the larger and Apache), they noted that all such studies "science wars" or recent years that rearranged many were fundamentally limited in that they ignored anthropology departments in North America (Whitely 2002). the oral histories of these groups. In consulting 16 One may note the similarity to Wylie's (1985) suggestion the descendents of these groups, the authors for strengthening the quality of analogy.

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology attempted to use oral history as well as archaeologies19 in the 1950s and 1960s, for archaeological interpretations to bridge the gap example, provided new insights on the between science and history. Taking a very archaeological record. It has shown that "better conciliatory route, the authors organized the and more accurate 'stories' about the past can be project with the direct consultation of the told when women and men, and perhaps relevant tribes. A committee was formed to additional genders where appropriate, are mediate between competing demands and to considered" (Nelson 1997:20). Similarly, insure that no one party would dominate. various "alternative" archaeologies are practiced Further, and perhaps most relevant to this with little or no problem (e.g. archaeologies of discussion, the authors invited the input of colour and archaeologies of sexuality). Though Natives. In their scheme Native Americans were such a label would hardly be appropriate for a not subjects but rather colleagues that made Native American contribution to archaeology, it valuable contributions to the project. The merely suggests that the possibility exists for the interaction proved most valuable, perhaps, in that genesis of fruitful explorations. it allowed for a measure of education about both It remains merely speculative to suggest parties. For example, Natives were able to learn what a "Native American archaeology" would about archaeological interpretations while look like, though numerous individuals have archaeologists were able to learn about the value attempted to contribute discursive threads l718 oflanguage . (Ferguson 1996, 1999). What Native American Another means by which to address the scholars want most, however, is a more inclusive marginalization of Native Americans is through version of the past and present that does not the introduction or creation of a uniquely ''Native make such an extensive use of historical and American archaeology." Though there is a anthropological theories (Mihesuah 2004). possibility for the incommensurability of Often, Natives fmd that archaeologists are so scholarship, there is no reason to think that a concerned with general classificatory schemes or "Native American archaeology" would be fitting data into their theories that they cannot anything other than a benefit. Likewise, though answer specific questions about a particular site some may find the growing chorus of voices in that is of general interest or relevance (Colwell- archaeological debates to be disquieting, others Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2004).20 realize that the diversity of thought is beneficial Progress towards a "Native American for the discipline in that it can create dynamism archaeology" has remained impeded largely by and pushes research forward (Hodder 2005). Of laws that privilege archaeologists, the pedagogy all the academic disciplines, anthropology would of academia that ignores Native American benefit most from a Native American voices, publishes repetitive monographs that perspective. Further, it is the field that is most offer nothing to Natives, hires unqualified likely to be amenable to the accommodation of faculty, graduates unprepared students, and alternative voices, especially from those groups devalues Indigenous programs and concerns on that they work especially closely with. campus (Watkins 2000; Mihesuah 2004; Trigger Using feminist archaeologies as an 1980). Slowly, however, more and more Native analog for the introduction of Aboriginal voices Americans are being included in archaeology. to archaeology, one can see the potential for the Natives are graduating from university programs great advancement of understanding and the in record numbers and there are numerous commencement of previously ignored areas of professional Native archaeologists with an scholarship. The inception of feminist excellent scholastic record, including Joe Watkins, Arthur C. Parker, and Edmund 1. Ladd (Ferguson 1999). Similarly, Native Americans 17 The authors found that the use of their terminology could now routinely attend professional archaeological be offensive. In describing a site as abandoned, for example, meetings and multiple groups operate their own the authors learned that this was contrary to the beliefs of the collaborators in that they believed the spirits to still occupy the area as well as because they had left spiri t offerings on regular occasions. Moreover, the authors also found that the 19 It should be noted that there are numerous approaches to use of the Native languages allowed for the conveyance of this subject, as denoted by the use of "archaeologies." These very speci fie experiential meanings that other languages varied approaches are all similar, however, in their break could not. with previous non-feminist approaches and their focus on 18 Many examples of the successful concomitant use of oral issues relating to women and gender. history and archaeology exist. For example, Thomas 20 In spite of these criticisms, use of classificatory schemes (2000:244-253) has compiled several convincing examples of may often be necessary to organize data and answer specific oral history's value and accuracy. questions.

