FORUM

COURAGE AND THOUGHTFUL SCHOLARSHIP = INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS

Dale R. eroes

Robert McGhee's recent lead-in American Antiquity article entitled Aboriginalism and Problems of Indigenous archaeology seems to emphasize the pitfalls that can occur in "indige nolls archaeology." Though the effort is l1ever easy, I would empha­ size an approach based on a 50/50 partnership between the archaeological scientist and the native people whose past we are attempting to study through our field alld research techniques. In northwestern North America, we have found this approach important in sharillg ownership of the scientist/tribal effort, and, equally important, in adding highly significant (scientif­ ically) cullUral knowledge ofTribal members through their ongoing cultural transmission-a concept basic to our explana­ tion in the field of archaeology and anthropology. Our work with ancient basketry and other wood and fiber artifacts from waterlogged Northwest Coast sites demonstrates millennia ofcultl/ral cOlltinuity, often including reg ionally distinctive, highly guarded cultural styles or techniques that tribal members continue to use. A 50/50 partnership means, and allows, joint ownership that can only expand the scientific description and the cultural explanation through an Indigenous archaeology approach.

El artIculo reciente de Robert McGhee en la revista American Antiquity, titulado: Aborigenismo y los problemas de la Arque­ ologia Indigenista, pC/recen enfatizar las dificultades que pueden ocurrir en la "arqueologfa indigenista ". Aunque los esfuer­ zos nunca sonfdciles, enfatizare un enfoque basado en una sociedad 50/50 entre el cientifico arque61ogo y las comunidades indfgenas, Cl/yos antepasados tratamos de estudiarconlluestras tecnicas de investigaci6n y de campo. En el Noroeste Norteam­ ericano, resulta de importancia este enfoque de compartir la propiedad, por una parte, de los esfuerzos de la tribu y los cien­ tificos, y por Olra, igualmente importnate, al anadir conocimiento cultural de alta sigl1ificacia (cientifica) de miembros de la Tribu a traves de su continua transmisi6n cultural-un concepto bdsico ennuestra explicaci6n en el campo de la arqueologia y la antropologfa. Nuestro trabajo en cesterla antigua y otros artefactos de madera y fibm en sitios inundados de la Costa Norteamericana, demuestra milenios de continuidad cultural, muchas veces incluyendo estilos culturales distintivos y metic­ ulosamellte cuidadosos regionalmel1l, as! como tecllicas que los lI!iembros de la tl'ibu continuan usando. Una sociedad 50/50 signijica, y permite, co-propiedad que solamente expande la descripci6n cientifica y la explicacicln cultural a traves de un enfoque arqueol6gico indigenista.

cGhee and I agree on one statement in context-the new "Indian problem") is derived his article Aboriginalism and the Prob­ from a misguided archaeological trend that con­ I M lems ofIndigenous Archaeology, which siders Native Peoples having a special, unique, and is the last one: "Something as important as the controlling role over science, in "owning" their human past deserves both courage and thoughtful past. Possibly this idea is a new backlash to the scholarship on the part of those who claim to make "New Archeology" teachings of the 1960s and it their study" (2008:595). His essay on the "prob­ 1970s, that oW' discipline of archeology was the lems" of Indigenous archaeology, using arguments exclusive owner of the past, and the only field that linked to concepts of "Aboriginalism," "Oliental­ could truly describe and explain the past McGhee's ism," "exceptionalism," "essentialism," "Noble own stereotyping of this "Indian problem" we sup­ Savages," "primitive mind," and "Noble Barbar­ posedly face presents a simplistic view of many ians," leads the reader to conclude that the prob­ archaeologists' efforts to work with over 500 North lem (probably better termed-in a historical American cultures whose heritage we explore:

Dale R. Croes - Department of Anthropology, South Puget Sound Community College, Olympia, WA 98512 and Department of AnthropOlogy, Washington State University, Pullman, WA ([email protected]) (websitcs: http://www.library.spscc.ctc.edu/crm/crm.htm, http://NewsWARP.info)

American Antiquity 75(2), 2010, pp. 211-216 Copyright ©201O by the Society for American Archaeology

211 212 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

"Difficulties arise, however, when archaeologists My earlier work at the Ozette Village wet site accede to claims ofAboriginal exceptionalism and (45CA24), the Hoko River wet site (45CA240) and incorporate such assumptions into archaeological Hoko rock shelter (45CA21; Croes 1977, 1995, practice" (2008:580). He points out that he has 1999,2005) involved informal partnership agree­ "enjoyed the acquaintance of many Indigenous ments with the Makah Tribal Council, whose tra­ individuals-mainly Canadian First Peoples and ditional territory is on the northwest tip of the Inuit" (2008:580). Therefore, I am certain that he OlYrnpic Peninsula, Washington (Wakashan lan­ realizes that these Native Peoples come from very guage family). For example, at the Ozette Village different cultural backgrounds, and each has their wet site, where a whole section of an ancient Makah own cultural practices and belief systems, and village was tragically engulfed and preserved by a these, like the 500+ Indigenous cultures of North massive mudslide, we agreed that the human America, cannot be stereotyped as a whole- a remains found could be studied for scientific infor­ point he, in fact, warns us against. mation (Western science needs), but that these Let me describe what I believe has worked for human remains would never be shown or discussed us in the Northwest region of North America, which in the public media (Makah Tribal needs). In this I feel has followed McGhee's recommendations. instance, both sides couId and did reach their 50/50 Our work demonstrates courage in countering what objectives. In fact, the Tribe supported scientific he perceives as an academic threat from "aborigi­ study of the skeletal remains because they wanted nalism," and it provides thoughtful and increased to document the health and vigor of their ancestors scholarship through working with Tribes one on to better gauge their own return to native food ways, one. Since my WSU graduate school days of the including current efforts to return to whaling. 1970s, and throughout my current annual summer As another example, when I was a graduate stu­ field schools, I have engaged in archaeological dent studying ancient Ozette basketry, the Tribe work that we define as a 50/50 partnership with insisted that I needed to learn how to make Makah Tribes, in which both are equal partners in co­ basketry from their Elders in the K-12 Neah Bay managing the fieldwork and research. I have not school program. They could not perceive how I really practiced any other approach. McGhee points could possibly understand their ancient basketry out that, increasingly, archaeologists find that their without this cultural knowledge. I personally did permits or funding require that they do work with not believe I needed this training to do the scien­ Tribes, sometimes several Tribes, on whose tradi­ tific analysis of basketry. However, each side of the tional territories the sites are found. My own field­ partnership needed to be respected, so I took a work has included working with a number of semester of Makah basketweaving, involving a different Native cultures, each with very different daily hour with the elementary students and an hour cultural perspectives, values, and beliefs. with the High School students. I soon realized they The approach that has worked for us in each case were absolutely right-I probably learned more is establishing, as best possible, a truly equal 50/50 cultural knowledge through this training than any partnership. The parties must respect equally the other graduate school experience. I also learned Western scientific approach and the Tribes' cul­ how basketry is a culturally guarded tradition-I tural approach-both respecting and facilitating had to agree before the training that I would never each other's unique needs-without one sides' teach Makah basketry or sell what I learned to needs superceding the others. We are from very dif­ make. . ferent cultures and also have very different objec­ These two of many Ozette project examples tives, so often this approach can be described as a show how a 50/50 partnership between WSU continual bumpy road-however, if the relationship Anthropologists and the Makah Tribal Council has is a true 50/50 partnership, the relationship can usu­ benefited both groups. This Makah partnership con­ ally be sustained, though it seems to always involve tinued after I finished my Ph.D., through 9 years some turmoil. And, as McGhee concludes, both of archaeological fieldwork at the Hoko River Site sides need to agree that "something as important Complex dating to 3000 years B .P. I describe some as the human [Tribe's] past deserves" the full coop­ of our joint efforts below (Croes 1995,2005). eration of both partners. Current and ongoing work with the Squaxin FORUM 213

