THE PREMISE AND PROMISE OF INDIGENOUS Author(s): Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George P. Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins and Larry J. Zimmerman Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 75, No. 2 (April 2010), pp. 228-238 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766193 Accessed: 07-11-2017 12:14 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766193?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE PREMISE AND PROMISE OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY

Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George R Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins, and Larry J. Zimmerman

Researchers have increasingly promoted an emerging paradigm of Indigenous archaeology, which includes an array of practices conducted by, for, and with Indigenous communities to challenge the discipline's intellectual breadth and politi cal economy. McGhee (2008) argues that Indigenous archaeology is not viable because it depends upon the essentialist concept of "Aboriginalism." In this reply, we correct McGhee's description of Indigenous Archaeology and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, sociopolitical con text of scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and community based archaeology projects that include .

En respuesta tanto a la herencia intelectual de la disciplina arqueologica como a la economia pohtica de su praxis, diversos investigadores han promovido de manera creciente la implementacion de un paradigma de Arqueologia Indigena que se car acteriza por un despliegue de practicas conducidas por, para, y con las comunidades indigenas. En contraste, McGhee (2008) sostiene que la Arqueologia Indigena no resulta ser una propuesta viable pues depende del concepto esencialista de "Abo riginalidad." En la presente replica, los autores se abocan a corregir la descripcion presentada por McGhee sobre aquello que constituye una Arqueologia Indigena, demostrando a la par el porque los derechos indigenas que la caracterizan no estdn fundamentados en imaginarios esencialistas. Poral contrario, sostienen, los legados del colonialismo, el contexto socio-politico de la investigacion cientifca, asicomo el valor reflexivo del conocimiento tradicional, constituyen bases solidas para el desar rollo de una arqueologia colaborativa, arraigada en proyectos comunitarios que incluyan a las poblaciones indigenas.

As Indigenous archaeology is still an pies and his willingness to consider multivocal inchoate project, Robert McGhee's (2008) methodologies that include traditional knowledge article is a welcome opportunity to engage reflect our shared concern for marginalized com in an open dialogue about the potential and pitfalls munities. of this emerging paradigm. Despite our serious dis Although there is much to argue with, and about, agreement with McGhee's logic and our strong in McGhee's article, three central questions deserve rejection of his conclusions, there is plainly com a considered response: What is Indigenous archae mon ground for discussion. McGhee (2008:580) is ology? What does inclusion and essentialism mean right to be concerned whether an Indigenous form for archaeology? And why do Indigenous com of Orientalism is developing (Said 1978), and with munities have special rights to heritage? In con the potential negative impacts of unfettered essen tradiction of McGhee's (2008:579) claim that 'Very tialism in archaeology. Also, McGhee's (2008:580, little effort has been expended... in examining the 590-591,595) acknowledgment that archaeologists intellectual viability or the social and cultural desir should work in partnership with Indigenous peo ability" of Indigenous archaeology, our answers to

Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO 80205 T. J. Ferguson University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85745 Dorothy Lippert National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013 Randall H. McGuire Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 George P. Nicholas Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Joe E. Watkins University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 Larry J. Zimmerman Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5410

American Antiquity 75(2), 2010, pp. 228-238 Copyright ?2010 by the Society for American Archaeology

228

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM 229

these questions are a clear rejoinder that show many "indigenous archaeology," an "archaeology done scholars are thoughtfully working to define this with, for, and by Indigenous people" (Nicholas and new approach. Andrews 1997b:3). Joe Watkins (2000) published Indigenous Archaeology, but significantly, this book was less a manifesto and more a dissertation Conceiving Indigenous Archaeology on the history of science, with the aim of contex McGhee's article is replete with strawman argu tualizing the legal, political, and social milieu in ments, as he never deeply engages with Indigenous which archaeology unfolds. As such, Watkins' ini archaeology's multifaceted development or its var tial formulations are not seamlessly reflected in ied definitions and practices. McGhee misconstrues later work, which has begun to explicitly frame Indigenous archaeology, misrepresenting it as one Indigenous archaeology as an effort to challenge cohesive program?a single agenda and set of val the discipline's colonialist underpinnings (e.g., Ata ues. While Vine Deloria, Jr.'s writings have inspired lay 2006a; Smith and Wobst 2005). A variety of thinking about archaeology's relationship with models have developed that point to what these Indian country (Biolsi and Zimmerman 1997; see kinds of archaeology mean in practice, including McGhee 2008:581,591), in fact, what we are now tribal, collaborative, and covenantal archaeologies calling Indigenous archaeology has traveled a long (Preucel and Cipolla 2008). Since Indigenous and uneasy path that goes far beyond Deloria's cri archaeology is not one idea, process, or product, tiques (Watkins 2003). As early as 1900, with but rather a broad approach that can be applied in Arthur C. Parker, Native Americans have attempted a range of ways?from tribal programs to CRM to pursue archaeology professionally (Thomas projects to academic field schools?it is perhaps 2000a), but it was not until a handful of Native better conceived of in the plural, Indigenous American tribes, , and Inuit commu Archaeologies (Atalay 2008:29; Silliman 2008a:2). nities began launching their own heritage programs Indigenous archaeology, in name, is thus a lit in the 1970s that Indigenous peoples were able to tle more than a decade old, although it is rooted in begin at last pursuing scientific research on their many years of thinking and work; it is fundamen own terms (Anyon et al. 2000; Klesert 1992; Row tally about an array of archaeological practices ley 2002). In the United States, legislation?such undertaken by, for, and with Indigenous commu as the 1990 Native American Graves Protection nities in ways that challenge the discipline's his and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the 1992 torical political economy and expand its intellectual amendments to the 1966 National Historic Preser breadth. This paradigm includes numerous prac vation Act (NHPA), which established Tribal His tices and approaches (Table 1), even as a relatively toric Preservation Offices?further empowered comprehensive definition is now available: tribes to control archaeological processes and Indigenous archaeology is an expression of objects and have a voice in historic preservation and practice in which the (Ferguson 2000; Killion 2008; Stapp and Burney discipline intersects with Indigenous values, 2002). The florescence of the broader public knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, archaeology movement provided additional intel and through collaborative and community lectual and methodological insights into originated or -directed projects, and related community-based participation (Marshall 2002; critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeology Shackel and Chambers 2004). In the post seeks to make archaeology more representa NAGPRA era, archaeologists and Indigenous peo tive of, relevant for, and responsible to Indige ples began to work together regularly and more nous communities. It is also about redressing Indigenous peoples have become professional real and perceived inequalities in the practice archaeologists even though they remain a fraction of archaeology and improving our under of the field's professionals (Dongoske et al. 2000; standing and interpretation of the archaeolog Nicholas and Andrews 1997a; Nicholas 2010; Swi ical record through the incorporation of new dleretal. 1997). and different perspectives [Nicholas From this pastiche of movements and programs, 2008:1660]. a conversation began about the possibility of an