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 historic preservation programs or engage in Conclusion cooperative efforts with archaeologists to Archaeologists and Native Americans preserve cultural material (Ferguson 1996). have long had a troubled and conflict ridden University curricula are beginning to address the relationship. Archaeology has frequently been ethics and skills required for successfully used as an oppressive weapon with which Native engaging and interacting with Native Americans. Americans have been marginalized legally, Of those academics inhospitable to Native economically, socially, demographically, and Americans, Stapp and Longenecker (2000) argue historically. The discovery of human skeletal that this "old guard is on the way out" and that remains on the Columbia River at Kennewick, this "radical segment of the profession is out of Washington provoked one of the most recent touch and behind the times.,,21 The time has conflicts between Natives and archaeologists that come, as McGuire (1992:828) states, for served-alongside NAGPRA-to polarize the archaeologists to initiate groups. Reflecting upon the reasons why Native a process of dialogue Americans are dissatisfied with archaeology with Indian peoples that found that their concerns and beliefs are ignored. will fundamentally alter This invited the advancement of particular the practice of solutions that would address Native American archaeology in the concerns. The introduction of oral history was United States. This illustrated to hold great potential for dialogue will alter our archaeological scholarship as well as Native perceptions about the peoples themselves. Likewise, pressing for the past, how we deal with introduction of a uniquely "Native American living Native archaeology" was illustrated to be another means Americans, how we by which the conflict could be resolved. Both of train students, and how these means of resolving the conflict hold great we present our results to potential for advancing archaeological eachother and the understanding of the past. Though no one knows general public. exactly if or how these suggestions will be incorporated into archaeology, the possibility Dialogue, inclusion, and cooperative certainly exists and the thought is invigorating. efforts-especially as initiated by It must also be remembered that introducing anthropologists-are the only way that Native American practices and concerns into archaeologists can have accountability to the archaeology need not alter all archaeological various publics that have interests in their work. scholarship. Individuals committed to their Similarly, it is the only way that archaeologists specific approaches need not necessarily can eliminate the competitive atmosphere that abandon them. As mentioned by Hodder (2005), has characterized the relationship between a diversity of voices is always advantageous in themselves and Native Americans for sometime archaeology because it creates dynamic (Watkins 2003). Working together, scholarship and relationships. It may thus be archaeologists can educate affected cultural said that the future for Native Americans is groups about a project so that they can have an bright, and more so for archaeology because of informed understanding of the reasons for the it. project, the types of information being sought, and the implications and the utility of the study to the group as well as the archaeologists. Similarly, cultural groups can educate Abel, Kerry 2005. Drum Songs: Glimpses of archaeologists about their wishes, the kind of Dene History. Montreal: McGill- information that they are interested in, Queen's University Press. information not to be released to the general public, and so forth (Watkins 2000). Arnold, Bettina 1999. The Contested Past. Anthropology Today 15(4):1-4.

Baker, Brenda J., Tamara L. Varney, and 21 Please see Meighan (2000) for the thoughts and opinions of Richard G. Wilkinson 2001. part of the "old guard." Also, please see Custer (2001) who Repatriation and the challenges the assertions of Stapp and Longenecker.

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology Study of Human Remains. In The Perspective. American Indian Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Quarterly 20(2):287-296. Native Americans, and Repatriation, Bray, ed. pp. 69-89. New York: Garland Dumont Jr., Clayton W. 2003. The Politics of Publishing. Scientific Objection to Repatriation. Wicazo Sa Review 18(1): 109-128. Bonnichsen et al v. United States 2000. Civil Action No. 96-l48l-JE (District of Erikson, Patricia Pierce, Helma Ward, and Kirk ). Wachendorf 2002. Voices of a Thousand People: The Cultural Chatters, James C. 2000. The Recovery and and Research Center. Lincoln: The First Analysis of an Early Holocene University of Nebraska Press. Skeleton From Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2): Ferguson, T. J. 1996. Native Americans and the 291-316. Practice of Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:63-79. Chatters, James C. 2001. Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Ferguson, T. J. 1999. Working Together: the Americans. Toronto: Simon & Changing Role of Native Americans in Schuster. the Archaeological Study of the Past. The Society for American Archaeology Clark, G. A. 1998. Working Together: Bulletin 17(1). NAGPRA, the Conflict between Science and Religion, and the Political Ferris, Neal 2003. Between Colonial and Consequences. The Society for Indigenous Archaeologies: Legal and American Archaeology Bulletin 16(5). Extra-Legal Ownership of the Archaeological Past in North America. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip and T. J. Ferguson Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2004. Virtue Ethics and the Practice of 27(2): 154-190. History: Native Americans and Archaeologists Along the San Pedro Gulliford, Andrew 2000. Sacred Objects and Valley of Arizona. Journal of Social Sacred Places: Preserving Tribal Archaeology 4(1):5-27. Traditions. Boulder: the University Press of Colorado. Custer, Jay F. 200 1. Working Together: Who Cares? The Society for American Hamilton, Michelle Dawn 2004. Seeking After Archaeology Archaeological Record Empire: Bioarchaeologists and 1(4):21-22. American Indians in the New Millenium. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Deloria Jr., Vine 1992. Indians, Archaeologists, University of Tennessee. and the Future. American Antiquity 57(4):595-598. Hodder, Ian 2005. An Archaeology of the Four- Field Approach in Anthropology in the Deloria Jr., Vine 1995 Red Earth, White Lies: United States. In Unwrapping the Native Americans and the Myth of Sacred Bundle: Reflections on the Scientific Fact. New York: Scribner. Disciplining of Anthropology, Segal and Yanagisako, eds., pp. 126-140. Dewar, Elaine 2001. Bones: Discovering the Durham: Duke University Press. First Americans. Toronto: Random House Canada. Johansen, Bruce 1999. Great White Hope? Kennewick Man, the Facts, the Dongoske, Kurt E. 1996. The Native American Fantasies and the Stakes. Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Americas 16(1):36-47. A New Beginning, Not the End for Osteological Analysis-A Hopi