Island Tribe of south Puget Sound (a Salish lan­ At first I thought this preservation might be distinct guage group) at their heritage wet site ofQwu ?gwes to Northwest wet site archaeology. Stephen Plog, involved a more formal coUaboration. In this case, the former editor American Antiquity, pointed out a formal Cooperative Agreement was signed by to me that this kind ofpreservation is seen in many the head of state of the Tribe, the Tribal Chair, and regions of North America. Sites with good preser­ our College President. This document outlined the vation of wood and fiber include waterlogged specific expectations of the partnership, and has preservation in FlO1ida and other Southeastern wet been renewed every two years since 2000 (Foster sites; arid and cave sites contain wood and fiber arti­ and Croes 2002, 2004; Foster et al. 2007). Many facts in the Plateau, Great Basin, and Southwest; of the articles resulting from this partnership can and frozen sites in Robert McGhee's area of con­ be found on the website: htlp:llwww.library.spscc. siderable expertise, the Arctic and Subarctic, have ctc.edu/crmlcrm.htm. Recently I have also worked this level of organic preservation, even including on a joint U.S.lTriballJapanese collaborative pro­ preservation ofleather artifacts. The basketry, fish­ gram with Chinookan language family groups who ing equipment (including fishing hooks, traps and are affiliates of the Confederated Tribes of the nets), and woodworking tools, as well as perish­ Grand Ronde, Siletz, and Warm Springs Indians of able debitage, basketry waste elements, woodchips, Oregon, invo]ving archaeological work at the and split wood are all archaeological materials that National Historic Landmark wet site of Sunken Northwest Native peoples, and also those in other Village (35MU4; Croes et al. 2009). areas, have close cultural involvement with today­ Once the co-management approach has been the result of centuries and no doubt millennia of established-which is truly the courageous part of cultural transmission. endeavor for both the scientists and Tribes~ the Numerous examples of how partnership established shared goals and trust leads into the real between archaeological scientists and Indigenous value of this kind of archaeological scholarship. cultural experts contribute to our science's schol­ More than any other approach, the partnership arship can be made. Simple examples have been model opens the door to il1 corpmating cultural our recovery of baskets and nets at Qwu?gwes in knowledge and expertise, much of which is often southern Puget Sound--everyone in the non-Indian guarded from the outside world, and it also expands West would recognizes these finds as baskets and "thoughtful scholarship on the pm1 of those who nets, but few could know what materials they are claim to make it their [joint] study" (McGhee made from, or how they were made. In this case, 2008:595). these kinds of baskets and nets are made today, and Another article in the same issue of American the techniques are well understood by Squaxin Antiquity in which McGhee's essay appeared Island Tribal members, even though now most nets describes another new direction in archaeological are no longer made of inner bark. In addition, T1ibal research: that is, cultural transmission. Native Peo­ members can identify what they were used for. For ples perpetuate their own cultural transmission, as example, the baskets m'e likely used as clam bas­ is the case for all of us in our own distinct cultural kets, while the nets, made by hand with a non-slip worlds. I have worked my entire archaeological square knot, are likely gill nets, used for smaller career specializing in Northwest Coast water­ salmon, such as silver and chums. Furthermore, the logged/wet site with excellent preservation of the Tribal members have contributed insightful sug­ wood and fiber artifacts, which together typically gestions as to how these mtifacts ended up in the represent up to 90 percent of the material culture Qwu ?gwes intertidal shell midden areas, based on recovered from a wet site. Northwest Coast Tribal their own experiences. In this case, the recovered members relate weU to the discovered basketry, net was full ofsalmon bones-a situation that might cordage, woodworking equipment, hunting, fish­ happen when the net became too full, sank, and ing, and foraging artifacts since they retain many likely got away from a fishe1"]Jerson without much ofthese cultural practices-passed along from gen­ experience. This kind of situation might face a eration to generation through cultural transmission. younger person who was getting to use an Elder's Therefore, our partnership augments the descrip­ ("grandpa's") net for first time, and did not listen tion and explanation of our archaeological finds. to advise to pull it in when a certain number of net 214 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010] corks go down-becoming too heavy with fish and pers, but the detailed cultural knowledge comes to carried off (Foster and Croes 2004; Foster et al. us through cultural transnlission across many gen­ 2007). erations. Another example concerns artifacts found at the The main point here is that, through a 50/50 3,000-year-old Hoko River wet site. Here, we dis­ partnership, both sides are able to work together to covered over 300 wooden shanked fish hooks, and describe and explain "something as important as abundant remains of halibut and flatfish. Again, the human past" (McGhee 2008:595). In this case, non-Indians could easily see the artifacts were some yes, the Tribal side can be considered people that kind of fish hook with leaders, but the Makah Elders "possess inherent qualities and abilities, with spe­ contributed detailed knowledge about how they cial reference to historical matters" (2008:590) were made and used, including the kind of fish because of their position as the ongoing recipients intended for different hooks, and, through experi­ ofconsiderable cultural transnlission from the past. mental archaeology, showed us how to bait the , They are "equal but very different" culturally hooks and make kelp fishline. In tins case we made (2008:586), and if equally sharing the undertaking kelp line long enough to reach the halibut banks to best understand their past, scientifically and cul­ off the Hoko, at slack tide, where we actually suc­ turally, then they do not have the same reasons. to cessfully fished with these hooks. The Tribe also guard their culturally transnlitted know ledge, since flew in Elders and the Council Chair, as spokesper­ both parties own the results. Tribes that I have son, to help us observe and record how these hooks worked with on archaeological projects rarely worked in the controlled setting of the Seattle would agree with Deloria's (1995:15) statement Aquarium-again, an example of partnership that "much of Western science must go." They between the scientists and cultural experts in action understand that his statement may have been (Croes 1995, 1997, 1999). needed to draw attention to the Indian movement A sinlilar nlix of ethnoarchaeology and exper­ of the 1960s (resulting in a turning point for Tribal imental archaeology led to a better understanding rights), and to protest how the Western archaeo­ of the archaeological remains at a site where a inter­ logical scientists were at that time claiming sole tidal fish trap was radiocarbon dated to at least 470 ownership of their past. Deloria, in fact, had some years B.P. This feature consisted of over 400 10-x­ very close associations with archaeologists (e.g., 10 cm square split cedar stakes across an inlet at his work with David Hurst Thomas). I have rarely Qwu?gwes that was well recorded and mapped by seen any resistance to the Western science and the archaeological team. The Squaxin Island Fish­ archaeological method and theory when working erpersons identified that it was intended for fall with Northwest Coast tribes; in fact, they tend to chum salmon. In this kind offishing, people helped embrace the approach and contribute to its tech­ guide the chum by slapping their canoe paddles (for niques and careful recording. example); the chum try to escape by moving up the McGhee feels that what he calls "Indigenous inlet at high tide over the trap. When the tide archaeology" is often a "profoundly political retreats, the fisherpersons slide planks in the dou­ engagement." He uses the example ofNicholas and ble pole "door" area to keep the salmon from slip­ Andrews (1997: 12), who state that "as archaeolo­ ping out. The trap had to be extra strong (large split gists and anthropologists from a dominant society, cedar posts) since chum are particularly "higb spir­ we have an obligation to contribute to the well­ ited" and could beat through weaker structures. being of First Peoples" (2008:593). I do agree with The chum are also well known as "dog salmon"­ Nicholas and Andrew that our data should be they bite like a dog and would I:ry to attack people applied in helping the future of the tribes we part­ as they retrieved the stranded fish. This kind offish ner with. McGhee, however, implies that this oblig­ was therefore commonly dispatched by striking ation derives from a Western view of "Aboriginal them with cobble choppers similar to those that we communities that are socially and economically found around the trap (Foster and Croes 2004; Fos­ marginal" (2008:593). In fact, the tribes that I have ter et al. 2007). Again, a Western scientist would worked with are the biggest employers in their know that this was some kind fish trap, accurately regions-they are not at all "economically mar­ map what is left, and also note the cobble chop­ ginal," and often help sponsor the work of our part­ FORUM 215 nerships through 1 percent or 5 percent commu­ strate at least 3,000 years of cultural style continu­ nity funds derived from casino entrepreneurship. ity, probably indicating that this knowledge was However, the applied aspect of our work needs part of guarded cultural identities, in the Puget to be part of the process in potentially impro\li ng Sound/Gulfof Georgia region (Salishan), and West the quality of lives of everyone who lives in the Coast sites (Wakashan) (Croes et a1. 2005; Croes Tribal region. For example, the site of Qwu?gwes et a1. 2009). has one of the densest shell middens on the North­ Basketry dating to 6,000 years B.P. from the Sil­ west Coast, packed full of Olympia oysters, butter ver Hole wet site on the Prince of Wales Island, clams, blue mussels, horse clams, and others. The Alaska, also suggests deep-rooted cultural conti­ Squaxin Island Tribe has treaty contract rights to nuity of distinct TlingitlHaida basketry traditions 50 percent of the harvestable shellfish in their tra­ (Croes 2001). And recent styles of basketry recov­ ditional territory (that is, the usual and accustomed ered from the Sunken Village wet site, Portland, areas, which represents approximately 4,000 square Oregon reflect distinct Chinook styles. For exam­ miles as recorded by the Medicine Creek Treaty ple, a complex diamond-plaited over string flat bag, with the US Government in 1854). With the State appears to be most closely linked to similar com­ of Washington's efforts to clean up Puget Sound, plex basketry bags from Spirit Cave in Nevada our data provides some of the scientific evidence (dated to 9,000 years ago) tlu·ough museum bas­ needed to gauge how the shellflsh recovery effort ketry from the Klamath of Oregon and Puget Sound in south Puget Sound can expand as the environ­ of Washington. This pmticular basketry also has ment recovers. The health of these waters, with curious distinct similarities to baskets that have their prized Olympia oyster, affects everyone's been found in wet sites in Japan that date to 7,000 quality of life in the region and beyond. Our part­ years ago-and also to current Japanese Ainu styles nerships not only help in monitoring recovery, but of flat bag constructions (Croes et al. 2009). So, I also contributes ancient and current cultural knowl­ do not think we can take lightly the potential archae­ edge, through the Tribes' Natural Resources ological significance of "endurance of unchanging Department, using some of our archaeological data, local cultural identities" (McGhee 2008:583). Iden­ such as age-of-harvest analyses and other ancient tifying and understanding cultural continuity as data contributing to strategies of long-term sus­ well as change is really what archaeology can con­ tainable resource management. tribute to understanding of both guarded (ethno­ The Squaxin Island Tribe also has its own genesis) and widespread (phylogenesis, diffusion) Museum Library and Research Center, shared with cultural transmissions (Croes 2005:238-239; Croes the public to present an accurate history of Indians et a1. 2005). The term "unchanging" is rarely seen in the region, correct stereotypes, and contribute to with archaeological data, evoking ideas of a racist education of both tribal members and also the gen­ aboriginalism complete with an "unchanging eral public. Here, the museum exhibits of the native" past; nevertheless, cultural continuity such Qwu?gwes artifacts have both a scientific expla­ as that seen in the evolution of ancient basketry is nation next to a Tribal cultural explanation-again also a part of human history. a 50/50 partnership. Overall, McGhee's article does outline pitfalls The last point I disagree with is McGhee state­ that can occur in "Indigenous archaeology," but I ment that "however, history and archaeology attest must advocate that archaeologists do, and should, that assumptions regarding the endurance of approach this work as a true 50/50 partnership with unchanging local cultural identities are unlikely to tribes, to the mutual benefit of both sides in the reflect what actually happened in the past" shared objectives, answering McGhee's conclud­ (2008:583). I have specialized in long-term cultural ing call for courage. In doing so, both groups must evolution as recorded in stylistically sensitive recognize the true value of equally blending the ancient basketry. All my research on the Northwest Western scientific approach with the cultural exper­ Coast has shown strong, apparently tightly con­ tise resulting through cultural transmission within trolled, geographically tied continuity of culturally the Native community, as part of the process of distinct basketry styles, persisting for millennia. thoughtful scholarship about those whose ances­ Recent use ofcladistic analyses of this data demon­ tors these sites represent. 216 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 2, 2010]

References Cited Croes, Dale R., Katherine Kelly. and Mark Collard 2005 Cultural Historic Context of Qwu?gwes (Puget Sound, Croes, Dale R. USA): A Preliminary Investigation. Journal of Wetland 1977 Baskeu),from the Ozette Villag e Archaeological Site: Archaeology 5: 137- 149. A Technological Functional, and Comparative Swdy. Deloria, Vine, Jr. WS.U. Ph.D. Dissertation. University Microfilms, Ann 1995 Red Earth, White Lies. Scribner, New York. II Arbor, Order No. 77-25, 762. Foster, Rhonda, and Dale Croes 1995 The Hoko River Archaeological Site Complex, the 2002 Tribal-Archaeological Cooperative Agreement: A II Wet/Dry Site (45CA 2J3), 3,000-2,600 B.P Washington Holistic Cultural Resource ManagementApproach. Jour­ State University Press, Pullman. nal ofWetland Archaeology 2:25- 38. 1997 The North-Central Cultural Dichotomy on the North­ 2004 Joint Tribal/College Wet Site Investigations-A Crit­ west Coast ofNorth America: It's Evolution as Suggested ical Need for Native American Expertise. Journal ofWet­ I by Wet-site Basketry and Wooden Fish-hooks. Antiquity land Archaeology 4: 125-137. 71:594-615. Foster, Rhonda, Larry Ross, and Dale Croes 1999 The Hoko River Wet Site, A Joint TribelUniversity 2007 ArchaeologicaVAnthropological-Native American Research Project. In Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wet­ Coordination, An Example ofSharing the Research on the land Archaeology, edited by B. Coles and M.S. Jorgensen, Northwest Coast of North America. In Seeking Our Past, pp. 59-66. Wetland Archaeology Research Project (WARP) An Introduction LO North American Archaeology, S.W. Paper No. 12. Department of History and Archaeology, Neusius and G. T. Gross, pp. 224-232. Oxford University University of Exeter, Exeter, England. Press, OxfordlNew York. 2001 North Coast Prehistory-Reflections from Northwest McGhee, Robert Coast Wet Site Research. In Perspectives on Northern 2008 Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Northwest Coast Prehistory, edited by Jerome S. Cybul­ Archaeology. American Antiquity 73:579-597. ski, pp. 145-l71. Mercury Series Paper No. 160. Cana­ Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews dian Museum of Ctvi.lization, Hull, Quebec. 1997 Indigenous Archaeology in the Post-Modem World. 2005 The Hoko River Archaeological Site Complex, the In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Rockshelter (45CA2l), 1,000-100 B.P, Olympic Penin­ Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. sula, 'Washing LOI1. Washington State University Press, Pull­ Andrews, pp. 1-18. Archaeology Press, Burnaby, Be. man. Croes, Dale R., John L. Fagan. and Maureen Newman Zehendner 2009 Sunken Village, Sauvie Island, Oregon, USA, A Repon on the 2006-2007 Investigations of National His­ tOlic Landmark Site 35MU4. Journal ofWetland Archae­ ology Special Edition 9: 1-216. Submitted January 3, 2009; Accepted November 4, 2009. I· THE VALUE AND DIVERSITY OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY: A RESPONSE TO MCGHEE