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 230 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 2,2010]

Table 1. In its broadest form, Indigenous archaeology may Americans, or Aboriginals, but instead entails be defined as any one or more of the following (from "finding ways to create counter-discourse that Nicholas 2008:1660). speaks back to the power of colonialist and impe (1) The proactive participation or consultation of rialist interpretations of the past" (Atalay Indigenous peoples in archaeology 2006b:294). As Chris Gosden (2005:149) has writ (2) A political statement concerned with issues of ten, the term "Indigenous" no doubt can be fraught Aboriginal self-government, sovereignty, land rights, with definitional complications (see also Haber identity, and heritage (3) A postcolonial enterprise designed to decolonize the 2007), but the nascent field of Indigenous archae discipline ology itself seeks to engage with rather than dis (4) A manifestation of Indigenous epistemologies miss these issues and conversations, to establish (5) The basis for alternative models of cultural heritage viable points of contact between archaeologists and management or stewardship local communities. Gosden (2005:150) writes fur (6) The product of choices and actions made by individual archaeologists ther that "such connections are not always harmo (7) A means of empowerment and cultural revitalization or nious and easy, but should be seen to represent a political resistance set of possibilities, rather than problems, for archae (8) An extension, evaluation, critique, or application of ologists and all those interested in the past." When current archaeological theory looking at the actual research conducted by Indige nous people, for the benefit of Indigenous com munities, or in collaboration with Indigenous When Indigenous peoples express dissatisfac partners, we see researchers grappling with com tion with archaeology, their list of complaints often plex questions of identity, community, and engage relates to the role of archaeologists as gatekeepers. ment (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Historically, through academic training and gov Kerber 2006; Silliman 2008b). The concept of Indi ernment sanction, archaeologists have exclusively geneity here is not anchored in an Orientalism-like controlled the flow of academic resources con Aboriginalism?eternal, pure, and noble?but cerning Native American history and identity. In rather has emerged from the real lived experiences extracting Indigenous heritage as scientific data, of people who see themselves, and are seen by the archaeologists have long taken collections of arti world, as Native peoples (Clarke 2002). The broad facts and human remains to distant institutions as brush strokes of essentialism with which McGhee research findings, for processing into social capi paints this new paradigm in fact obscures the rich tal (publications, expertise, reputation) and eco diversity of practices, discussions, and viewpoints nomic capital (careers, livelihoods, jobs). This that are developing under the banner of Indigenous process has involved archaeologists claiming the archaeology. right of access to these collections and data as their own, and intellectual property rights over the Inclusion and Essentialism knowledge produced (Nicholas and Bannister 2004). While Indigenous peoples have long served On a theoretical level we can say that some groups as laborers at archaeological sites, for more than a of people have similar experiences of the past and century they have been excluded from participat present. This will lead them to have similar iden ing in the full choice of research activities. By main tities and social relationships. The concept of taining a geographic and social distance between "Indigenous" is a crude shorthand to try to capture the source community and the data produced from shared experiences. Essentialism is not always scientific investigations, archaeologists impede the problematic and completely avoidable because it flow of information that could be of use to Indige is a generalized classification based on what appear nous communities?the very people whose ances to be key characteristics that are identifiable to a tors are the source of scientific data. range of people. As scientists, we essentialize as Counter to McGhee's arguments, Indigenous hypothesis-building, "strategic" essentializing until archaeology does not depend on a timeless, authen the strategy no longer functions well. Indeed, all tic "Indian." Indigenous archaeology is not simply people essentialize, and so long as that is critically archaeology done by Indigenous peoples, Native and reflexively recognized for its limits and use