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Jones, Anna Laura 1993. Exploding Canons: Rogery Anyon 1989. Ancetra1 Sites, Shrines, The Anthropology of Museums. Annual Review and Graves: Native American of Perspectives on the Ethics of Collecting Cultural Properties. In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property, Kehoe, Alice Beck 1998. The Land of Messenger, ed., pp. 27-38. : A Critical History of Albuquerque: University of New American Archaeology. Mexico Press. New York: Routledge. Owsley, Doug and Robert Jantz 2001. Kelly, Robert 1999. Working Together: Native Archaeological Politics and Public Americans and Archaeology. The Interest in Paleo american Studies: Society for American Archaeology Lessons from Grodon Creek Woman Bulletin 16(4). and Kennewick Man. American Antiquity 66(4):565-75. Lemonick, Michael D. and Andrea Dorfman 2006. Who Were the First North Riding In, James 1992. Without Ethics: An Americans? Time March 13, pp.35-42. Overview of Imperial Archaeology and American Indians. Arizona State Law Mason, Ronald 1. 2000. Archaeology and Native Journal 24: 11-34. North American Oral Tradition. American Antiquity 65(2):239-266. Rose, Jerome c., Thomas 1. Green, and Victoria D. Green 1996. NAGPRA IS McGuire, Randall H. 1989. The sanctity of the FOREVER: the Repatriation of grave: White concepts and American Skeletons. Annual Review of Indian burials. In Conflict in the Anthropology 25:81-103. Archaeology of Living Traditions, Layton, ed., pp. 165-184. London: Stapp, Darby C. and Julie Longenecker 2000. Unwin Hyman Ltd. Working Together: The Times, They are A-Changin': Can Archaeologists Meighan, Clement W. 2000. Some Scholars' and Native Americans Change with the Views on Repatriation. In Repatriation Times. The Society for American Reader: Who Owns American Indian Archaeology Bulletin 18(2): 1-6. Remains?, Mihesuah, ed. pp. 190-199. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sulivan, Martin 1992. A Museum's Perspective on Repatriation: Issues and Mihesuah, Devon A. 1996. American Indians, Opportunities. Arizona State Law Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Review 24:283-291. Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Difference. American Indian The Tri-City Herald. Consulted February 22, Quarterly 20(2):229-237. 2006. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center. World Wide Web Mihesuah, Devon A. 2004. Academic page url: http://www.kennewick- Gatekeepers. In Indigenizing the man. com. In press, 1996. Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities, Thomas, David Hurst 2000. Skull Wars: Mihesuah and Wilson, eds. pp. 31-47. Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Battlefor Native American Identity. Press New York: Basic Books.

Nelson, Sarah Milledge 1997. Gender in Trigger, Bruce G. 1980. Archaeology and the Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Image of the American Indian. Prestige. Walnut Creek: Aha Mira American Antiquity 45(4):662-676. Press.

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006 Copyright © 2006 TOTEM: The UWO Journal of Anthropology Trigger, Bruce G. 1989. A History of eds., pp. 78-98. Durham: Duke Anthropological Thought. Cambridge: University Press. Cambridge University Press. Zimmerman, Larry 1. and Robert N. Clinton Trope, John F. and Walter R. Echo-Hawk 1992. 2005. Kennewick Man and Native The Native American Graves Protection American Graves Protection and and Repatriation Act: Background and Repatriation Act Woes. International Legislative History. Arizona State Law Journal of Cultural Property 8(2):212- Journal 24:35-77. 228.

United States Congress 1992. Native American Zimmerman, Larry 1. 2001. Usurping Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. American Voice. In The Future of the Arizona State Law Journal 24:471-486 Past:Archaeologists,Native Americans, and Repatriation, Bray, ed. Vansina, Jan 1985. Oral Tradition as History. pp. 169-184. New York: Garland Madison: University of Wisconsin Publishing. Press.

Watkins, Joe 2000. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press

Watkins, Joe 2003. Beyond the Margins: American Indians, First Nations, and Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68(2):273-285.

Watkins, Joe 2004. Becoming American or Becoming Indian? NAGPRA, Kennewick and Cultural Affiliation. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1):60- 80.

White Deer, Gary 1998. Working Together: From Specimens to SAA Spearkers: Evolution by Federal Mandate. The Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 16(3).

Whitely, Peter M. 2002. Archaeology and Oral Tradition: The Importance of Dialogue. American Antiquity 67(3):405-415.

Wylie, Alison 1985. The Reaction Against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, Schifferer ed., pp. 63-111. New York: Academic Press.

Yanagisako, Slyvia 2005. Flexible Discip1inarity: Beyond the Americanist Tradition. In Unwrapping the Sacred Bundle: reflections on the disciplining of anthropology, Segal and Yanagisako,

TOTEM vol 14 2005-2006