Stephen W. Silliman

Robert McGhee (2008) recently argued against the validity and viability of Indigenous archaeology based on claims that untenable "Aborigina/ism" supports the entire enterprise. However, he mischaracterizes and simplifies Indigenous archae­ ology, despite the wealth ofliterature suggesting that such community approaches have had and will continue to have great value for method, theory, rigorous intelpretatioll, and political value in archaeology.

Robert M cGhee (2008) se ha manifestado recientemente en contra de la validez y viabilidad de la arqueologia indfgena ale­ gando que el "aboriginalismo" inalcal1zable sostiene toda la empresa. Sin embargo, iii malinlerpreta y simplifica la arqlle· ologia ind(gena a pesar de que la vasta literatura sobre eltema seiiala el gran valor que dicho acercamiento comllnitario ha tenido y continua tenicndo para e/ mirodo, la teoda, la interpretaci6n rigurosa y la importancia poiftica. de la arqueologia.

ew kinds of archaeologies should undergo depth of the literature. Other than initial references careful evaluation as they mature and exert in the first paragraph, McGhee instead focuses his N influence in the discipline, and the appear­ attack on the work of Watkins (2000, 2003), Zim­ ance of Indigenous archaeology over the last 10 merman (2006), and Nicholas (Nicholas and years should not be exempt. Evaluation involves Andrews 1997) and even then with very selective taking stock of the field and suggesting new direc­ sampling of their numerous publications. Although tions for future growth, and it also involves critique these three individuals have led Indigenous archae­ and recommendations for rethinking. Both should ology for quite some time, they do not represent all be welcomed when they make a substantive and voices or projects. Where is Indigenous Archaeolo­ informed contribution. Unfortunately, McGhee's gies (Smith and Wobst 2005), or the special issue of (2008) article makes neither a sufficiently American Indian Quarterly dedicated to decoloniz­ informed nor a substantive contribution, opting ing archaeology (Atalay 2006), or the chapters in instead to mischaracterize the burgeoning field of Collaboration in Archaeological Practice (ColweU­ Indigenous archaeology. In the brief space per­ Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2007), Cross-Cultural mitted for a response, I focus on three problems Collaboration (Kerber 2006), and Indigenous Peo­ that fundamentally undermine his critique: insuf­ ple and Archaeology (Peck et al. 2006)? ficient sampling of the relevant literature, carica­ A deeper assessment of the literature would ture of Indigenous archaeology, and questionable reveal the errors in his claims that "predicting the treatment of coloniali$m and notions of "Aborig­ benefits ofIndigenous archaeology is a theoretical inalism." exercise, because the thorough revision of the dis­ Perhaps most troubling from an academic posi­ cipline envisaged by its advocates has yet to be tion is the poor representation ofIndigenous archae­ implemented" (McGhee 2008:592) and that ology literature in McGhee's review. To develop an "[dJifficulties arise, however, when archaeologists acceptable critique of a body of work, one must accede to claims ofAboriginal exceptionalism and demonstrate a satisfactory grasp of the range and incorporate such assumptions into a.rchaeological

Stephen W. Silliman - Department of Antluopo!ogy, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA 02125 ([email protected])

American Antiquity 75(2), 2010, pp. 217-220 Copyright ©2010 by the Society for American Archaeology

217 218 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010] practice" (McGhee 2008:580). The recently pub­ made by individual archaeologists; (7) a means lished Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge (Silli­ of empowerment and cultural revitalization or man, ed. 2008), as well as every volume cited above political resistance; and (8) an extension, eval­ or numerous other cases (e.g., Dowdall and Parrish uation, critique, or application of current 2002), reveal just how workable and numerous archaeological theory [Nicholas 2008: 1660). Indigenous archaeology projects are without the Because McGhee reduces Indigenous archaeology dangers of exceptionalism. McGhee (2008 :591), to only one (number four) of Nicholas' eight com­ himself, recognizes this by citing the influential ponents, his critique has only limited usefulness. book by Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh It might help to remember that Indigenous (2006). All of these publications show that archae­ archaeology frequently has been defined as archae­ ological research projects are not just "focused on ology with, for, and by Indigenous people (Nicholas mitigating the presumed negative effects of archae­ 1997, 2008; Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Smith ological practice on the living descendants of the and Wobst 2005). This prepositional diversity cap­ communities" instead of"discussing potential con­ tures a fundamental basis of Indigenous archaeol­ tributions to knowledge of the past" (McGhee ogy as community archaeology and does not 2008:579). They do both simultaneously, success­ necessarily require-although does respect­ fully, and rigorously without "strip[ping] archae­ potential differences between "Western"and ology of the scientific attributes that make it a "Indigenous" know ledges. Archaeology for Indige­ particularly powerful narrator of the past" (McGhee nous people ensures that research projects attend 2008 :591). These joint considerations of both past to the troubled history of archaeology's treatment and present have made these archaeologies better of Native Americans and First Nations. It attempts on both fronts. to tell useful, respectful, and peopled histories that Contrary to McGhee's caricature, Indigenous resonate with communities' senses of themselves, archaeology is not an artifact of the process ofren­ their pasts and futures, and their particular needs. dering Indigenous people in universalized and This need not undermine archaeology's commit­ exceptionalist ways as part of "Aboriginalism." ments to studying parts of the past in rigorous and Instead, Indigenous archaeology developed in reac­ scientific ways, nor must it produce "proprietary tion to a history of academic appropriation of histories," particularly when done collaboratively. Indigenous pasts, the need for decolonization, the Archaeology with Indigenous people develops the Native American Graves Protection and Repatria­ strong potential for healthy collaboration. It per­ tion Act, the lack of Native people in the ranks of mits Native communities with ties to and owner­ professional archaeology (even though the disci­ ship of the land (and the history) that archaeologists pline in North America thrives on the pasts of their seek to study some voice in how such work takes ancestors), and Indigenous communities' desires to place. Such collaboration with Indigenous people protect, manage, and even study their own heritage easily counters McGhee's (2008:595) assertion that (Watkins 2000; Silliman, ed. 2008). Although not archaeologists should be "getting to know Indige­ available at the time of McGhee's writing, a recent nous people as individual acquaintances, rather encyclopedia entry distills the richness and diver­ than as contemporary avatars of an ancient ideal." sity of Indigenous archaeology, The foundations of this kind of community-based defined as any one (or more) of the following: archaeology already hinge powerfully on those 0) the active participation or consultation of interpersonal connections; otherwise, Indigenous Indigenous peoples in archaeology... ; (2) a archaeology projects would end before they even political statement concerned with issues of started (see chapters in Kerber 2006; Silliman, ed. Aboriginal self-government, sovereignty, land 2008). Finally, archaeology by Native people rights, identity, and heritage; (3) a postcolonial assures that the discipline achieves some much enterprise designed to decolonize the disci­ needed diversity. Archaeology by Indigenous peo­ pline; (4) a manifestation ofIndigenous epis­ ple also encourages full participation, supports edu­ temologies; (5) the basis for alternative models cational and career paths, recognizes sovereignty, of cultural heritage management or steward­ foregrounds community, and makes a critical space ship; (6) the product of choices and actions for their knowledges and concerns about history. FORUM 219

By arguing that essentialism, Aboriginalism, concept from the anthropological rubbish heap" and primitivism ground Indigenous archaeology, (McGhee 2008:584). McGhee correctly notes that McGhee loses sight of the fact that this branch deals Indigenous people may not have many cultural more with the opposites of those: postcoloniality, attributes in common; however, they do share some respectful dialogue between various stakeholders commonalities in their histories, struggles, and of which archaeologist are only one, and activist, rights in the cauldrons of colonialism. This recog­ multivocal histories. As a result, his argument reads nition does not essentialize or universalize world­ . more like a rear-guard action. For instance, views, cultural practices, or histories, but rather McGhee worries about the universalization of encourages a contextual understanding of those Indigenous people, but then universalizes all of within a political and historical reality that needs human history to diminish European colonialism: attention in the contemporary world. Indigenous "the accumulated evidence of history demonstrates archaeology-and the communities it represents, that all of our ancestors have at some point lost their supports, historicizes, intertwines-ignites and homelands, taken over the homeland of others, exists for those hopes. mixed with other societies and changed beyond Acknowledgments. I appreciate the comments from two dif­ recognition over time" (McGhee 2008:583). In ferent journal eclitors, anonymous reviewers, and a var'icty of addition, McGhee also claims that "scholarly orga­ colleagues and friends who helped to bring this short piece nizations, law, mass media, and government ... and to publication. I also thank lose Martinez-Reyes for translat­ ing the abstract into Spanish. scholarly etiquette" strive to avoid annoying Indige­ nous people (McGhee 2008:582) and that "uni-. versities, granting agencies, academic societies,' References Cited museums, and other institutions still have an almost Atalay, Sonya, guest editor irrational fear of offending Indigenous groups" 2006 Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology. American (McGhee 2008:594). Yet, many cases suggest the Indian Quarterly 30 (3&4), BarTera, Jorge opposite: McGill University Chancellor Richard 2008 First Nation Olympian Calls for Pound to Resign over Pound recently stated that "Canada was a land of 'Savages' Remark. The MOlltreal Gazette , October 19. savages" before Europeans colonized it (Barrera Electronic document, http://www.canada.com/montreal­ gazette/news/story.html ?id=b86eOf53-70d2-47b2-a 11 e­ 2008); u.s.soldiers use the term "Indian Country" f7951dOa8ebe&k=28068, accessed November 14, 2008. to describe dangerous areas of military conflict in Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. 1. Ferguson (eclitors) Iraq and Afghanistan (Silliman 2008); Native 2007 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, American scholars worry about racism and intel­ California. lectual gatekeeping (Grande 2000); and profes­ Dowdall, Katherine M., and Otis O. Parrish sional, college, and high school sports teams 2002 A Meaningful Disturbance of the Earth. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1): 99-133. actively fight to retain Native American mascots. Ferguson, T. 1.. and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh McGhee's position works against the postcolo­ 2006 History is in the Land: Multivocal Tribal Traditions nial aims supported by most indigenous archaeol­ in Arizona's San Pedro Valley. U niversity ofArizona Press, Thcson. ogists who seek to interrogate, repair, and hopefully Grande, Sandy move beyond the colonial origins of the discipline 2000 American Indian Identity and Intellectualism: The and its treatment of Native people. McGhee's Quest for a New Red Pedagogy. Illternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educatiol1 13:343-360. attempts to de-universalize Indigenous experiences, Kerber, Jordan E. (editor) which should be welcomed, and to re-universalize 2006 Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and (and elide) colonialism, which should be coun­ Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Univer­ sity of Nebraska Press, Uncoln. tered, miss the point that what many Indigenous McGhee, Robert people around the world do share or have shared is 2008 Aboriginalism and the Problem of Indigenous Archae­ a colonial experience. He claims: "The official ology. American Antiquity 73:579-597, Nicholas. George P. recognition by national governments, as well as by 1997 Education and Empowerment: Archaeology with, for, the United Nations and other international organi­ and by the Shuswap Nation, British Columbia, In At a zations, ofIndigenous people as societies with com­ Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews, mon attributes, common problems, and common pp. 85-104. Simon Fraser Universi ty Archaeology Press, rights, appears to have rescued this long -discredited Burnaby, British Columbia. 220 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