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM 231 fulness, it is acceptable, even necessary. When it is times contingent, but always ongoing." Between assumed to be truth, however, not tested in reality, unbending essentialism and radical constructivism, essentialism can be dangerous, no matter who is then, lies a "third-way" that focuses on cultural doing it. Essentialist behaviors can be powerful, no routes rather than immutable historical roots, and question. Do some Indigenous archaeology pro the importance of hybridity in the formation of cul ponents sometimes essentialize? Certainly. Do tures (Liebmann 2008:83-88). Indeed, Indigenous most of them think of their categories as absolute archaeology is perhaps uniquely positioned to cre truth? Unlikely. Indigenous archaeology is not the atively challenge hegemonic categories and dis naive epistemological structure McGhee describes. mantle binary frameworks such as "Indian" and In name, Indigenous archaeology does carry racial "archaeologist," to recognize "the existence of dif ist overtones that can be problematic (Echo-Hawk ferent voices, different perspectives, different inter and Zimmerman 2006), but in practice scholars ests within these oppositional entities" (Bray have diligently avoided an identity politics that only 2003:111). Indigenous people can do Indigenous archaeology Why McGhee singles out Indigenous archaeol (Lippert 1997,2005, 2006, 2008a). As Sonya Ata ogy for the charge of unfettered essentialism is lay (2008:30) has said, unequivocally, "Indigenous unclear. Close examination of the language and archaeology approaches are not simply critique and theories across contemporary archaeological prac practice carried out by Indigenous people?one tice, reveals essentialist ideas woven into the very need not be a Native person to follow an Indige fabric of the field, from the characterization of cul nous archaeology paradigm. It is also not neces ture groups to the development of regional histo sarily archaeology located on an Indigenous land ries (see Altschul and Rankin 2008:9; Speth 1988). base?it may or may not take place on Native lands. McGhee (2008:591) similarly ignores broader Indigenous archaeologies do not include such practices when he criticizes George Nicholas for essentialist qualities" (see also Atalay 2007). arguing that "archaeology [should] be willing to In exploring these questions, Matthew Liebmann accept restrictions placed by Indigenous commu (2008:73) looks at the refutation of essentialist nities on the dissemination of data, and to accept thinking "wherein social groups or categories are publication moratoriums that may allow the sub presumed to possess universal features exclusive to ject community time to explore ways of benefiting all members." Liebmann considers how Native from the data before others do." Nicholas was refer Americans today are often caught in-between essen ring specifically to the results of DNA studies? tialist ideals and postcolonial theory. The former something that Indigenous communities have insists that traditional "Indians" are fixed in time, legitimate concerns about (e.g., Hernandez 2004; while the latter's emphasis on cultural fluidity often Hollowell and Nicholas 2009)?but even if undermines tribal rights by reducing traditions to McGhee objects to this broader practice, we are inventions and identities to cultural myths. This no uncertain why he does not also elect to critique the win situation, however, depends on a false choice. scores of archaeologists who work for government A radical constructivist position misreads post agencies or private companies (see Bergman and colonial theory and disregards an anthropological Doershuk 2003). These archaeologists often work understanding of the complex process of identity under contracts that may also restrict access to data. construction. Liebmann (2008:82) writes, "Modern McGhee, then, strangely holds advocates of Indige identities are neither simple continuations of past nous archaeology to a higher standard than thou identities nor created out of thin air; rather, identi sands of other practicing archaeologists. ties draw on history for their legitimacy, restaging More to the point, McGhee's argument is unsat the past in the creation of the present ... In other isfactory because these are defensible practices: it words, modern identities may not represent a is justifiable at times for CRM practitioners to con straightforward, one-to-one correlation with the trol the flow of information for managing heritage past, but there is a relationship between the past and sites on the behalf of their clients, just as Indige modern groups." Lynn Meskell (2002:293) has sim nous archaeology practitioners control the flow of ilarly argued that "Meaning and identity must be information for managing heritage sites for the ben construed as projects, sometimes grounded, other efit of Indigenous communities. But McGhee is

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 232 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 2,2010]