2008 Native Peoples and Archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Smith, Claire, and H. Martin Wobst (editors) Archaeology, Volume 3, edited by Deborah M. Pearsall, 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizin g Theory and pp. 1660- 1669. Elsevier, Inc., New York. Practice. Routledge, London and New York. Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews Watkins, Joe E. 1997 Indigenous Archaeology in the Post-Modero World. 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Scientific Practice. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Cali­ Conada, edited by George P. Nichoas and Thomas D. fornia. Andrews, pp. 1- 18. Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.C. 2003 Archaeological Ethics and American Indians. In Eth­ Peck, Trevor, Evelyn Siegfried , and Gerald A. Oetalaar (edi­ icalIssues in A rchaeology, edited by Larry 1. Zimmerman, tors) Karen D. Vitelli, ane! Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 2003 Indigenous People and Archaeology: Honouring the 129-141 . AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California. Past, Discussing the Present, Buildingfor the Future. Pro­ Zimmerman, Larry J. ceedings of the 32nd Annual Chacmool Conference. 2003 Sharing Control of the Past. In A rchaeological Ethics, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Second Edi tion, edited by Karen D. Vitelli and Chip Calgary. Colwell-Chanthaphonb, pp. 170-175. AltaMira, Walnut Silliman, Stephen W. Creek, California. 2008 The "Old West" in the Middle East: U.S . Military Metaphors in Real and Imagined Indian Country. Ameri­ can Anth ropologist 110:237-247. Silliman, Stephen W. (editor) 2008 Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. Amcrind Studies in Archaeology #2. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Submilled November 21, 2008; Accepted November 4, 2009. SAVING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FROM OURSELVES: SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ARCHAEOLOGY IS NOT SCIENTIFIC ARCHAEOLOGY

Michael Wilcox

In his recent article "Aboriginalism and the Problems ofIndigellous Archaeology," Robert McGhee questions the intellec­ tual viability of Indigenous Archaeology as well as the contributions of Indigenous Peoples within the field ofarchaeology. Further, the author challenges the very notion of Indig erz eity and characterizes Indigenous and scientific perspectives as mutually incompatible. I argue that the author's sollilion of "separate but equal" domainsfor scientific vs. Indigenous arcltae­ ologies misrepresellts both science and Indigeneity as homogenous entities, affirms these positions as inherently dichotomized and invites comparison to some of the troubling philosophical legacies of racial segregation.

En un reciente articulo "Aboriginalism and the Problems ofIndigenous Archaeology" Robert McGhee critica tanto La viabil­ idad intelectual de la arqueologia indigena como las contribuciones hechas por sus proponentes dentro de La discipiina. Mas aun, este alllor pone en cllestiollamiento la nocion misma de indigeneidad, caracterizanLio est a perspectiva como mutuamente excluyente e incompatible con aquella postulada por La ciencia. Sostengo que la propuesta de este autol; que distinguiendo una arqueoLogia cientifica vs. otra imifgena y plallteando espacios "separados pero igua/es" para ambas, incrzrre en una dis­ torcion de ciencia e indigenidad representandolas como entidades homogeneas e intrinsicamente dicotomicas 10 cual invita a co mpararla con algunos de los legados filos6ficos de segregacion racial mas controversiales.

n Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indige­ Peoples not only had a low opinion of archaeol­ nous Archaeology, Robert McGhee gives voice ogy, but were actively taking steps to dismantle and I to a series of assumptions, concerns, and beliefs repatriate the coHective patrimony (and data) of an many contemporary archaeologists have about the entire field. In fact, the author's somewhat pointed role of Indigenous Peoples in archaeological interrogation of what he terms "Aboriginalism" practice-as archaeologists, as theoreticians, and and "Indigenous archaeology" are completely as collaborators. McGhee is to be commended for understandable given his self-defined status as a bringing these questions out of the shadows of pri­ "scientific archaeologist." vate conversation and into an arena of intellectual I resist the impulse to define Indigenous archae­ and scholarly debate. Since the passage of NAG­ ology in relation or response to a single article writ­ PRA in 1990, many archaeologists-trained in an ten by a scholar who I feel has mischaracterized era when the intellectual contributions of scien­ the origins, objectives, and essential contributions tific, processual, or New Archaeology to society of this particular approach to the past. This work were thought to be self evident-have struggled to should be undertaken in its own context and in its adapt to a radically transformed social and politi­ own Forum. Similarly, I will address my response cal environment of archaeological practice. Hav­ in reference to my own specific training as a North ing devoted much of their professional lives and to Americanist and my identity as a Native American. the study and preservation of the material remains Many of the author's mischaracterizations are of Native Peoples, many were understandably directly related to the natme of Indigenous archae­ shocked and puzzled to learn that many Native ology as an emergent set of practices, research

Michael Wilcox. Department of Ant!u'opo]ogy, Stanford University, 450 Sena Mall Building 360, Stanford, CA 94305­ 2032. American Antiquity 75(2), 2010, pp. 221-227 Copyright ©2010 by the Society for American Archaeology

221 222 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010] questions, and methodologies (see Atalay 2006; laborative projects and the role of Indigenous Peo­ Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Con­ ples in archaeology have appeared in the magazine key 2005; Nicholas 2006; Silliman 2008; Smith and The SAAArchaeological Record. This is an impor­ Wobst 2005; Watkins 2000). Many of its practi­ tant publication, but it is not a refereed journal of tioners have consciously resisted the temptation to the same stature as American Antiquity. Regardless enshrine or institute Indigenous archaeology as an of the reasons for this current state of affairs, the exclusive intellectual domain-a trend not usually partition of Indigenous perspectives and scientific supported by the intellectual territoriality of the knowledge advocated by the author is in some ways academy. This restraint has generated a certain already underway. In contrast to McGhee, I would ambiguity about what Indigenous archaeology is argue that the desire to maintain discrete interpre­ and is not. Some of this hesitancy is informed by tational systems is itself deeply political. Much is the current theoretical climate ofAmerican archae­ at stake. Such a pursuit says more about the need ology. Many archaeologists have expressed a cer­ to defend a specific interpretive paradigm (archae­ tain degree of hostility toward the constraints ology as a purely scientific discourse) than it does imposed by consultation, the resultant limits placed about the search for truth or meaning in archaeol­ on research questions, and the loss of control over ogy. The insularity the author advocates can be data. Others see the involvement of Native Peoples viewed as an attempt to assert (or reclaim) the in archaeology as largely gestural manifestations objectivity promised by the search for universal of political correctness or as Watkins has described behaviors and laws within human societies. as "legislated ethics" (Watkins 2000:23-37, 43). Having been introduced to archaeology in the The Kennewick case helped illuminate many of the mid 1980s, I was somewhat surprised to learn that more extreme positions archaeologists have while archaeologists examined the material cul­ assumed as defenders of academic freedom and sci­ tures of Native Peoples, there was simply no dis­ entific objectivity (Thomas 2006:218-254). cussion (and little interest in) the more recent McGhee's oppositional categorization of histories or perspectives of contemporary Native Indigenous perspectives (and peoples) as "non­ Americans. The New Archaeology was about scientific" or "traditional" purposefully alludes to Everyone's past. It offered insights into human evo­ tensions and conflicts within American society lution, the role of culture as an adaptive mechanism, about the intrusion of religious beliefs into scien­ the interplay of technology, resources and the envi­ tific, political, and social life. Previous statements . ronment, the development of social complexity­ by the SAA leadership on ancient human remains, all of which are inherently fascinating topics repatriation, and what constitutes "cultural identi­ (Hegmon2003:213-243; Redman 1991:295-307). fication" in NAGPRA cases (Society For Ameri­ But if I wanted to learn about Native Americans can Archaeology 1986, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008) specifically, ifI wanted to know more about the his­ have similarly contributed to an unnecessarily con­ tories of Indigenous Peoples I had not been exposed frontational climate where the interests of "scien­ to, those questions would have to be addressed tists" and Indigenous Peoples are portrayed as somewhere else. If I wanted to know how Pueblo purely antagonistic. These positions distort the atti­ Peoples conceived of their past (and present) or if tudes of both archaeologists and Native Americans I wanted to understand the lives of contemporary and lead to the kinds of assumptions, beliefs, and Hohokam descendents (there were none appar­ conclusions voiced by the author-mainly that ently), I would have to study the anthropology of there is little or no common ground between Indige­ the early twentieth century. There was no space in nous Peoples and "scientists." Some Indigenous archaeology for those kinds of questions. Archae­ archaeologists (defined both ways) are troubled by ology was about our collective past. It was not, I an assertion voiced by the author that what we do learned, about my past. is somehow not "real" archaeology. This belief is McGhee lays bare the predicament of many con­ shared by many archaeologists-some of whom temporary archaeologists by raising an important confuse ethnoarchaeology with Indigenous archae­ set of questions: What is the place of Native Peo­ ology. Unfortunately, much of the discussion within ples in archaeology? What is the basis for Indige­ the Society for American Archaeology about col­ nous archaeology? Does it emanate from a FORUM 223 troubling, yet pervasive stereotype of "Native­ twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. They are ness"? Are ethnic identities and formal training not the product of my DNA, or essence. In fact, I equivalent qualifications? Are scientific practices would suggest that my questions are somewhat and Indigenous perspectives (as defined by similar to those raised by McGhee, although I will McGhee) on the past wholly incompatible? propose a very different set of answers and con­ Should archaeology be partitioned into separate, clusions. First, I would argue that the confusion yet equal systems of knowledge, interpretation, expressed by the author over the relationship and meaning? between Indigenous Peoples and archaeology are In the following essay, I'd like to address a few long overdue manifestations of representational of the issues raised by McGhee from my own sub­ critiques explored by cultural anthropologists in ject position. I am a Native American archaeolo­ the late 80s and early 90s (Clifford 1988; Marcus gist. I was formally trained in a small cohort of and Fischer 1986). These questions deal explicitly Native Americans at Harvard University in the with the ethical issues associated with the repre­ 1990s. I am an academic, employed as an Assis­ sentation of Indigenous cultures by Western tant Professor in the Anthropology Department at researchers and the privileged positions of ethno­ Stanford University where I teach courses in Native graphers within colonial contexts. This issue, American Studies, Cultural Anthropology, and brought to the attention of archaeologists by the Archaeology. I am currently the Chair of the Soci­ passage of repatriation legislation, has never been ety for American Archaeology 's Indigenous Pop­ adequately addressed by many archaeologists, par­ ulations Interest Group. Along with a small group ticularly in North America. Second, I would like to of Indigenous Peoples formally trained as archae­ refute the author's portrayal of Indigenous identi­ ologists, I helped found an organization known as ties or an Indigenous archaeology as emanating "the Coalition of Indigenous Archaeologists." We from one's racial essence. In contrast, I assert that are devoted to improving the relationships between in failing to make connections between Indigenous Indigenous Peoples and archaeologists, advancing Peoples and the past, archaeologists have helped the intellectual contributions of Indigenous schol­ generate their own forms of Indigenous essential­ ars, and facilitating fruitful collaborative projects ism. McGhee's use of postcolonial theory is help­ between interested parties. I have written a book ful in many other contexts, but as appdied to Native outlining an approach to Indigenous archaeology Americans specifically, it misstates ,the roles played among Pueblo Peoples that refutes the "terminal by dominant cultures in the construction of ethnic narratives" that explain the end and disappearance or Indigenous identities. It also ignores the specific of Native Peoples (Wilcox 2009). Like many historical contexts associated with Indian identities archaeologists, I am still interested in exploring the as well as the status of contemporary Native Amer­ same questions that led me to a career in the field: ican sovereignty. I challenge his characterizations What are the connections between contempo­ of Indigenous perspectives as either rooted in reli­ rary NativeAmericans and the material remains and gious dogma or as inherently anti-scientific. I would histories of our ancestors? instead question the intellectual viability of a sci­ Why has this relationship not been adequately ence that systematically excludes new insights and explored by contemporary archaeologists? sources of information (Longino 1990; Wylie Are the barriers theoretical? Methodological? 1995 :255-272, 2000: 166-184). Has the illumination of a "collective past" obscured The desire to segregate Indigenous and "archae­ local histories and tribal perspectives? ological" interpretations of the past reflects exactly How had the practice of archaeology moved so the same kinds of attitudes that led to the political far away from· Native Americans? intervention of NAGPRA and mistakes the preser­ Why was there so little interest in or time vation of representational authority with the devoted to the study of contemporary peoples? defense of science. His proposed solution of seg­ These questions turned out to be very different regated domains of know ledge amounts to a kind from the ones posed by my non-Indian colleagues. of "separate but equal" discipline (with all of the They were, I learned, specifically related to my troubling echoes of segregation) where archaeolo­ experiences as an Indigenous person in the late gists preserve their authoritative voice and relegate 224 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

Indigenous Peoples to an intellectual lower class. texts (Trigger 1984). This dynamic has only None of these solutions address the assumptions recently been experienced by archaeologists I and weaknesses exposed by McGhee's version of (Blakey 1997). Some of this can be explained by scientific archaeology-that the search for univer­ the very nature of archaeological materials. Arti­ II sal narratives of human cultural evolution has at facts, features, and human remains do not "speak times obscured historical narratives of the more back" in the same way that ethnographic subjects j II recent past, that the study of this past is of limited do. Archaeological items can be physically alien­ value, and that this lack of scholarly interest has ated, controlled, and possessed as private property. led many to believe that contemporary Native Peo­ Access to those materials is mediated through pro­ ples have nothing to contribute to archaeological fessional qualifications, not through dialogues with method or theory. living subjects. In contrast, ethnographic engagements are nego­ When the DATA Speak Back, Everything tiated interactions. The representational authority Changes: The Representational Crisis and of the ethnographer is tempered and reshaped by a the Surrender of Authority process in which the interests of "stakeholders" must be recognized-both as peoples whose lives For well over a century, archaeologists and anthro­ are affected by anthropological research and as pologists have collected, interpreted, and repre­ potential consumers ofethnographic materials. The sented the cultural materials ofIndigenous Peoples. idea that the practice of archaeology is situated Until very recently, this was an intellectual project within a contemporary political system and that in which an overwhelming majority of Euro­ archaeologists have a responsibility to recognize American archaeologists enjoyed the exclusive how the work that we do affects the lives of other privilege of representing the cultures and histories people were not among the basic tenets of the New of groups to which they did not belong. The pas­ Archaeology. The idea that Indigenous Peoples sage of NAGPRA (The Native American Graves might be able to contribute to the interpretation of Protection and Repatriation Act) in 1990 chal­ the material remains of our ancestors was aban­ lenged the authority of archaeologists, museums, doned in the pursuit of a "universal" or "collective" and other institutions to excavate, interpret, curate, human past. In his critique of Indigenous essen­ and possess the cultural materials and human tialism, the author fails to address the role this kind remains ofIndigenous Peoples. Initiated by Native of archaeology has played in the creation of an American activists and legal scholars, this federal essentialized and static Indigenous Past. legislation-requiring detailed inventories of Indians, as a collective ethnicity, lack a coher­ human remains and other materials, consultation ent archaeological and historical account of sur­ with descendent communities, and the return of vival, cultural change, or continuity. It is widely materials collected and curated by archaeologists­ accepted that we either succumbed to massive epi­ was initially opposed by many archaeologists demics, had been eliminated through warfare, or (Trope and Echo-Hawk 1992). had "lost our culture" through missionization, Challenges to representational authority are not acculturation, or forcible assimilation (Clifton unique within the social sciences. Since the decol­ 1990: 1-28). All change (referred to as "progress" onization movements initiated in the mid twenti­ in enlightened societies) is depicted as reductive or eth century, cultural and social anthropologists have destructive in Indigenous societies. Any number of had to acknowledge and confront the legacy of general textbooks on NOlihAmerican archaeology anthropology as a colonial practice-as a concep­ will list this tragic litany as the catastrophic fates tual framework in which "Western" and "non­ of a marginal people (Diamond 1996, 2005). The Western" peoples were geographically and partition of prehistory and history as separate temporally dichotomized, as a means of catego­ domains ofstudy has only contributed to this imag­ rizing peoples and cultures as more or less "devel­ inary rupture. But the lack of interest in a subject oped," "civilized," or "complex," and as a way of (explaining continuity) does not mean that conti­ thinking about "self' and "other" within these con­ nuities and relationships do not exist. In fact such FORUM 225 an assertion of discontinuity has helped enshrine and assert fundamentally different values attitudes new versions of essentialism- where the archae­ and beliefs than our Western contemporaries. It ologist becomes an authority on a more "authen­ might be useful to consider that the forays and inter­ tic" and temporally remote Indian past. If the actions the author describes as informing his atti­ scientific study of the past (defined by McGhee) tudes might not constitute complete knowledge of leads to an archaeology that refuses to acknowl­ the people he has met, let alone all Indigenous Peo­ edge (much less explain) the presence of contem­ ples. This fallacy, characteristic of many Western porary Indigenous Peoples, then we must question portrayais ofIndigenous Peoples, was described by the objectivity of that field--especially if that par­ Robert Berkhofer in The White Man's Indian: ticular archaeological practice supports the mar­ Images ofthe American Indian From Columbus to ginalization of Indigenous interest in favor of its the Present as, "generalizing from one tribe's soci­ own. That version of archaeology is not a science, ety and culture to all Indians" and "conceiving of it is an ideology (Hodder 1986). Indians in tenl1S of their deficiencies according to White Ideals rather than in terms of their own var­ Using Postcolonial Theory to ious cultures" (1979:25-26). The fact that indige­ Reclaim Scientific Authority nous identities make little sense (or are in Berkhofer's terms "deficient") according to his McGhee misunderstands the nature of Indigenous experiences and training, and should therefore be identities in general and Native American identi­ dismissed as "intellectually Ullviable," seems to ties in particular. In an ironic twist, he uses post­ ignore ,the importance of culture as a meaningful colonial critiques developed to destabilize the concept. dichotomies of Western and non-Western peoples McGhee is absolutely correct in stating that the to deny both the coherence of Indigenous identi­ issue of identity is troublesome from a scientific ties, as well as the validity and intellectual vitality archaeological standpoint. Indigenous identities, and contributions of its members. His argument like all ethnic identities, are generated through a against "aboriginalism" (a subtle play on "racism") dialectical process of comparison and differentia­ ignores the fact that coloni zation-not tion (Barth 1969). For Indigenous Peoples, iden­ essentialism-is the basis for any kind of collec­ tity is deeply affected by the processes of tive Indigenous identity. Indigenous Peoples, like recognition and non-recognition imposed by colo­ many other ntinority groups, have developed a nial governments. For many Indigenous groups, sense of collective history and generated forms of the assertion of group identity requires the political action based upon shared experiences as acknowledgment of a politically dominant group. colonized peoples. This is true for Native Peoples In order to be recognized as distinct communities, who live on reservations and are citizens of sover­ many Indigenous Peoples have been required to eign tribes and it is true for Native Peoples whose demonstrate "otherness" according to the stan­ ancestors were forcibly relocated or ntigrated vol­ dards and criteria imagined and imposed by colo­ untarily to urban communities. The insights that nial governments. These often reveal more about Indigenous scholars have are informed by their par­ the perceived positive attributes of the dominant ticipation in these communities, settings, and social group (in the case of the West, progressive, contexts. dynamic, innovative vs. static, ignorant, tradi­ In his essay, McGhee makes the mistake ofcon­ tional) than they do about the distinctions asserted fusing cultural distinctions, differences in values, by subordinate peoples. language, and religion with essentialism. Anyone Simply stating that the standards imposed upon who has visited more than one Indigenous com­ Indigenous Peoples no longer make sense and munity will soon realize that in spite of what accul­ should therefore be dismissed makes as much sense turationists have written about the perpetually as denying the existence of "blackness" and then vanishing savage (a position that merely enhances rejecting the insights and perspectives of African the position of researcher as conservator), many Americans. Do Kurds, Palestinians, or for that mat­ Indigenous Peoples continue to exhibit, maintain, ter, Native Hawaiians exist? What is at stake for the 226 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