offering us a feast of red herrings when he presents ical understanding of the past. As Robert W. Preu Indigenous archaeology as if this practice means cel and Craig N. Cipolla (2008:130) concluded in that including Indigenous views and values neces their critical examination of Indigenous Archae sitates excluding all others. Rather, Indigenous ologies, "The inclusion of Native voices offers not archaeology seeks to move beyond the nationalist only the potential to transform the discipline into and internationalist rationalizations of controlling a more democratic practice but also the opportu heritage (Merryman 1986), to acknowledge intra nity to reconceptualize notions of time, space, and nationalist rights and participation (Watkins material culture." 2005a). It is unnecessary to decide,prima facie, that heritage must either belong to one group or to no Indigenous Communities and Special Rights one at all. Heritage often has nested and complexly layered values; its meanings must be negotiated on At the core of McGhee's concerns about Indige a case-by-case basis (see Colwell-Chanthaphonh nous archaeology seems to be the notion that it is 2009a). not a government agency or an academic researcher In presenting his argument, McGhee ironically but Native peoples who are at last given a say in sanctifies the very dichotomies he professes to the archaeological endeavor. After all: Why do abhor. McGhee pits science against religion, sci Indigenous peoples get distinctive treatment? entists against Indians?a simplistic dualism with Where do they get their special rights to archaeol science as a pure objective positivist pursuit and ogy, heritage, and history? Native peoples as ecology-spiritual subjectivists. McGhee is unambiguous in his belief that McGhee's arguments depend on this false essen Indigenous peoples should not have any special tialized dichotomy, and when framed as unre rights to archaeology, despite the fact it is their her strained Aboriginalism versus impartial science, itage they are concerned about. Responding fully naturally the scientific community is going to be to this view is not easily done in a few sentences. swayed to the latter. The dichotomy of scientists There are important legal considerations, such as versus Indians is starkly belied by the increasing treaty rights and the long-established political rights number of archaeologists of Indigenous ancestry of dependent sovereign nations (Castile 2008; who are members of the Society for American Wilkens and Lomawaima 2002), but there are also Archaeology (Lippert 2008b), as it is contradicted more shapeless concerns, such as the colonial his when we can recognize that science is a social tories of war, forced acculturation, and exploitation process and social processes such as oral traditions (McGuire 1992; Thomas 2000b). Regarding the can provide avenues for understanding history United States, McGhee's treatment of Native Amer (Whiteley 2002). The divisiveness of these ican concerns about archaeology confuses issues dichotomies is both observably untenable and prac of tribal sovereignty with his vision of essential tically unproductive. ized Aboriginalism. Federally recognized Indian Because of these problems with his analysis of tribes in the United States have political rights based inclusion and essentialism, we therefore reject in law that include unique property interests, dis McGhee's (2008:595) conclusion that Indigenous tinctive jurisdictional principles, and a special trust archaeology should be a branch of "Aboriginal relationship between Indians and the United States Studies," rather than a component of the academic (Newton 2005). The same holds true in Canada, as discipline of archaeology. Even in its incipient the Crown also holds a fiduciary relationship with form, Indigenous archaeology has already made First Nations and Inuit peoples of broad constitu substantial contributions to the intellectual growth tional and legal scope (Hurley 2002). The consul of our discipline (e.g., Conkey 2005; Gonzalez et tation with Indian tribes called for in the NHPA and al. 2006; Green et al. 2003; Martinez 2006; NAGPRA, and the right of tribes to make certain Nicholas 2006; Norder 2007; Smith and Jackson decisions about cultural property and heritage sites 2006; Two Bears 2006; Watkins 2005b; Welch and discovered on Federal or tribal land, are not "eth Ferguson 2007; Wilcox 2009; Zedeno and Laluk nically based special rights" (McGhee 2008:595), 2008), and when fully developed it holds the but long-established legal rights derived from the promise of significantly advancing an archaeolog unique political status Indian tribes have in the

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM 233

United States formed over the centuries. In the tioning epistemic comrnunities are to counteract the United States and Canada, federally recognized risks of insularity?of epistemic blindness and social tribes and First Nations are political bodies, not sim entrenchment?they must seek out critical, collab ply ethnic groups. Archaeologists need to under orative engagement with those communities that are stand and respect these legal rights. most likely to have the resources necessary, not only As a starting point we can say (as an empirical to complement and correct specific lacunae, but to observation) that there are sectors of society that generate a critical standpoint on their own knowl are marginalized, and we can argue (as a moral con edge making practices." Wylie concludes that, "the tention) that in the interests of fairness marginal rationale for collaboration arises not only from moral ized communities need particular opportunities to obligations to descendant and affected communities, ensure their voices are heard, their freedoms are but also from an epistemic obligation that is rooted uncompromised, and their concerns are met. A fear in norms of critical engagement that are constitutive of the tyranny of the majority leads us to acknowl of scientific inquiry." Intellectual inclusiveness is edge that minorities at times need special protec thus not a repudiation of scientific principles, but an tions (Ackerly 2008; Song 2007). A commitment acknowledged feature of them. Incorporating Indige to democracy is a commitment to ensuring that all nous perspectives into our work provides broad intel citizens are given the chance to flourish. While we lectual benefits for the discipline. can philosophize that all are born equal, we can An admirable goal for archaeology?which observe that powerful interests and history often McGhee (2008:591) seems to acknowledge too? conspire to conceive inequality. is thus forming a practice of critical multivocality This view forms the architecture of Indigenous in which multiple perspectives and values are archaeology. Contrary to McGhee's claims, the brought together to expand shared historical under rights of Indigenous peoples are not grounded in standings (see also Habu et al. 2008). Yet McGhee an ageless Other, but in the time-specific historical (2008:591) is concerned that "sharing theoretical legacies of colonialism, present-day social injus authority" strips archaeology of "the scientific tices, and the inherent politics of scientific inquiry attributes that make it a particularly powerful nar (Little 2007; McGuire 2008; Schmidt and Patter rator of the past" and therefore relegates it to "at son 1995). For more than a century, the political most equal weight relative to Indigenous oral tra majority, a select group of self-appointed stewards dition and religious discourse." This simplistically empowered by affluence and endorsed by laws, assumes that Indigenous views somehow change have dominated archaeological inquiry. Indigenous science's attributes and that everyone wants to have archaeology is the attempt to introduce and incor an omnipotent historical narrator. Sharing author porate different perspectives of the past into the ity does not call for any changes to "scientific attrib study and management of heritage?to accommo utes" but merely to the underlying assumptions of date the diverse values for archaeology that exist scientific ownership of the past free and clear of in our pluralist democracy. the social and political contexts that surround As democracy is enriched by diversity, so too is archaeology. Sharing authority merely asks people archaeology. This does not mean the simple open to recognize the impact that the practice of archae ing up of the field to all, but rather should encour ology has had on descendant groups and the impli age us to pursue common ground by investigating cations of perceiving Western science as the only how diverse standpoints work to enlarge the disci "real" way to explain things. Giving equal consid pline's philosophical commitments and method eration is categorically different from giving equal ological practices. McGhee (2008:580) claims to weight to Indigenous views, concerns, and needs. adhere to a kind of "modest realism," as proposed Where traditional knowledge is provided and by Alison Wylie (2005), but Wylie herself has used to explicate our understandings of the mate recently argued that diversity of the kind provided rial world, it is because Indigenous traditional lead by Indigenous communities is critical for an epis ers, elders, and community members have resonant temically vigorous scientific discourse (see also connections to specific places and histories. Par Longino 2002; Wylie 2003). "The principle I pro ticipation is not based on biology, an inborn Abo pose," Wylie (2008) contends, "is that, if well func riginal mindset, but because we know that a