recognizor or the recognizee? Why are so many of ity in Scientific In quiry. Princeton University Press , Prince­ the tribes written out of existence in the 1950s dur­ ton. Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fischer ing the United States' Termination Period strug­ 1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experitnenlal gling to attain federal recognition') The answer lies Moment in the Human Sciences. University of Chicago in the relationship between self determination, self Press, Chicago. McGhee, Robert governance, and the ability to manage and main­ 2008 Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenou s II tain ones cultural and material resources. McGhee's Archaeology. American Antiquity 73:579-597. denial ofIndigeneity holds little promise for Native Nicholas, George P. 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Peoples. If this is the latest Euro-colonial solution Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. to Native Peoples' long list of problems (don't Special issue on "Deco Ionizing Archaeology," edited by Western people have problems?), it seems wholly S. Atalay. American Indian Quarterly 30(1): 350-380. Redman, Charles L. consistent with the previous five centuries of other 1991 Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: In Defense of helpful ideas. the Seventies-The Adolescence of New Archeology. American Anthropologist, New Series. Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthro­ References Cited pological Association 93(2):295-307. Silliman Stephen (editor) Atalay, Sonya 2008 Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and 2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. Amerind Studies in American Indian Quarterly. 30(3-4):280-3 10. Archaeology #2. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Barth, Frederick Smith, Claire, and H. Martin Wobst 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organi­ 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and zation ofCulture Difference. Waveland Press, Prospect, Illi­ Practice. Routledge, London. nois. Society for American Archaeology Berkhofcr, Robert 1. 1986 SAA Statement Concerning the Treatment of Human 1979 The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Remains. The SAA Bulletin 4(3):7-8. Indian From Columbus to the Present. Random House, 2002 SAA Responds to the Kennewick Man Court Deci­ New York. s ion. http://saa .0rg/Portals/0/SAA/repatriation/Ken­ Blakey, Michael newickPressRelease.pdf 1997 Past Is Present: COlrunents on "In the Realm of Pol­ 2005 The Society for American Archaeology's Comments itics: Prospects for Public Participation in African­ on the Development of NAGPRA Regulations Regarding American Plantation Archaeology." Historical Unclaimed Cultural Items. http://saa.orgIPOltals/O/SAAJ Archaeology 31(3):140-145. repatriationlUNCLAIMED_ITEMS _COtvlMENTS. pdf. Clifford, James 2007 Society for American Archaeology Statement on 1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Department of Interior Proposed Rnle For the Disposition Ethnography, Lite rature, and Art. Harvard University of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains and Funer­ Press, Cambridge. ary Objects. http://saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/repatriationJ 1990 The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Gavem­ SAACUHRStatement11_1O_2007.pdf. mental Policies. pp. 1-28. New Brunswick. New Jersey, 2008 SAA Detailed Comments on proposed Native Amer­ Transaction Press. ican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act regulations Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. 1. Ferguson on disposition ofculturally unidentifiable human remains. 2008 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging http://saa.org/Portals/O/SAA/repatriationJSAA_CUHR_ Descendant Communities. A1talVlira Press, Lanham, Mary­ comments_2008_0LI4.pdf land. Thomas, D. H. Conkey, Meg W. 2006 Finders keepers and deep American history: some 2005 Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection? lessons in dispute reso lution. In Imperialism, Art aild Resti­ Feminist and indigenous archaeologies, 2005. Archaeolo­ tution, edited by 1.H. Merryman, pp. 218-254. Cambridge, gies 1: I, 9-59 Cambridge University Press. Diamond, Jared M. Trigger, Bruce G. 1996 Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Soci­ 1984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, eties. Norton, New York. Imperialist. Man (N.S) 19:35 5-370. 2005 Col/apse: How Societies Choose to Failor Succeed. Trope, Jack, and Walter Echo-Hawk Viking, New York. 1992 "The Native American Graves Protection and Repa­ Hegmon, Michelle triation Act: Background and Legislative History." Ari­ 2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Iss ues and Theory in zona State Law lournal 24( 1)35-77. North American Archaeology. American Antiquity Watkins, Joe 68:2 13-243 2000 IndigenoLis Archaeology: American Indian values and Hodder, Ian scientific practice. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, Cali­ 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpreta­ fornia. tion in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cam­ Wilcox, Michael bridge. 2009 The Pueblo Revolt and the Mythology ofConquest:An Longino, Helen Indigenous Archaeology of Contact. University of Cali­ 1990 Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectiv­ fornia Press, Berkeley. FORUM 227

Wylie, Alison of Contingency and Constraint. In The Cambridge Com­ 1995 Alternative Histories: Epistemic Disunity and Politi­ panion to Feminism in Philosophy, edited by M. Fricker cal Integrity. In Making Alternative His/aries: The Prac­ and 1. Hornsby, pp. 166-184. Cambridge University Press, tice ofArchaeology and History in Non- Western Settings, Cambridge. edited by P. R. Schmidt and TC. Patterson, pp. 255-272. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. 2000 Feminism in Philosophy of Science: Making Sense Submitted March 9, 2009; Accepted November 4, 2009. THE PREMISE AND PROMISE OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY II: I Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George P. 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 ofscientific inquiry, and insights oftraditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and commllnity­ based archaeology projects that include Indigenous peoples.

En respuesta tanto a la herencia intelectuaL de La disciplina arqueoL6gica como a la ecollomfa polltica de su praxis, diversos investigadores han promovido de manera creciente la implementaci6n de un paradigma de ArqueoLog(a Indfgenll qlle se car­ acteriza por un desplieglle de practicas conducidas por, para, y con las comunidades ind(genas. En contraste, McGhee (2008) sostiene que La Arqueologia Indfgena no resulta ser una propuesta viabLe pues depende del concepto esencialista de "Abo­ rigina/idad." En La presente replica, Los alltores se abocan a corregir la descripci6n presentada por McGhee sobre aquelLo que constitllye una Arqueologfa Indigena, demostrando a la par el porque Los derechos indigenas qlle la caracterizan no estan fllndamentados en imaginarios esencialistas. Por aL contrario, sostienen, Los Legados del coloniaLismo, eL contexto socio-poiltico de La investigaci6n cientifica, asf como eL vaLor reflexivo del conocimiento tradicionaL, constituyen bases salidas para el desar­ rollo de una arqueologfa colaborativa, arraigada en proyectos comllnitarios que incluyan a Las poblaciones indfgenas.

s Indigenous archaeology is still an pies and his willingness to consider multivocal inchoate project, Robert McGhee's (2008) methodologies that include traditional knowledge A article is a welcome opportunity to engage reflect our shared concern for marginalized com­ in an open dialogue about the potential and pitfalls munities. ofthis 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 ofMcGhee's (2008:579) claim that "very tialismin 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" ofIndigenolls 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 IS6 Joe E. Watkins - University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 Larry J. Zimmerman - Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5410

American Antiqllity 75(2), 2010, pp. 228-238 Copyright ©20 10 by the Society for American Archaeology

228 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 Conceiving Indigenous Archaeology book was less a manifesto and more a dissertation 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 chaUenge 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 Zimmelman 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, First Nations, 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 a1. 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 HistOlic 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 archaeological theory 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 a1. 2000; standing and interpretation of the archaeolog­ Nicholas and Andrews 1997a; Nicholas 2010; Swi­ ical record through the incorporation of new dler et a1. 1997). and different perspectives [Nicholas From this pastiche ofmovements and programs, 2008:1660]. a conversation began about the possibility of an 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 anyone 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

(I) 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 2007), but the nascent field of Indigenous archae­ (3) A postcolonial enterprise designed to decolonize the 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 ofcontact between archaeologists and . management or stewardship local communities. Gosden (2005: 150) writes fur­ (6) The product of choices and actions made by individual ther that "such connections are not always harmo­ archaeologists (7) A means of empowerment and cultural revitalization or nious and easy, but should be seen to represent a political resistance set ofpossibilities, 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 ofcomplaints 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 ofaccess 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 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 impOltance ofhybridity 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 binaI)' fraIlleworks such as "Indian" and In name, Indigenous archaeology does can)' 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 characteri zation 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 mayor 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 fonner something that Indigenous communities have insists that traditional "Indians" are fixed in time, legitimate concerns about (e.g., Hemandez 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 theOl), 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 ofIndige­ 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 modem 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 232 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

offering us a feast ofred 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,primafacie, 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. I swayed to the latter. The dichotomy of scientists There are important legal considerations, such as I I 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; II who are members of the Society for American Wilkens and Lomawairna 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 ofNative Arner­ (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 a1. 2006; Green et a1. 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; Zedefio 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 FORUM 233

United States formed over the centuries. In the tioning epistemic communities are to counteract the United States and Canada, federally recognized risks ofinsularity-ofepistemic 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 acknow ledged 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, itis 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, ifwell func­ riginal mindset, but because we know that a 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 tories, songs, poetry, dances, rituals, pilgrimages, The frrstNativeAmerican to become a professional and prayers (e.g., Anyon et a1. 1997; Bahr et a1. archaeologist was Arthur C. Parker. Beginning his I ( I 1994; Bernardini 2005; Echo-Hawk 2000; Fergu­ career in early 1900s, under the tutelage of Fred­ son et a!. 2000; Kuwanwisiwma 2002; Naranjo eric W. Putnam, Parker overcame the racism of the IIIII 2008; Scott 2003; Swentzell 2004; Thompson age to become a leading museologist and archae­ I! 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 wherehe 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 comrni tment to look below the surface ofdifference 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 feas:ble 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 ogy, but we question in turn whether archaeologists should not have to choose, as Parker was forced to, should be afforded carte blanche. McGhee between pursuing archaeological science 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 ofMcGhee'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 archae010gy 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. FORUM 235

Indigenous archaeology looks like Australian Roger Anyon and Alan S. Downer, pp. 77-87. AltaMira archaeologists conducting research into ancient Press, Walnut Creek, California. Anyon, Roger, T. J. Ferguson and John R. Welch human remains at the request of the traditional 2000 Helitage 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. 2(09). It agement in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Man­ aging and Presellting the Past, edited by Francis P. looks like a Choctaw archaeologist working with McManamon and Alf Hatton, pp. 120-141. Routledge, Choctaw artisans to replicate and scientifically ana­ Londou. lyze archaeological materials from a Choctaw site Atalay, Sonya 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. ing with the Kashaya Porno to develop local American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):280--310. 2007 Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Com­ methods and results that are inclusive, reciprocal, munity Based Participatory Research in Thrkey. 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. 29-44. denosaunee site in New York (Rossen and Hansen Springer, New York. Bahr, Donald, Juan Smith, William Smith Allison, aud Julian 2007). It looks like Indigenous and non-Indigenous Hayden people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous archaeol­ 1994 The Short Swift Time ofGods on Earth: The Hohokam ogists according each other equal respect in our Chronicles. University of California Press, Berkeley. 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 provocative article. As a reply to McGhee, unfor­ Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli and Julie Hollowell­ 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 ing of Indigenous archaeology. Instead we have 2005 Hopi Oral Tradition and the Archaeology ofIdentity. 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 andAnthropologists: Vine Deloria Ir. and the well as the importance of including Indigenous Critique of Anthropology. University of Arizona Press, Thcson. 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 dation forfuture archaeology projects that can equi­ nous People and Archaeology: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Trevor Peck, Eve­ tably and productively include Indigenous peoples Iyn Siegfried and Gerald A. Oelelaar, pp. 108-113. Archae­ and their perspectives. ological Association ofthe University ofCalgary, Calgary. Castile, George Pierre A Com­ Acknowledgments. We gratefully thank Rodrigo F. Renteria­ 2008 Federal Indian Policy and Anthropology. In panion to the Anthropology ofAmerican Illdians, edited Valencia for his assistance with translating the English by Thomas Biolsi, pp. 268-282. Blackwell, Malden, Mass­ abstract into Spanish. achusetts. Clarke, Anne 2002 The Ideal and the Real: Cultural and Personal Trans­ References Cited formation ofArchaeological Research on Groote Ey landt, Northern Australia. World Archaeology 34(2):249-264. Ackerly, Brooke A. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip 2008 Universal Human Rights in a V/or/d 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 Introducti on. In Frag ile Patte ms: The A rchaeology of Duke University Press, Durham. the Westem Papaguer{a, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and 2009b Inheriting the Past: The Making ofArthur C. Parker Adrianne G. Rankin, pp. 4-27. SRI Press, Thcson. and Indigenous Archaeology. University ofArizona Press, Anyon, Roger, T. J. Ferguson, Loretta Jackson, Lillie Laue, 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, '-"._ - JIo4 ~ • I • ..