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 234 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 2,2010] boundless amount of cultural and historical infor Indigenous Peoples and Perspectives mation is infused in Indigenous people's oral his The first Native American to become a professional tories, songs, poetry, dances, rituals, pilgrimages, and prayers (e.g., Anyon et al. 1997; Bahr et al. archaeologist was Arthur C. Parker. Beginning his 1994; Bernardini 2005; Echo-Hawk 2000; Fergu career in early 1900s, under the tutelage of Fred eric W. Putnam, Parker overcame the racism of the son et al. 2000; Kuwanwisiwma 2002; Naranjo 2008; Scott 2003; Swentzell 2004; Thompson age to become a leading museologist and archae 2002; Whitley 2007; Wiget 1982, 1995; but see ologist in a career that spanned a half-century (see Mason 2006). McGhee (2008:592) is critical of Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2009b). Parker expressly Larry J. Zimmerman for suggesting that the loss of became an archaeologist to honor his Seneca her scientific credibility might be worth the cost due itage, and yet he adopted the very practices of to increased access to Indigenous knowledge. But archaeology that disempowered Indigenous com Zimmerman's statement was intended as an opti munities. He furtively purchased sacred objects; mistic vision of what Indigenous participation can most of his excavations focused on burials in spite offer, and it is striking that McGhee ignores Zim of Iroquois protests; and when Iroquois leaders and merman's (1997,2008a, 2008b) work on an "eth government agents would not allow him to dig on nocritical archaeology," which spells out how New York's Indian reservations he readily turned interpretive disagreements between communities to sites on private land where he could spurn Native can be mediated. concerns. Any viable archaeology?Indigenous, feminist, Parker's conflicted legacy illustrates why Marxist, processual, post-processual, processual Indigenous archaeology is not merely about induct plus, or otherwise?must commit itself to an hon ing more Indigenous peoples into the discipline. est and lucid exploration of the past. Through close Despite his personal sympathies and Seneca her scrutiny of data, unguarded conversation, and a itage, Parker was unable to conduct archaeology in commitment to look below the surface of difference, concert with Indigenous values and viewpoints historical explanations and new hypotheses are pos because at that time there simply was no alterna sible, which do not either wholly dismiss traditional tive paradigm that allowed him to develop a robust histories or flatly discount physical evidence. It is and full collaboration with his own community. not always feasible to come to tidy conclusions, but Building on the theories and practices of feminist, the underlying process of inclusion?a commit Marxist, and post-processual research, Indigenous ment to honest discussion, working together, and archaeology is fundamentally about altering the mutual respect?can lead us to a more productive, field's political economy and intellectual breadth insightful, and accurate pursuit of the past. so that Indigenous values, ideas, expressions, and McGhee argues that Indigenous communities experiences can be productively incorporated into should not be afforded special rights to archaeol the discipline. The next generation of scholars should not have to choose, as Parker was forced to, ogy, but we question in turn whether archaeologists should be afforded carte blanche. McGhee between pursuing and (2008:594) notes that "many archaeologists are respecting Indigenous communities. also concerned regarding access to the Indigenous In the end, what does Indigenous archaeology archaeological resource," and that "continued really look like? In practice, it looks much like any access to archaeological materials is the subtext of other archaeology. People conduct rigorous scien many publications proposing the development of tific studies, utilize sophisticated theories to explain Indigenous archaeology." Perhaps this statement the evidence, draft publications for the discipline's more than any other reflects McGhee's true con benefit, and seek outreach opportunities. The main cerns with Indigenous archaeology: access to arti difference is that this is all done in a spirit of respect facts and resources. In many ways, this appears to for the differing rights and perspectives of archae present the crux of McGhee's unjustified concerns: ology's many stakeholders. There is an acknowl that archaeologists should have the unreserved right edgement that Indigenous people are bound by to practice archaeology free from outside influence responsibilities to their ancestors and that a respon and free to research the histories they "discover." sible archaeologist does not ignore or belittle these.