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 I(l ):9-59. sity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Dongoske, Kurt E., MarkAldenderfer, 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. SAR 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 ofArchaeology, 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 Doogoske, Mark Aldenderfer and Karen Doehner, pp. gists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Njna 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 1( 1): 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):431-440. 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):388-415. 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 Balm, 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 G6es 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 Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Matters. Left Ua~~L Journal ofSocial Archaeology 3(3):366-398. Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Haber, Alejandro F. Longino, Helen E. 2007 This is Not an Answer to the Question "\Vho 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, andImperialistArchaeologies. 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 ofAmer­ Places. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):486-503. I ican Indian Higher Education 16(2): 10-13. Mason, Ronald J. Hollowell, Julie, and George P. Nicholas 2006 Inconstant Companions: Archaeology and N orth 2009 Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project American Indian Oral Traditions. University of Alabama for Archaeology and Cultural Herit.1ge. InternationalJour­ 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. informationJlibrary/prbpubs/prb0009-e.htm, September 1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. American 17,2009. Anthropologist 94:816- 836. FORUM 237

2008 Archaeology as Political Action. University of Cali­ ology and History in Non-VVestern Settings. School of fornia Press, Berkeley. American Research Press, Santa Fe. Merryman, John H. Scott, Douglas D. 1986 Two Ways ofThinking about Cultural Property. Amer­ 2003 Oral Tradition and Archaeology: Conflict and Con­ iean Journal ofInternational Law 80 :831-853. cordance Examples from Two Indian War Sites. Histori­ Meskell, LYllil 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 a/Anthropology 31:279-30l. 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 ConstructiOIl of Communities: 2008a Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology; Troweling at Agency, StntclI!re, and Identity ilZ th e Prehispanic South­ th e Edges, Eyeing the Center. In Collaborating at Ihe west, edited by Mark D. Varien and James M. Potter, pp. Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learning ill 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, Thcson. 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 EI19clopedia of 30(3&4):311-349. A rchaeology, edited by Deborah Pearsall, pp. 1660-1669. Smith, Claire, and H. Martin Wobst (editors) vol. 3. Academic Press, New York. 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Nicholas, George P. (editor) Practice. Routledge, London. 2010 Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists. Left Song, Sarah Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Califomia. 2007 Ju stice, Gender, and the Politics ofMulticulturalism. Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews (editors) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1997a At a Crossroads: ,4rchaeology 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 Anlhropological 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 Frascr 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 Chaw: New Approaches to an Archaeologi­ Norder, John W cal Enigma, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 49-53. 2007 Iktorni in the Land ofMaymaygwayshi: 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 IndianslFirst 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 KurtE. Dongoske, MarkAldenderfer 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 HaudenosauneeHomeland. 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, Jf. and York. Sherene Baugher, pp. 127-148. Springer, New York. Thompson, Ian Rowley, Susan 2002 NativeArnerican 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 Commuilities ill the Mesa Verde of Eastern Arctic Archaeology, edited by William W. Reg ion, 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 Indigenou s and Experimental Said, Edward W. Approaches in the Study of Mi SS issippian 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 Allel7Ultive Hisrories: The Pracrice ofArchae­ 2006 Navajo Archaeologist Is Not an Oxymoron: A Tribal 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 ofScience 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. II I fornia. 2005 The Prornise and Perils of an Ethic of StewardShip. 2003 Beyond the Margin: American Indians, First Nations, In Embedding Ethics: Shifting Boundaries ofthe Anthro­ I I and Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity pological Profession, edited by Lynn Meskell and Peter II 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(1):78-94. sion Distinguished Lecture, American Anthropological 2005b Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Association, San Francisco, California. Archaeology. Annual Review ofAnthropology 34:429-449. Zedeno, Maria Nieves, and Nicholas Laluk Welch, John R., and T. J. Ferguson 2008 When is a Site Cultw-ally Viable1 Landscape Evolu­ 2007 Putting Patria Back Into Repatriation: Cultural Affil­ tion and Oji'biwa Heritage Building on the St. Croix iation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Her­ Lands. Journal ofSocial Archaeology 7(2): 171-198. itage Management 1(1 ):71-98. Whiteley, Peter M. Zimmerman, Larry 1. 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 Ame ricans 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 SM 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 People1 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 tlle 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 ofContact. University of Cal­ T. J. Ferguson, pp. 55- 86. AltaJ\1ira 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. OF STRAWMEN, HERRINGS, AND FRUSTRATED EXPECTATIONS

Robert McGhee

The author argues that these critiques are based primarily on mistaken readings of his original article. He contends that Indigenous archaeology is a social project without a demonstrated intellectual foundation.

El autor manliene que estas evaluacions estdn basadas en lecturas equivocadas del artCculo original. EI ajil'llUl que la arque­ ologCa indfgena es un proyecto social sin una fundaciolZ intelectual demostrada.

thank the individuals who have devoted time conjured by the CC and other clitics disappear once and thought to the comments published in the these statements are understood. My paper is I previous pages. The critiques of Croes, Silli­ clearly not the diatribe that the critics seem to have man and Wilcox focus on specific topics, to which expected-an expectation that may have condi­ I will respond individually. I should begin, how­ tioned their reading-endorsing the preservation of ever, by addressing the broad and negative appraisal Americanist archaeology as an exclusive club of assembled by a group of leaders (Colwell­ old-school elitists, and denigrating any attempts to Chanthaphonh et al.) in the field of Indigenous involve Indigenous people in the study and inter­ archaeology, which for convenience I will refer to pretation of their own pasts. as the communal critique (CC). I maintain that use of the term "Indigenous Tills worthy consortium accuses me of misun­ archaeology" to reference the diversity of collab­ derstanding the Indigenous archaeology project, orative activities that are mentioned by the CC of ignoring the great variety of work to which the group and other critics remains problematic. Most name has been applied, and ofcondemning all such of these examples are simply good archaeological work. Perhaps I should have been more lucid in stat­ practice that happens to involve Indigenous rather ing my views (p. 580) that I consider the involve­ than non-Indigenous communities . The term ment ofIndigenous people to have been beneficial Indigenous archaeology carries the implication that to the growth of historical knowledge; that expan­ the archaeology of Indigenous cultural traditions sion of Indigenous sovereignty over lands con­ requires a different form of practice than that which taining archaeological remains has enhanced the is appropriate for the rest of the world. The termi­ preservation and use of those remains; and that the nological segregation of such work, and of Indige­ specific interests brought to the field by Indigenous nous Archaeologists who undertake it, has no scholars has helped to bury the more sterile aspects obvious benefit. It does, however, carry significant of the New Archaeology. The critics seem also to drawbacks in potentially limiting communication have missed my statement (p. 580) that the many with the larger archaeological community, with sensible and useful forms of collaboration between consequences for access to resources and respect. archaeologists and Indigenous people were not the Wilcox mistakenly charges me with promoting subject of my criticism, and that the paper would such segregation, and I agree with his arguments deal only with those forms of collaboration that against maintaining a separate stream of archaeo­ accept or incorporate assumptions of aboriginal logical practice. exceptionalism. The strawmen and red herrings I am pleased to see that most of my critics have

Robert McGhee - Canadian Museum of Civilization, 100 rue Laurier, Gatineau QC, Kl A OMS, Canada.

American Antiquity 75(2), 2010, pp. 239-243 Copyright ©20l0 by the Society for American Archaeology