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM 235

Indigenous archaeology looks like Australian Roger Anyon and Alan S. Downer, pp. 77-87. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. archaeologists conducting research into ancient Anyon, Roger, T. J. Ferguson and John R. Welch human remains at the request of the traditional 2000 Heritage Management by American Indian Tribes in owners and under their supervision of each step of the Southwestern United States. In Cultural Resource Man the process (Claire Smith, pers. comm. 2009). It agement in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Man aging and Presenting the Past, edited by Francis P. looks like a Choctaw archaeologist working with McManamon and Alf Hatton, pp. 120-141. Routledge, London. Choctaw artisans to replicate and scientifically ana Atalay, Sonya lyze archaeological materials from a Choctaw site 2006a Guest Editor's Remarks: Decolonizing Archaeol (Thompson 2008). It looks like California Depart ogy. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):269-279. ment of Transportation archaeologists collaborat 2006b Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):280-310. ing with the Kashaya Porno to develop local 2007 Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Com methods and results that are inclusive, reciprocal, munity Based Participatory Research in Turkey. Archae and mutually respectful (Dowdall and Parrish ologies 3(3):249-270. 2003). Indigenous archaeology looks like non 2008 Multivocality and Indigenous Archaeologies. In Eval uating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colo Indigenous archaeologists partnering with Cayuga nialist, and Imperialist Archaeologies, edited by Junko people in the anthropological exploration of a Hau Habu, Claire Fawcett and John M. Matsunaga, pp. Springer, New York. denosaunee site in New York (Rossen and Hansen Bahr, Donald, Juan Smith, William Smith Allison, and Julian 2007). It looks like Indigenous and non-Indigenous Hayden people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous archaeol 1994 The Short Swift Time of Gods on Earth: The Hohokam Chronicles. University of California Press, Berkeley. ogists according each other equal respect in our Bergman, Christopher A., and John F. Doershuk interests, rights, and responsibilities. 2003 Cultural Resource Management and the Business of Much more could be said about McGhee's Archaeology. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli and Julie Hollowell provocative article. As a reply to McGhee, unfor Zimmer, pp. 85-98. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Cali tunately, we have room neither to fully address all fornia. of his arguments nor to provide a positive account Bernardini, Wesley 2005 Hopi Oral Tradition and the Archaeology of Identity. ing of Indigenous archaeology. Instead we have University of Arizona Press, Tucson. chosen to respond to McGhee's arguments about Biolsi, Thomas, and Larry J. Zimmerman (editors) Indigenous archaeology's goals and definition, as 1997 Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of . University of Arizona Press, well as the importance of including Indigenous Tucson. viewpoints and acknowledging Indigenous rights. Bray, Tamara L. These concepts and ideas, after all, lay the foun 2003 The Politics of an Indigenous Archaeology. In Indige nous People and Archaeology: Proceedings of the 32nd dation for future archaeology projects that can equi Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Trevor Peck, Eve tably and productively include Indigenous peoples lyn Siegfried and Gerald A. Oetelaar, pp. 108-113. Archae and their perspectives. ological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Castile, George Pierre 2008 Federal Indian Policy and Anthropology. In A Com Acknowledgments. We gratefully thank Rodrigo F. Renteria panion to the Anthropology of American Indians, edited Valencia for his assistance with translating the English by Thomas Biolsi, pp. 268-282. Blackwell, Maiden, Mass abstract into Spanish. achusetts. Clarke, Anne 2002 The Ideal and the Real: Cultural and Personal Trans References Cited formation of Archaeological Research on Groote Eylandt, Northern Australia. World Archaeology 34(2):249-264. Ackerly, Brooke A. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip 2008 Universal Human Rights in a World of Difference. 2009a The Archaeologist as a World Citizen: On the Morals Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. of Heritage Preservation and Destruction. In Cosmopoli Altschul, Jeffrey H., and Adrianne G. Rankin tan Archaeologies, edited by Lynn Meskell, pp. 140-165. 2008 Introduction. In Fragile Patterns: The Archaeology of Duke University Press, Durham. the Western Papaguena, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and 2009b Inheriting the Past: The Making of Arthur C. Parker Adrianne G. Rankin, pp. 4-27. SRI Press, Tucson. and Indigenous Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Anyon, Roger, T. J. Ferguson, Loretta Jackson, Lillie Lane, and Tucson. Philip Vicenti Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson (editors) 1997 Native American Oral Tradition and Archaeology: 2008 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Issues of Structure, Relevance, and Respect. In Native Descendant Communities. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Mary Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Com land. mon Ground, edited by Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske,

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 236 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 2,2010]

Conkey, Margaret W. Kerber, Jordan E. (editor) 2005 Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection? 2006 Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies, 2005. Archae Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Univer ologies l(l):9-59. sity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Dongoske, Kurt E., Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner (edi Killion, Thomas W. (editor) tors) 2008 Opening Archaeology: Repatriation's Impact on Con 2000 Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeol temporary Research and Practice. S AR Press, Santa Fe. ogists. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, Klesert, Anthony L. D.C. 1992 A View from Navajoland on the Reconciliation of Dowdall, Katherine M., and Otis O. Parrish Anthropologists and Native Americans. Human Organi 2003 A Meaningful Disturbance of the Earth. Journal of zation 51(1): 17-22. Social Archaeology 3(1):99-133. Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh Echo-Hawk, Roger 2002 Hopi Understanding of the Past: A Collaborative 2000 Ancient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Approach. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited by Traditions and the Archaeological Record in Deep Time. Barbara J. Little, pp. 46-50. University Press of Florida, American Antiquity 65(2):267-290. Gainesville. Echo-Hawk, Roger C. and Larry J. Zimmerman Liebmann, Matthew 2006 Beyond Racism: Some Opinions about Racialism and 2008 Postcolonial Cultural Affiliation: Essentialism, American Archaeology. American Indian Quarterly Hybridity, and NAGPRA. In Archaeology and the Post 30(3&4):461-485. colonial Critique, edited by Matthew Liebmann and Uzma Ferguson, T. J. Z. Rizvi, pp. 73-90. AltaMira Press, Lanham. 2000 NHPA: Changing the Role of Native Americans in the Lippert, Dorothy Archaeological Study of the Past. In Working Together: 1997 In Front of the Mirror: Native Americans and Acad Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by Kurt E. emic Archaeology. In Native Americans and Archaeolo Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer and Karen Doehner, pp. gists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina 25-36. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and Alan S. D.C. Downer, pp. 120-127. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Cal Ferguson, T. J., Kurt E. Dongoske, Mike Yeatts, and Leigh J. ifornia. Kuwanwisiwma 2005 Comment on "Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the 2000 Hopi Oral History and Archaeology. In Working Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies, Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited 2005". Archaeologies l(l):63-66. by Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer and Karen 2006 Building a Bridge to Cross a Thousand Years. Amer Doehner, pp. 45-60. Society for American Archaeology, ican Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):431^40. Washington, D.C. 2008a The Rise of Indigenous Archaeology: How Repatri Gonzalez, Sara L., Darren Modzelewski, Lee M. Panich, and ation Has Transformed Archaeological Ethics and Prac Tsim D. Schneider tice. In Opening Archaeology: Repatriation's Impact on 2006 Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. American Contemporary Research and Practice, edited by Thomas Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):388-^115. W. Killion, pp. 151-160. SAR Press, Santa Fe. Gosden, Chris 2008b Not the End, Not the Middle, But the Beginning: 2005 Indigenous Archaeology. In Archaeology: The Key Repatriation as a Transformative Mechanism for Archae Concepts, edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, pp. ologists and Indigenous Peoples. In Collaboration in 146-151. Routledge, London. Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Commu Green, Lesley Fordred, David R. Green, and Eduardo Goes nities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Neves Ferguson, pp. 119-130. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. 2003 Indigenous Knowledge and Archaeological Science: Little, Barbara J. The Challenges of Public Archaeology in the Reserva 2007 : Why the Past Matters. Left Uaca. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3):366-398. Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Haber, Alejandro F. Longino, Helen E. 2007 This is Not an Answer to the Question "Who is Indige 2002 The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press, nous?" Archaeologies 3(3):213-229. Princeton. Habu, Junko, Claire Fawcett, and John M. Matsunaga (editors) Marshall, Yvonne 2008 Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, 2002 What Is Community Archaeology? World Archaeol Colonialist, and Imperialist Archaeologies. Springer, New ogy 34(2):211-219. York. Martinez, Desiree Renee Hernandez, Juan A. Avila 2006 Overcoming Hindrances to Our Enduring Responsi 2004 Blood, Lies, and Indian Rights: TCUs Becoming bility to the Ancestors: Protecting Traditional Cultural Gatekeepers for Research. Tribal College Journal of Amer Places. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):486-503. ican Indian Higher Education 16(2): 10-13. Mason, Ronald J. Hollowell, Julie, and George P. Nicholas 2006 Inconstant Companions: Archaeology and North 2009 Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project American Indian Oral Traditions. University of Alabama for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. International Jour Press, Tuscaloosa. nal of Cultural Property 16(2): 131-132. McGhee, Robert Hurley, Mary 2008 Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous 2002 The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship with Aboriginal Archaeology. American Antiquity 73:579-597. Peoples. Electronic document, http://www.parl.gc.ca/ McGuire, Randall H. information/library/prbpubs/prb0009-e.htm, September 1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. American 17, 2009. Anthropologist 94:816-836.

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM 237

2008 Archaeology as Political Action. University of Cali ology and History in Non-Western Settings. School of fornia Press, Berkeley. American Research Press, Santa Fe. Merryman, John H. Scott, Douglas D. 1986 Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property. Amer 2003 Oral Tradition and Archaeology: Conflict and Con ican Journal of International Law 80:831-853. cordance Examples from Two Indian War Sites. Histori Meskell, Lynn cal Archaeology 37(3):55-65. 2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archae Shackel, Paul A., and Erve J. Chambers (editors) ology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301. 2004 Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Naranjo, Tessie Anthropology. Routledge, London. 2008 Life as Movement: A Tewa View of Community and Silliman, Stephen W. (editor) Identity. In The Social Construction of Communities: 2008a Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology: Troweling at Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic South the Edges, Eyeing the Center. In Collaborating at the west, edited by Mark D. Varien and James M. Potter, pp. Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous 251-262. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Archaeology, edited by Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 1-21. Newton, Nell Jessup (editor) University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2005 Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Lexis 2008b Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Nexus, Newark, New Jersey. Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. University of Ari Nicholas, George P. zona Press, Tucson. 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Smith, Claire and Gary Jackson Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. 2006 Decolonizing Indigenous Archaeology: Develop American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):350-380. ments from Down Under. American Indian Quarterly 2008 Native Peoples and Archaeology. In Encyclopedia of 30(3&4):311-349. Archaeology, edited by Deborah Pearsall, pp. 1660-1669. Smith, Claire, and H. Martin Wobst (editors) vol. 3. Academic Press, New York. 2005 Indigenous A rchaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Nicholas, George P. (editor) Practice. Routledge, London. 2010 Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists. Left Song, Sarah Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. 2007 Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews (editors) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1997a At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Speth, John D. Canada. Archaeology Press, Burnaby. 1988 Do We Need Concepts Like "Mogollon", "Anasazi", 1997b Indigenous Archaeology in the Post-Modern World. and "Hohokam" Today? A Cultural Anthropological Per In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in spective. The Kiva 53(2):201-204. Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. Stapp, Darby C, and Michael S. Burney Andrews, pp. 1 -18. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser Uni 2002 Tribal Cultural Resource Management: The Full Cir versity, Burnaby. cle to Stewardship. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Cali Nicholas, George P. and Kelly P. Bannister fornia. 2004 Copyrighting the Past? Emerging Intellectual Prop Swentzell, Rina erty Rights Issues in Archaeology. Current Anthropology 2004 A Pueblo Woman's Perspective on Chaco Canyon. In 45(3):327-350. In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeologi Norder, John W. cal Enigma, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 49-53. 2007 Iktomi in the Land of Maymaygwayshi: Understand School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. ing Lived Experience in the Practice of Archaeology Swidler, Nina, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. among American Indians/First Nations. Archaeologies Downer (editors) 3(3):230-248. 1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Preucel, Robert W., and Craig N. Cipolla Stones to Common Ground. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. 2008 Indigenous and Postcolonial Archaeologies. In Thomas, David Hurst Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by 2000a Afterword: Who was Arthur C. Parker, Anyway? In Matthew Liebmann and Uzma Z. Rizvi, pp. 129-140. Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, AltaMira Press, Lanham. edited by Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer and Karen Rossen, Jack, and Brooke Hansen Doehner, pp. 213-234. Society for American Archaeology, 2007 Building Bridges through Public Anthropology in the Washington, D.C. Haudenosaunee Homeland. In Past Meets Present: Archae 2000b Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the ologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers and Battle for Native American Identity. Basic Books, New Community Groups, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr. and York. Sherene Baugher, pp. 127-148. Springer, New York. Thompson, Ian Rowley, Susan 2002 Native American Perspectives on Sand Canyon Pueblo 2002 Inuit Participation in the Archaeology of Nunavut: A and Other Ancestral Sites. In Seeking the Center Place: Historical Overview. In Honoring our Elders: A History Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde of Eastern Arctic Archaeology, edited by William W. Region, edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Fitzhugh, Stephen Loring and Daniel Odess, pp. 261-272. Wilshusen, pp. 257-262. University of Utah Press, Salt Circumpolar Contributions to Anthropology 2. Arctic Stud Lake City. ies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smith 2008 Chahta Intikba Aiikhvna Learning from the Choctaw sonian Institution, Washington D.C. Ancestors: Integrating Indigenous and Experimental Said, Edward W. Approaches in the Study of Mississippian Technology. 1978 Orientalism. Vintage Books, New York. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico. Schmidt, Peter R., and Thomas C. Patterson (editors) Two Bears, Davina 1995 Making Alternative Histories: The Practice ofArchae 2006 Navajo Archaeologist Is Not an Oxymoron: A Tribal