239 I 240 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

II recently realized that the need for an Indigenous aboriginal exceptional ism. More specifically, I dis­ II' archaeology cannot be conceived as a response to pute projects that claim to share theoretical author­ a common and distinctive Indigenous world view ity between "scientific archaeology" and deriving from access to ancient cultural traditions. collaborators whose beliefs about the past are based II The critics' cunent interpretation of a universal on forms of evidence that are generally rejected by Indigenous condition deriving from common expe­ the scientific tradition. My argument is not a rejec­ Iii' \ riences of colonialism is more theoretically sound, tion of Aboriginal or any other perspectives and but less convincing given the vast diversity of such interpretations of the past. As stated at the outset experiences. I maintain my view (p. 593) that the of the paper (p. 580) I recognize that archaeology marginalized social and economic position ofmany is only one among several means of talking about Aboriginal people has supplied an excellent motive the past; that the past is a universe that is open to for the development of Indigenous archaeology as all; and that archaeologists should have no part in a social project. However, I doubt that most of the denying others the right to deal with the pastin their collaborative efforts between Natives and archae­ own way. I argue only that these different means­ ologists are based on a common understanding that religious traditions, historical narratives, imagina­ Indigenous world views are of archaeological rele­ tive reconstructions-must be treated by vance and authority only through having been archaeologists with the same rigor that they apply exposed to the colonialist experience. Croes cites to other forms ofevidence. I am sure that many col­ his excellent work on organic materials from West laborations between archaeologists and Indigenous Coast sites as a counter to my argument that Indige­ communities-such as the one described by nous cultures in general are not the products of Croes-respect this point of view. long and unchanging cultural traditions tied to par­ However, as I understand the argument pre­ ticular geographical locales. Archaeological infor­ sented by the CC authors and other critics, such pro­ I mation is a welcome intrusion into these arguments, cedures would be labeled "intellectual and I suspect that this project with its interest in exclusiveness" and would not achieve the aim of I "guarded cultural identities" and "deep rooted cul­ "incorporating Indigenous perspectives into our tural continuity" extending over several millennia work." As I have argued previously, the uncritical is consistent with the general interests of many incorporation of non-scientific perspectives as the Indigenous archaeology programs. basis for archaeological interpretation can only I agree with my critics in denying a simple detract from the discipline of archaeology as an dichotomy between Indigenous and scientific endeavor to learn of the past by practices and stan­ approaches to the past. My experience indicates that dards that are recognized across all subfields. This there is little difference between my own perspec­ may not be of significant concern, however, if we tive on the past and that of many Aboriginal indi­ are to take into account the assertion by the CC viduals. However, there is a major difference group that "Giving equal consideration is categor­ between the range of perspectives represented in ically different from giving equal weight to Indige­ I the real world, and the much narrower range nous views, concerns, and needs" (p. 233, this expressed in the world of Indigenous rhetoric to issue). I find this statement curious, given the which archaeologists are most directly exposed. A repeated emphasis throughout these critiques on 1/ perusal of the Indigenous archaeology literature collaboration as intellectual equals, 50/50 partner­ finds it replete with statements regarding the ship, and the basic importance of incorporating uniqueness of Indigenous cultural traditions and Indigenous perspectives in archaeological work. world views. It is disingenuous to argue that this Does this assertion suggest a practice of subvert­ I rhetoric of distinctiveness has nothing to do with ing such claims by insisting on the primacy of evi­ the motivation of many Indigenous archaeology dence and means of interpretation that are projects, and that aboriginal exceptionalism is inel­ consistent with the Western scientific tradition? evant to the basic orientation of the field. Another means ofdealing with incongruous per­ As noted above, the central point of my paper spectives is suggested by the CC group, when they I I argued against those forms of Indigenous archae­ report the goal of discovering "historical explana­ I I ology that accept or incorporate assumptions of tions and new hypotheses ... which do not either FORUM 241 wholly dismiss traditional histories or flatly dis­ be dealt with quickly. They consider my criticism count physical evidence" (p. 234, this issue). I am of restrictions placed by Indigenous communities pleased to hear my critics arguing that physical evi­ on the dissemination of data to be unfair, as this is dence is not to be flatly discounted. But the search a practice that is also acceded to by "the scores of for explanations that merely cannot be discounted archaeologists who work for government agencies by physical evidence is notan ambition that is wor­ or private companies." I consider these archaeolo­ thy of any intellectual discipline, much less one that gists to be just as culpable and the practice to be claims a scientific rationale. This is rather the goal equally reprehensible, no matter who or what of the scrupulous writer of historical fiction, or of attempts to impede the dissemination of historical the scholar whose interpretations must be con­ information, but that must be the topic of another sciously molded by political consequences. My paper. own experience provides an excellent example of I agree with my critics' charge that "McGhee is such a process (McGhee 1997). A decade ago the unambiguous in his belief that Indigenous peoples Canadian Museum of Civilization assembled a should not have any special rights to archaeology, committee composed of scientifically trained cura­ despite the fact it is their heritage they are concerned tors and Indigenous scholars assembled from across about." However, I would note that I am far from the country, in order to develop a new First Peo­ alone in this view. For example, Holtorf (2009) has ples' Hall exhibiting the history and culture of the recently and persuasively argued against inherent Indigenous peoples of northern North America. A or ethnic privilege regarding archaeological her­ potentially serious problem developed when itage, whether based on historical precedence, past archaeological curators indicated their wish to state injustice, or long association with local cultural tra­ that the ancestors of most or all Indigenous Amer­ ditions. As I noted earlier, as well as in the origi­ icans originated in Asia and most probably reached nal paper, every community has a right to deal with the western hemisphere by way ofland links or sea its own history and heritage. It is the discipline of crossings from northeastern Asia to northwestern archaeology that I would restrict to those who wish North America. Many of the Indigenous scholars to play by the accepted rules of the game. If any­ also believed this to be true, but as a group they did one, Indigenous or non-academic, wants to accept not wish to be seen as endorsing a view that denied and abide by the general practices of the discipline, various traditions regarding in situ origins in North I would welcome their participation-in an era of America. Eventually a compromise was forced, in general underfunding, archaeology needs all the the statement that "Indigenous peoples have occu­ help that it can get. And in this sense, of course, pied Canada since before the world took its pre­ nobody has special rights to the archaeology of sent form." This was felt to be compatible with specific regions or cultural traditions. In this con­ most traditional origin narratives, and the archae­ nection, I remain puzzled by the CC group's state­ ologists consoled themselves by arguing that "the ment that "It is unnecessary to decide,primajacie, world took its present form" at the end of the Pleis­ that heritage must either belong to one group or no tocene with the disappearance from the mid­ one at all." latitudes of ice sheets and with the onset of Neither do I understand the charge that my Holocene climatic conditions. The intellectual inad­ "treatment of Native American concerns about equacy ofthis statement is very clear, yet it achieves archaeology confuses issues of tribal sovereignty the CC goal in that it does not "either wholly dis­ with [my] vision of essentialized Aboriginalism." miss traditional histories or flatly discount physi­ Nothing in my paper questions the legal and polit­ cal evidence." A similar process is seen in the paper ical rights of Indigenous peoples, rights that I in by Welch and Ferguson (2007) recommended by fact stated as generally beneficial to the preserva­ the CC group, in which the historical views of three tion and development of archaeological resources. local Indigenous groups are reported but no attempt The critics have firmer grounds in accusing me is made to analyze or compare these contradictory ofignorance, and I freely confess to being unaware narratives or to discuss their compatibility with of the entire canon of Indigenous Archaeological archaeological information. writing. In my defense I would point out that most A series of diverse charges by the CC group can of the publications that are recommended to me in i II'

242 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No.2, 2010]

these critiques appeared during the past two years Turning to the essay presented by Wilcox, I and were unavailable at the time that the article find myself in agreement with most of the points was written. Ignorance also cuts both ways, and I that he makes, despite his tone of rhetorical oppo­ feel myself as culpable for not having seen publi­ sition to everything that I stand for. I am presented cations such as Mason's (2006) invaluable analy­ here as an unreconstructed "New Archaeologist" sis of Native American historical narratives, or pining for the days when I could build pristine Hames' (2007) useful review of the debate sur­ models of the past without being troubled by the rounding Indigenous people as natural conserva­ messiness of history. Yet for decades I have argued tionists. the primacy of history as an archeological goal, Turning from the critique of the CC group to and have derided the futility of searching in the those of the other commentators, I have already dis­ dirt and muddle for universal patterns. In fact, sev­ cussed Croes happy insertion of actual archaeo­ eral years ago (McGhee 2004:19) I noted that the logical infonnation into this discussion. I would New Archaeologists' "picture of a pre-Columbian point out that his term "the new Indian problem" continent populated by groups adapting to their did not derive from my work, nor do I see my con­ environment and to one another through smoothly cerns in that light. I am heartened by his descrip­ running explanatory processes, immune from ran­ tion of the excellent collaboration that he has dom occurrences of disease, warfare, and envi­ developed around the study of ancient preserved ronmental disaster, is in peculiar hannony with organic materials. It only remains to note my agree­ the nostalgic view of the past as seen through the ment with his concluding paragraph, and especially eyes of homogenized Native tradition." I stopped with his recognition of the true value of blending short, however, ofWilcox's plausible argument of the Western scientific approach with the cultural a causative relationship between the two. I also II expertise of Native communities. support Wilcox's views against the division ofhis­ Most of Silliman's heated critique repeats the tory and prehistory. In fact, I would encourage charges of the CC group, and is based on the same archaeologists to drop the latter tenn from their misreadings to which I responded earlier. How­ vocabularies, as I have done over the past several ever, I must counter one of his more idiosyncratic years since a publisher convinced me that to the claims. Quoting a statement from my argument (p. general public "prehistory" means nothing more 583) regarding the fact that long and unchanging than dinosaurs, volcanoes, and the Flintstones. I local cultural traditions have not been characteris­ am also impressed by Wilcox's argument that tic of most human history, he accuses me of uni­ Indigenous "otherness" arises from the need for versalizing "all of human history to diminish recognition "according to the standards and crite­ European colonialism," and again of attempting to ria imagined and imposed by colonial govern­ "re-universalize (and elide) colonialism." The ments." This creates a causative argument lacking charge is preposterous, and to disagree with the from my discussion of "read back" and of Simard's original statement would require blindness to much "Owner's Manual for being Indian" cited in the of what we have learned from world history and original text (p. 589). Finally, I do not understand archaeology. his rhetorical final paragraph, and suggest that it On another topic, Silliman might be amused to relates to a very different paper than the one that know that McGill University chancellor Richard I wrote. Pound is not an academic but ajock, a prominent I am pleased to note that none of the respondents member of the International Olympic Committee have argued against my call (p. 583) to remove dis­ and one of those public figures that universities cussions of Indigenous archaeology from a frame­ unaccountably promote to honorary positions. Nor work of the "ethics" of archaeological practice. I did Pound state that three centuries ago Canada hope that their silence on this matter indicates was "a land of savages." His statement was made agreement that the questions discussed here can be in French and the phrase used was "un pays de more usefully framed as intellectual and political, sauvages" which is more accurately translated (by rather than providing a means of comparing the rel­ a non-irate translator) as "a land of Indigenous ative ethical attainments of those participating in peoples". the dialogue.

I II FORUM 243

In closing, I repeat that archaeologists should References Cited have no part in denying others the use of the past, Hames. Raymond B. based on evidence and means of interpretation that 2007 The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate. Annual they find compatible with their needs and per­ Review ofAnthropology 36: 177-190. spectives. I would hope that the archaeological view Holtorf, Cornelius 2009 A European Perspective on Indigenous and Immi­ of the past could be considered an equally valid grant Archaeologies. World Archaeology 41 :672--{)81 mode of interpretation, one that individuals and Mason. Ronald 1. corrununities can make use of or ignore as they 2006 Inconstant Companions. Archaeology and Native American Indian Oral Traditions. University of Alabama wish, but will not attempt to dismantle. Press. Tuscaloosa. If an Indigenous archaeology that insists on the McGhee. Robert sharing of theoretical authority between scientific 1997 Presenting Indigenous History: The First Peoples Hall at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. In At a Cross­ and non-scientific methods of interpretation wishes roads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. edited to be considered as anything other than a social pro­ by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews. pp ject, it will have to demonstrate that it is based on 235-239. Archaeology Press. Simon Fraser University. 2004 Between Racism and Romanticism. Scientism and a valid intellectual foundation. Perhaps its propo­ Spiritualism: The Dilemmas of New World Archaeology. nents should be content with the fact that Indige­ In Archaeology on the Edge. New Perspectives from the nous archaeology is entirely a social project, and Northern Plains. Occasional Paper 4. edited by Brian Kooyman and Jane Kelley. pp. 13- 22. Canadian Archae­ not seek an intellectual foundation that seems ological Association. Calgary. impossible to construct.

Submitted January 21.2010; Accepted January 21, 2010.