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 238 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 2,2010]

Archaeologist's Experience. American Indian Quarterly Wylie, Alison 30(3&4):381-387. 2003 Why Standpoint Matters. In Science and Other Cul Watkins, Joe tures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and edited by Robert Figueroa and Sandra Harding, pp. 26-48. Scientific Practice. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Cali Routledge, New York. fornia. 2005 The Promise and Perils of an Ethic of Stewardship. 2003 Beyond the Margin: American Indians, First Nations, In Embedding Ethics: Shifting Boundaries of the Anthro and Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity pological Profession, edited by Lynn Meskell and Peter 68:273-285. Pels, pp. 47-68. Berg, Oxford. 2005a Cultural Nationalists, Internationalists, and "Intra 2008 Legacies of Collaboration: Transformative Criticism Nationalists": Who's Right and Whose Right? Interna in Archaeology. Paper presented at the Archaeology Divi tional Journal of Cultural Property 12(l):78-94. sion Distinguished Lecture, American Anthropological 2005b Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Association, San Francisco, California. Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:429-449. Zedeno, Maria Nieves, and Nicholas Laluk Welch, John R., and T. J. Ferguson 2008 When is a Site Culturally Viable? Landscape Evolu 2007 Putting Patria Back Into Repatriation: Cultural Affil tion and Ojibiwa Heritage Building on the St. Croix iation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Her Lands. Journal of Social Archaeology 7(2): 171-198. itage Management 1(1):71?98. Whiteley, Peter M. Zimmerman, Larry J. 2002 Archaeology and Oral Tradition: The Scientific Impor 1997 Remythologizing the Relationship Between Indians tance of Dialogue. American Antiquity 67:405-415. and Archaeologists. In Native Americans and Archaeolo Whitley, David S. gists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina 2007 Indigenous Knowledge and 21st Century Archaeo Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and Alan S. logical Practice: An Introduction. The SAA Archaeologi Downer, pp. 44?56. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Cali cal Record 7(2):6-8. fornia. Wiget, Andrew O. 2008a Real People or Reconstructed People? Ethnocritical 1982 Truth and the Hopi: An Historiographic Study of Doc Archaeology, Ethnography, and Community Building. In umented Oral Tradition Concerning the Coming of the Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders Spanish. Ethnohistory 29(3): 181-199. and Archaeological Practice, edited by Quetzil E. Cas 1995 Recovering the Remembered Past: Folklore and Oral taneda and Christopher N. Matthews, pp. 183-204. History in the Zuni Trust Lands Damage Case. In Zuni and AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. the Courts, edited by Richard E. Hart, pp. 173-187. Uni 2008b Unusual or "Extreme" Beliefs about the Past, Com versity Press of Kansas, Lawrence. munity Identity, and Dealing with the Fringe. In Collabo Wilcox, Michael V. ration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant 2009 The Pueblo Revolt and the Mythology of Conquest: Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and An Indigenous Archaeology of Contact. University of Cal T. J. Ferguson, pp. 55-86. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, ifornia Press, Berkeley. California. Wilkens, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima 2002 Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Submitted December 16, 2008; Accepted April 17, 2009.

This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms