sign in sign up
<<
Home , Archaeology, Bioarchaeology, Inventory (museums)

New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry Vol. 9, No. 2 (April 2018) Pp. 19-33

Decolonizing : An Autoethnographic Reflection

Heather Robertson The University of British Columbia

ABSTRACT: Bioarchaeology, as it operates within the disciplines of archaeological consulting and academia, carries with it colonial undertones of scientific positivism that perpetuate certain scientific biases if gone unchallenged. These colonial biases in scientific exploration (e.g. whether or not to excavate ancestral remains, the treatment of ancestral remains post excavation, the research questions addressing ancestral remains, and the source of the research questions) serve to erode relationships between the bioarchaeologist and the Indigenous whose duty it is to be stewards of ancestral remains. To challenge these colonial biases, we must first identify them. Autoethnography – a reflexive study of personal and professional experiences – can identify certain colonial biases of the bioarchaeologist. Analytical autoethnography – the contribution reflection has to the greater body of anthropological theory – can help improve the process of bioarchaeology, or decolonize bioarchaeology, by involving more completely in bioarcheological processes.

KEYWORDS: authoethnography, bioarchaeology, ,

Introduction his manuscript is a reflective look at my own this manuscript. I feel it is necessary to identify cer- experiences as a bioarchaeologist within the tain ideas and practices that could be detrimental to Tdisciplines of consulting and aca- building relationships with Indigenous communi- demia in British Columbia (BC). The intent of ties who have been, and continue to be, negatively these reflections is to encourage dialogues between impacted by colonialism, when performing bioar- bioarchaeologists, and more importantly, between cheology. I must also mention that by doing so, it is bioarchaeologists and Indigenous populations on not my intention to vilify the disciplines I reflect on how bioarchaeology has been performed and can in this manuscript. By challenging bioarchaeological be performed among consulting archaeologist and ideas and practices that inadvertently or unintention- academics in places with a colonial . I am aware ally recreate colonial divisions between the that my experiences reflect only a small view of bioar- and the object of study, in this case people, we come chaeology and does not account for those disciplines one step closer to changing those ideas and practices that are actively improving the practice of bioarchae- for the better. As change becomes more prominent, ology within such places. It is in fact the existence of relationships can become stronger between the scien- these practices, as evidence that rebuilding broken tist and the subject, hopefully to a point where they relationships between archaeology or bioarchaeology are reciprocal. The exercise of reflecting and inter- and Indigenous communities does serve to improve preting my own experiences was conducted using an the research questions being asked that prompted autoethnographical approach. 20 • H. ROBERSTON

Autoethnography telling” adds a layer of scholarship and legitimacy to Autoethnography is a reflexive study of the ethnog- the or narratives being shared (Dunphinee rapher’s experiences and subjectivity to highlight 2010). The goal of autoethnography is not to “become cultural and social realities hidden by the ethno- a detached spectator” (Ellis and Bochner 2006:431) graphic method of silent observation (Marechal 2010; but to be an active participant in the narrative. May 2011). It employs the researcher’s own experi- Autoethnography brings back to itself ences as the ethnographic data. Authethnography is reflexively by shifting the ethnographer’s position of a response to the crisis of representation in ethnog- observation away from “the distanced and detached raphy: critiques of ethnographical representation of observer and toward the embrace of intimate involve- “the other” from a privileged Western perspectives ment, engagement, and embodied participation” and debates over the legitimacy of the “native voice” (Ellis and Bochner 2006:433-4), in what Marcus from indigenous ethnographers (Atkinson et al. 1999; and Fisher (1999:111) describes as “repatriating Chang 2008; Marcus and Fischer 1999; May 2011). .” In of the past and, some argue, of For qualitative analyst Arthur Bochner, auto- the , the object of study becomes exoticized ethnography is more than just a change in the through the ethnographer’s position of objective ethnographic methodology; it is also a movement observation and interpretation of “the other” through away from traditional theorizing within the disci- typically Western scientific, analytical, and philo- pline of anthropology towards a practice of narrative sophical lenses (Ellis et al. 2011; Marcus and Fischer inquiry. Bochner’s shift to narrative inquiry is derived 1999). The argument against this traditional method from a reaction to “the excesses and limitations of of ethnography is that exoticized observations gen- theory-driven, empiricist social ” (2005:55). erate misrepresentations of “the other” due to the According to Bochner, the practice of theorizing, observer’s cultural and interpretive biases. The post- in any discipline, does not get to the modern critique of ethnographies that misrepresent details of human experience – this is accomplished “the other” question whether Western better through narrative. Narratives are aids to have the legitimate cultural knowledge, and therefore understanding larger questions of what connects us the authority, to represent “the other” academically, as a collective humanity and what distinguish us as and to generalize the social realities that come from individuals. “The narrative inquiry is a response to … those observations (Ellis et al. 2011; Marcus and a desire to do meaningful work” (Bochner 2005:55) Fischer 1999). The postmodern critiques of ethno- but meaningful to whom: the ; other graphic research insist that ethnographies should be people; the world? How does Bochner’s atheoretical multi-vocal, self-reflexive, experimental, and self- approach to autoethnography further the discipline critical, focusing on the moment of ethnographic of anthropology and our understanding of humanity research and on the stories told (Atkinson et al. 1999). and in a way that is not provided by other In contrast to traditional ethnography, auto- literary formats? ethnography focuses the observer’s “attention on I argue that, if autoethnography is producing the relationship of the self to the world that is meaningful work, the benefits must be reflected in investigated” (Dunphinee 2010:806) and by doing the discipline: autoethnography must contribute to so conveys the informant’s otherwise silent voice the comprehension and of anthropological and perspective in the account of the observation theory. Other authors echo my sentiments in their (Doloriert and Sambrook 2012). It is also a for critiques of autoethnography as “being unrepresen- exploring the mundane and the events or actions that tative and lacking objectivity” (Marechal 2010:47). could be taken for granted, thereby allowing for a Atkinson and colleagues (1999) have emphasized theoretical or analytical movement into hegemonic that although autoethnography incorporates discourses (Doloriert and Sambrook 2012). The prac- theories and philosophies of and post- tice of “autoethnography” as opposed to artful “story modernism, it should be executed within a scientific DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 21

methodological framework: formulating a research deeper into uncovering how archaeological excava- question, data, controlling for biases, and tion and repatriation of ancestral human remains evaluating that data. Without a base in positivism, affect descendent or heritage communities and autoethnographies becomes stories for stories’ sake how excavation and repatriation affect relationships rather than a means of using the knowledge gleaned between Indigenous communities and the scientific from those stories to further the understanding studying the remains(Buikstra 2006; of humanity, culture, and . Ethnography Turner and Andrushko 2011; Ubelaker and Grant, “has never been a stable entity” as Atkinson and 1989). This introspection will also seek to find a way colleagues (1999:466) describe it. It constantly re- forward for bioarchaeologists and Indigenous com- evaluates itself and continually seeks hidden voices munities to first negotiate colonial biases and second for developing a holistic understanding of culture seek to find common ground within their differing and society. However, the current argument is that perspectives. the benefits of autoethnography: repositioning the I find Anderson’s (2006) description of analyti- observer to de-exoticize “the other,” outweighs its cal autoethnography to be the most compelling and limited contributions to the body of anthropological useful autoethnographical method not only for con- theory (Ellis and Bochner 2006). tributing to the body of anthropological theory but If autoethnography is a useful ethnographic also for its application to other fields of anthropol- method, can it be applied as an analytical tool in ogy such as bioarchaeology. I will use his criteria in other fields of anthropology such as bioarchaeology? the of my experience repatriating ancestral Although bioarchaeological methods are rooted in human remains in British Columbia. According positivism, there is a demand within the scientific to Anderson (2006), an analytic autoethnographic method to control biases either within the data or method involves five criteria: first, the researcher within the researcher. Autoethnography could be the must be a complete member of the group under means to identify the researcher’s hidden biases that study. I fit this first criterion as a bioarchaeologist limit bioarchaeological research design or interpreta- who has participated in . Second, the tion. There is a movement to expand the body of researcher must participate in analytic reflexivity. The bioarchaeology theory: exploring ideas of , readers will judge my success in this for themselves. materiality, social meaning, life histories and lived Third, the researcher’s self must be visible in the nar- experiences of individuals to create “social bioarchae- rative. As these are my narratives, I will be visible in ology” (Barrett and Blakey 2011; Hollimon 2011; them. Fourth, there must be a dialogue with other Littleton 2011; Roberts 2011; Sofaer 2006, 2011; informants beyond the self. It is difficult for me to Stutz 2008). Autoethnography has the potential to meet this criterion fully. While I will be introducing contribute to the development of these and other dialogues with others, because this is a retrospective social bioarchaeological theories by bringing the autoethnography, these dialogues will be a recon- lived experiences of the researcher into the inter- struction from memory rather than a reproduction of pretation of human and archaeology as a what was said. Finally, the autoethnography must be kind of phenomenological approach. I will attempt committed to theoretical analysis. This will occur in to demonstrate how autoethnography can uncover the discussion of this manuscript. To borrow colonial biases of bioarchaeology, not in the methods from Marcus and Fischer (1999), this manuscript will used, but in the way Western scientific pursuits are attempt to “repatriate” an anthropological retrospec- positioned over the desires and rights of descendant tive into bioarchaeology through the experiences of a or heritage communities to hold autonomy over bioarchaeologist involved in the excavation and repa- their ancestral remains, by examining my experiences triation of ancestral remains from specific examples as a colonial biased bioarchaeologist. With many within two different disciplines of archaeology in bioarchaeologists involved in the social vs. scientific British Columbia, Canada, with the intent to high- debate over repatriation, autoethnography can delve light colonial biases. 22 • H. ROBERSTON

Bioarchaeology Ortner 2003; Pearson and Buikstra 2006; Sofaer 2006; Tung 2012). Bioarchaeological analyses that Bioarchaeological Methods require destructive testing such as ancient DNA Bioarchaeology, or the study of ancestral remains studies, stable isotope analysis, histology, and cross- in an archeological context, is an important field sectional geometry can provide specific information for understanding not only how individuals and for analyses of biodistance, diet, and disease, which populations lived and died in the past, but also for can us about the movement of an individual or understanding large scale events in human populations across . Bioarchaeology has (e.g. war, migration) and societal behaviours (e.g. the potential to uncover complex individual and treatment of diseases, death) (Buikstra 2006; Sofaer population histories that can tell us about migration, 1996, 2011; Ubelaker and Grant 1989). There are gendered behaviours, social practices, or interpersonal presently many methods used to study ancestral conflicts. remains directly that reveal different kinds of infor- One could generalize that archaeological mation about deceased individuals. These analyses consulting and academia, could have different per- are largely broken down into either rudimentary or spectives as to whose needs should take precedence, more detailed, and sometimes destructive, studies of the ’ or the community’s, with regards to ancestral remains, which are used by two disciplines ancestral remains, not because of the limitations or of bioarchaeology: archaeological consulting and facilitations placed on them by the methods they use, academia. but because of the proximity these disciplines have to Bioarchaeological analysis at a rudimentary level descendant communities who encourage archaeolo- involves inventorying all elements recovered, gists and bioarchaeologists to engage in self-reflexive determining the minimum number of individuals practices that identify colonial internal biases. The present, assessing their age and sex, and documenting result of this self-reflection is the creation of different and describing cultural modifications, morphological sets of bioarchaeological practices and points of view variants, non-metric traits, and pathologies (Buikstra regarding the importance of bioarchaeology within and Ubelaker 1994). This is useful for these organizations. I have had the opportunity and developing a basic mortuary profile or demographic pleasure of working in both archaeological consult- of the population, and for determining whether ing and academia in a bioarchaeological capacity and there are patterns of disease or activity among sexes have noted how these organizations generate differ- or across age groups. An experienced bioarchae- ent perceptions as to how to practice bioarchaeology ologist can perform this level of analysis quickly in and its importance in BC archaeology. the field with minimal equipment. Archaeological Drawing from my own knowledge, interpreta- consulting typically stops at the rudimentary level tions, and documented descriptions where possible of bioarchaeological analysis. I will outline how archaeological consulting and Academic institutions also conduct rudimentary academia view the importance of bioarchaeology levels of analysis, but are generally better equipped for in BC archaeology differently, how First Nation and employ more detailed levels of bioarchaeologi- perspectives are integrated into the practice of bio- cal analysis that include osteometric measurements, archaeology within the two disciplines, and what pathology diagnoses (as opposed to description bioarchaeological perspectives have emerged within and documentation), high-resolution tooth casts the disciplines based on their practices. The indig- for scanning electron microscopy, and radiography. enous and bioarchaeological perspectives presented This level of analysis is useful for understanding the are reconstructed narratives based on discussions, specific life-history of an individual including rela- interactions, and experiences I have had with other tive health (periods of disease and healing), traumatic people. The use of quotation marks in the follow- events, and/or physical activity, which provide insight ing sections will indicate dialogue rather than direct into individual biocultural behaviours ( Joyce 2005; quotations. DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 23

Why Bioarchaeology? plete. The majority of ancestral remains excavated Within consulting archaeology, First Nations repre- for analysis were returned to the location they were sentatives and the archaeologists agree to the protocol recovered from by the the reports were written. for treatment of ancestral remains prior to excavation. The change in bioarchaeological practices in In effect, the communities likely descended from the BC consulting archaeology post 1994 is most likely remains largely determine the extent, or absence of the result of involving First Nation communities in bioarchaeological analysis. As First Nations in BC archaeological projects who could then communi- began asserting political and territorial sovereignty cate their preferred treatment of ancestral remains on the lands modified by development and archaeol- at archaeological sites. Indigenous involvement at ogy, it prompted a change to the province’s Heritage the level of excavation provided an opportunity for Conservation Act (HCA) requiring consultation information sharing between descendant or heritage with First Nations in the design and implementa- communities and the archaeologists and bioarchae- tion of archaeological excavations (Budhwa 2005; ologists. Consequently, bioarchaeologists were more Nicholas 2006). Although the Act does not rec- sympathetic to the desires of First Nation communi- ognize First Nations as owners of archaeological ties regarding the treatment of ancestral remains. The material, the 1994 amendment prompted a greater precedent set by archaeological consultants of involv- mandate among consulting archaeologists to involve ing in the recovery of ancestral indigenous communities in the process of consult- remains means the wellbeing of the ancestors are ing archaeology (Klassen 2008). This mandate not back again in the control of the descendants. only changed the way consulting archaeology was In museums or academic institutions, bioarchae- practiced and mediated in BC but it also changed ologists have less direct contact with the interests of the way bioarchaeology was practiced in the . local First Nation communities and are less likely Prior to the mandated change, consulting archae- to experience the impact colonial biases have on ologists followed several different practices when descendants. I do recognize that some academic faced with ancestral remains. During archaeological and institutions incorporate the interests impact assessment, excavations or archaeological sur- of Indigenous communities into the design and out- veys, ancestral human remains were noted, mapped, come of research projects, but these are rare and by no and removed from their location to be analysed at an means as prevalent as it is in consulting archaeology academic institution (Condrashoff 1971; Mitchell in BC. The result is there is a more diffused transfer 1967; Sanger 1962). Occasionally arrangements were of knowledge and information from Indigenous made with local First Nation communities to return communities to the bioarchaeologists that may or the ancestral remains to the place they were excavated may not have a direct impact on the practice of bioar- from after rudimentary analysis (Cybulski 1975; chaeology in museums or academia. One example of Eldridge, 1978; Johnson Fladmark 1973). Other how the interests of local First Nations communities archaeologists left the ancestral remains (in have addressed colonial bioarchaeological biases is in the original place) and conducted a minimal analysis repatriation. (Howe 1981; Lawhead 1980). After 1995, more and In the wake of the Native American Graves more archaeological reports describe remains either Protection Act (NAGPRA) that passed in the being left in situ with no osteological analysis con- USA in 1990, American museums (except for the ducted or left in situ with minimal analysis (analysis Smithsonian Institution) were legally obligated of Provincial Archaeological Reports conducted for to take inventories of their of ancestral a report on repatriations in British Columbia, results remains and provide them to Indigenous groups from not yet published). Few archaeological excavations whose lands the material was excavated (Buikstra that encountered ancestral material post-1994 recov- 2006; Ubelaker 2006). Because American museum ered the material for osteological analysis and even collections were now visible to Indigenous groups, fewer retained the material after analysis was com- repatriation requests were made quickly. In response 24 • H. ROBERSTON to NAGPRA, Canadian academic institutions began is turned over to descendant communities. In other the movement to reclaim Indigenous culture and areas, Indigenous communities and academic insti- history (Ewing 2011; Walker 2000). Canadian muse- tutions agreed that the institutions could become ums and academic institutions where called upon stewards of ancestral remains if they followed cultural to prepare their curated human remains for repa- protocols for storing and studying ancestral remains. triation. Generally speaking, rudimentary analysis By creating strong relationships with descendant and non-destructive testing including photography, communities, bioarchaeologists in academic settings radiography, casting, and osteometrics made up the may experience the transfer of knowledge experi- extent of osteological analysis prior to repatriation. enced by consulting bioarchaeologists to challenge Some bioarchaeologists, particularly those who do colonial biases. not have direct exposure to the desires or experiences of descendant communities before, during, or after First Nations Perspectives the repatriation process, feel that reburial of ancestral The experiences I have had connecting with First remains after only a rudimentary analysis, without Nation perspectives and learning about cultural prac- ancient DNA or isotopic data, which are destruc- tices particularly concerning the treatment of and tive techniques, is extremely limiting (Buikstra behaviours around ancestral remains began with my 2006). They position the scientific colonial biases first archaeological field school in 1998. From the over the experiences of descendant communities moment I learned about archaeology and archaeo- as colonized and marginalized people. As a scien- logical perspectives, I realized the interconnectedness tist and a colonizer, I can understand the reasons of archaeology and First Nation perspectives on for this positioning but at the same time I also see ancestral remains. This could only have been accom- the dangers such a position can have when trying to plished because of the political environment in which develop meaningful relationships with Indigenous I began my bioarchaeological career, in the wake of communities. The study of ancestral remains in BC the precedence set after HCA and NAGPRA. I and North America in general can provide insight have experienced only a handful of First Nations into the history of early human occupation and perspectives that I will endeavour to synthesize in migration into the continent and identify the impact this section of the manuscript. These accounts by no colonialism has had on the physical stress, disease means represent a general perspective on ancestral prevalence, the relative health of the skeletal body remains by First Nations, but they are the perspec- of Indigenous communities (Ubelaker and Grant tives I am familiar with and are the ones that have 1989). However, until bioarchaeologists are exposed influenced my point of view of ancestral remains as to the experiences and perspectives of Indigenous a bioarchaeologist. communities, they cannot identify the colonial biases There is a connection between the living and the surrounding the pursuit of bioarchaeological knowl- ancestors that reaffirms the First Nation connection edge at the expense of Indigenous skeletal bodies, or to place, time, and to all others. Ubelaker and Grant against the wishes of descendant communities. (1989) write that the spiritual connection of living Special agreements between First Nations and descendants and ancestral remains continues to be bioarchaeologists have permitted destructive testing strong after hundreds and even thousands of . I of ancestral remains for ancient DNA and stable have witnessed this connection myself while work- isotope analysis, however, these are rare and stem ing on a large archaeological project where human from longstanding relationships between the par- remains were encountered. We had representatives ticular Indigenous community who control access from seven different First Nations communities to the remains and the bioarchaeologist (Cybulski participate as archaeologists and as liaisons to their et al. 2007). Engaging in meaningful investigations community regarding our activities and finds. When of their ancestors and life-histories, is an example of the human remains were uncovered, a medicine what can happen when control of ancestral remains woman came to perform a brushing off ceremony for DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 25 the whole crew and a food burning ceremony for the In repatriation ceremonies I have witnessed the ancestors. The brushing off ceremony was to remove strong emotional connection living First Nations spirits who might have attached themselves to the have with the ancestral remains being repatriated. living and the food offering was performed because During one intimate repatriation ceremony involv- it is the duty of the living to care for the remains of ing the Nicomen, descendants were visibly moved, the ancestors and to show respect for the ancestors in tears, and overcome with emotion at the reunion who have been physically and spiritually disturbed with their ancestors. It was explained to me (I cannot by the archaeological excavation. One could say that remember the source, but the message was received) spiritual connections were being made between the that First Nations do not distinguish between ances- living and the ancestors, as one of the crew began tors who have died recently and ancestors who died dreaming about an unknown boy child after she millennia ago. Time does not erode connectivity; encountered the remains of a young individual time reaffirms connections. Familial ties are created, from the site. Another example of the connections maintained, and validated through the connection between the living and the dead (or between the with the land or the territory. Because these ancestors dead and the living) was in the half-hearted jocular were removed from an area within their territory, they explanations for why three women from the crew are Nicomen ancestors, and should be subjected to became pregnant during the excavation. Although the cultural protocols warranted by the Nicomen. no one seriously contended that the women who became pregnant were carrying the spirits of the Bioarchaeological Perspectives ancestors they encountered (or who encountered My bioarchaeological perspectives have been cre- the women), there seemed to be an unspoken worry ated through my experiences and reflections as an behind each joker’s eyes that the site might be spiri- undergraduate student, a laboratory technician in the tually potent. Archaeology Department at Simon Fraser University, a Connections were established between the living consulting archaeologist, and a graduate student. I am (both native and non-native) and the dead initially equipped with osteological and technological knowl- through the physical unearthing of human remains edge to document ancestral remains adequately and from the earth and then spiritually through historical a theoretical reflection that recognizes the historical memory and memory making. For the crew of First particularism of my situation. I am a white academic Nations, the presence of the ancestors reaffirmed who has been in a position of fiduciary caretaker for their historical memory of deep antiquity to the ancestral remains unearthed prior to the incorporation place we were all standing in. These memories were of First Nations communities in decision-making pro- enacted in the dreams of some individuals and in cesses. However, my ethnographical perspective and the songs learned by each new generation, played sociological self benefited most from my involvement out for us all to witness. For the non-native crew in the practice of consulting archaeology and repatria- (and I speak mostly for myself), the presence of the tion. Out of these influences I hope to be a voice for ancestral remains brought forward my awareness of an increased understanding of the phenomenological colonial memory. New memories were also being cre- aspect of bioarchaeology in both the academic and ated, however, that superseded any negative consulting organizations, particularly memories. Jokes, mutual teasing, spiritual discussions, when the perspectives of the bioarchaeologists clash shared ritual enactments, and knowledge exchange with those of descendant communities. helped to bridge the divide between two distinct My own personal frame of mind when conduct- reactions to ancestral remains. The dead made pos- ing an analysis of ancestral remains, be it radiography, sible a new connection between the living people photography, or can be described as peace- surrounding them, new memories to be made of that ful, quiet, and often apologetic. I could have said, “I place, and new perceptions toward them through an am always respectful of the remains” as I have heard exchange of knowledge. most other human osteologists say, but I am often 26 • H. ROBERSTON struck by the question “what does that actually mean?” a recognition that all things are energy and energy As one might suppose, these mean different things to can be changed and exchanged between objects. different people. For some, being “respectful” means My attempt at negotiating between Western sci- they would treat the remains as as any other ence and an undefined spirituality that I am happy specimen they have encountered. They are careful and with influences my perspective and behaviour as a precise as they handle, document, and measure the bioarchaeologist. specimen, and this is in fact behaving in a “respectful” I found myself confronted with my perception manner from a bioarchaeological perspective because of “energy” during the preparations for the Nicomen they are not abusing the specimen – knocking it repatriation. The preparation consisted of a visit from about or letting it fall off the table and break. a medicine woman and her brother to inform and For many Indigenous communities the simple prepare the remains spiritually for reburial. The intro- fact that remains are in a museum is enough to be ductions and interactions between the lab manager considered disrespectful treatment of the ances- (my boss), the medicine woman, her brother, and me tors (Ubelaker and Grant 1989). To keep ancestral were very polite, cordial, and pleasant. The diligence remains in a cardboard box without cedar, ochre, of the medicine woman’s brother to memorize our smudging, or ritual feeding is to deny the ancestors names – “Scottish Heather and the River Shannon” their cultural rights and perpetuates the scientific and – humbled me. I am notoriously poor at remembering colonial dominion over Indigenous bodies. Some names, and embarrassed when I must ask someone’s academic institutions have attempted to change the name several before I remember it. I have colonial structure of museums and osteological stor- since forgotten both of their names, and probably age by incorporating cultural practices of ancestral did not commit them to memory at our first meet- stewardship, by such things as routine smudging of ing. However, I remember their faces, manners, and the osteological storage room, laying cedar bows in more importantly their contribution to my percep- the boxes of remains, wrapping remains in blankets, tion of the relationships between bioarchaeologists or placing the remains in cedar boxes. and descendant communities during repatriation. I therefore do not say, “I am respectful of the Particularly because many of our perceptions and remains,” which I do in a bioarchaeological per- opinions differed. spective, but cannot guarantee in a First Nations Our interactions consisted of the medicine perspective as much as I would like to. When I am women contacting the spirits of the ancestors by working with ancestral remains, I often find myself holding a portion of the remains in her hand. She humming or playing softly to not only quiet proceeded to identify the remains as male, female, my mind for the task but also to create a peaceful parent, child, as my boss and I went through the environment in which to work. If I do accidently skeletal inventory. Looking back on this interaction bump or drop a bone I cringe and apologize aloud. between spiritual medium and scientist I am glad I am confessing this with the confidence that the and somewhat surprised that her exchanges were reader will not think less of me for doing so, accidents received congenially and not with more resistance. I happen, and it would be irresponsible of me to make had heard stories after the fact where conflicts where you think otherwise in this narrative. I prefer talking felt between scientist and medium during similar aloud or thinking aloud, in a quiet voice, because it events. I use the term “felt” because repatriation keeps me calm and I feel it keeps the energy in the ceremonies are treated with such respect from both room calm. Upon reflection, “the energy in the room” parties that I do not think anyone would engage in a is quite a Western way of saying “spirits.” For better verbal disagreement with beliefs. However, I am sure or worse, I do believe in “energy” or “spirits,” but not that both parties felt internal arguments, comments, in a Cowardly Lion mantra kind of way, placating or contradictions when confronted with ideas, terms, evil “spooks”; or provoking spirits to “show them- or perspectives that differ from our own. For example, selves” as in the TV show Ghost Adventures, but as the medium and the scientist were respectful of each DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 27 other’s opinions regarding the identity of the ances- who were treated according to the cultural proto- tors. However, I confess my scientific curiosity was cols of the First Nation representatives - wrapped piqued and I wanted to see how the two methods in blankets and covered with cedar. I “heard” heavy of identifying individuals compared to each other, breathing in my left ear. I could have explained the not in the sense that one method could “correctly phenomenon as some trick of my own overactive identify” the individuals while the other could not, imagination or some kind of pressure buildup and but rather what were the incidences of individuals release my ear, but instead I chose to attribute it to being similarly identified between the two methods. something supernatural. Nevertheless, for whatever However, I realized the impolitic implications of such reason I cannot scientifically argue for the possibility a request, because I believed that I would offend the of extraterrestrial lifeforms contacting . And non-scientist if I requested a scientific comparison yet, I can freely admit to playing music and talking of her gift to my method (even though I thought it aloud to “energy” that no one has perceived but me would be good fun), so I kept quiet. when I probably should be describing my own bio- I held my tongue in one other instance where chemical reactions to stress or other psychosomatic the medicine woman began to tell me of her experi- phenomena. If I was as afraid of spirits as I am of ence communing with ancestral remains and came aliens, would it shape my perception of working with across an alien among them, which caught me ancestral remains differently? Would it be accurate to completely off guard. At the time, my inner scien- say that both positive and negative experiences shape tist recalled details of cranial head shaping on the bioarchaeological perceptions? Is it because I have Northwest Coast, hydrocephaly (water in the ) experienced First Nations spirituality in conjunc- that expands and misshapes the skull of infants, other tion with archaeological scholarship that I perceive random pathologies that affect the shape of the skull these concepts concurrently and positively? Naturally, and facial , and even distortion of the this is anecdotal, but it is important to question the skull from the pressure of the environment creation of perceptions among bioarchaeologists in that would discredit her perception. Not to mention relation to ancestral remains in order to influence the scores of unlikely scenarios that would compel processes that contribute to anthropological theory. an alien to become comingled with human remains. Repatriation is a path for academia to develop Again, I felt it would be discourteous to recite these relationships with Indigenous communities. It forces aloud to her. So instead, I quieted my inner scientist, the two groups together and provides the arena for quelled the childhood fears of aliens from watch- political struggles to occur. Now this sounds particu- ing too many science fiction movies at a tender and larly combative and violent, and I do not mean it in impressionable age, and looked down at my inven- a negative way, but some kind of challenge must be tory sheet and said “Oh yes? That’s interesting.” This made (i.e. challenging colonial mind frames) in order interaction made me the most uncomfortable, and it to make the confrontation meaningful (confrontation was completely unrelated to the repatriation process. between scientific and cultural perceptions). Now I Perhaps it was because she had inadvertently certainly do not feel that all repatriation events are struck a nerve that triggered my deepest and most or need to be confrontational, but negotiations are persistent fear. Alternatively, perhaps it was because always a factor and there is usually a champion. In the out of all the insights she seemed to share with situation of repatriation, there can be different kinds us, this one was the one I could not validate either of champion. Descendant communities who have scientifically or spiritually. I am quite open-minded successfully repatriated ancestral remains curated when it comes to spirits, mediums, and unexplained across the Western world throughout the centuries insight, more so than is probably tolerated among are certainly champions. Less politically mobile the scientific community. I have had my own expe- communities who manage to locate and repatriate a rience as a consulting archaeologist while working handful of their ancestors are champions. Academic alone and in the same room as ancestral remains institutions that have voluntarily contacted com- 28 • H. ROBERSTON munities and initiated repatriation are champions. The second repatriation ceremony I attended Communities who come together to make academic was vastly different from the Haida repatriation. The institutions stewards of ancestral remains and suc- Nicomen repatriation, which I was greatly involved cessfully outline and implement cultural and research with, was far more intimate, personal, and emotive. protocols make champions of both parties. Ultimately, This repatriation event occurred in a small room the path to dialogue between parties must be engaged in the Archaeology Department. The event was in order to learn from one another and allow differing more intimate and only those people who worked opinions to meet somewhere in the middle. directly on or in connection with the repatriation My perceptions of repatriation have two sources. attended the event: the chair of the department, my I have participated in two repatriation ceremonies supervisor, me, and of course the Nicomen represen- that were both quite different in size, political motive, tatives. Before the Nicomen were expected to arrive, and connection with the repatriation process. My I remember the small meeting my supervisor and first repatriation ceremony was SFU’s involvement I had together. She, in a quiet voice, relayed to me with the national and international call from the some instructions about what I could do while she Haida to repatriate all ancestral remains excavated and the department chair spoke directly with the and removed from Haida Gwaii. The ceremony at representatives. The Archaeology Department had SFU was very large and involved a lot of planning provided some light refreshments for the event as not so much from the Archaeology Department the Nicomen representatives were traveling a great but from the University itself. The entire university distance for the repatriation. She asked would I make was welcome to the event, which was a showcase sure the elders had something to eat and drink, that of Haida culture, , and above all, political they were comfortable and provided for. sovereignty, over the repatriated materials. I do not I remember being a bit nervous - with the really remember much from the event. I snuck in memory of the Haida repatriation running through late because I had work duties to finish before head- my mind, I did not know what to expect for this one. ing over to the event with my supervisor. There were I also remember the other departmental participants speeches, songs, and that I did not really get started to get nervous when the scheduled time for an opportunity to see or hear. I recognized that this the Nicomen representatives to arrive came and then event was important for the Haida people to convey went. Phone calls were being made, no one could be their political strength and cultural sovereignty over reached, and all I could do was watch people scurry the materials being repatriated to an audience largely around while I helped by not getting in their way. made up of colonizers. The message was a clear and Finally, one truck full of representatives arrived. I do important one, however, they were speaking largely not really remember the reason why they were late, to those who were already supporters of their move- but I remember one of the representatives coming ment. The attendees did not need much convincing into the Archaeology Department, apologized for that this was the right thing to do and for me, the being late, and said something about “Indian time.” pomp and ceremony of the event only succeeded in The second carload of representatives was still to reminding me of my colonial past, polishing up the come. When they arrived, we began. The emotions already lustrous yoke that is the “white man’s burden.” of the Nicomen representatives were expressed I came away from that event with a kind of cheerful openly – sadness, grief, relief – and although I did depression. I was glad I could be a part of a larger not feel quite prepared for it, the informality of the structure of reconciliation in some small way, however, proceedings put me more at ease and quelled my I was burdened by the thought of how much further nervousness, so I could react in a calmer way to offer colonizers and First Nations had to travel to change tissues, a chair, a glass of water. I offered my sympa- these feelings of obligated political positioning in thies in stillness in the far corner of the room, head both dominant and submissive poses. At least most bowed, hands folded: a quiet witness to the events of us seem to be on this together. that unfolded before me. DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 29

Discussion authority of bioarchaeologists. My experience is The perceptions my experiences in the disciplines of that many practicing archaeologists and academ- consulting archaeology and repatriation have cre- ics are afraid that handing that authority over fully ated, outline a disconnect between bioarchaeological will end the study of ancestral remains in BC or scientific biases and the perspectives of descen- limit it more than it is already. However, I think dant Indigenous communities towards ancestral the challenge is necessary to refocus the biological remains. This disconnect might be more apparent and scientific perception of human remains towards among academic institutions that do not have direct a more phenomenological realization that ances- associations with descendant Indigenous groups. tors physically tie people to the through Without direct contact with Indigenous perceptions, time in the eyes of descendant communities. People bioarchaeologists will not have the opportunity to transformed by colonialism should receive the most engage with their own Western scientific and colo- thoughtfully reflexive opinions and actions from their nial point of reference. By turning the gaze inward colonizer compatriots, especially if those colonizers bioarchaeologists can begin to position themselves have embedded themselves in the anthropological away from the seat of authority to develop a dialogue discipline. Bioarchaeologists in academia are will- between themselves and descendant communities. ing to engage with the autonomy of Indigenous Bioarchaeologists within consulting archaeology peoples when repatriation of ancestral remains is can build positive relationships with First Nation requested; however, this is often the only interac- communities because of the close connections made tions academic bioarchaeologists will have with the by having First Nations representation at during the wishes of Indigenous communities regarding their archaeological process. Even before an excavation is ancestors. There are a few incidences of successful underway, bioarchaeologists and First Nations can interactions between academic bioarchaeologists and discuss what to do when ancestral remains are found, Indigenous communities, which resulted in a change whether to excavate or not, what the cultural proto- in the way ancestral remains are stored in repositories, cols should be during and post-excavation, and what providing access for regular cleansing of the area and kinds of analyses would communities most like to be for offerings to the ancestors. However, disciplines performed. This kind of early relationship building, can take this relationship further by requesting cul- if done collaboratively, makes room for communi- tural protocols from communities for handling the ties to exercise their autonomy over the ancestors remains when not in storage. The practice of follow- found. At a deeper level, if the relationship building ing cultural protocols help to demonstrate outwardly with consulting bioarchaeologist is executed with the a respect for ancestral remains, focuses the mind of understanding that communities have authority over the bioarchaeologist on their task, or situates oneself ancestral remains, First Nations autonomy is not only spiritually in a place of calmness. exercised, but also legitimized. Archaeologists and Another way to demonstrate outwardly a respect bioarchaeologists need to be understanding of the for ancestral remains is by elevating their current pre- situation that a community can and should declare cedence within academia. Requests for repatriation their autonomy over the treatment and analysis of tend to be the major incentive for bioarchaeological ancestral remains at the expense of “scientific interests” analysis and documentation within academia and because it is their right to do so. Bioarchaeologists are osteological collections devoid of community activ- also anthropologists because we study people directly, ism tend to fall to a low priority within institutions and as such, we should be compelled to evaluate criti- with limited funding. Often, when osteological col- cally the behaviours and perceptions of our discipline lections are not a priority, analysis and documentation that are taken for granted especially when operating are delayed for a very long time or the analytical pro- in a colonial environment. cess is limited to documentation only. By elevating Recognizing Indigenous authority over ancestral the academic perception of ancestral remains from human remains is a direct challenge to the academic “material” to agents of connectivity as propagated by 30 • H. ROBERSTON

Indigenous perception, analysis and documentation remains and how it awakens structural could take on a different level of importance, to and social suffering among descendant communities facilitate repatriations quickly when requested. Better (Kleinman 1997). still, academia could instigate communication with Archaeological and bioarchaeological approaches Indigenous communities requesting the community’s in both consulting archaeology and academia should recommendations, insights, or involvement with their carefully consider the vulnerabilities created by the ancestors. This might result in a repatriation request structural and social suffering of Indigenous or in an agreement of stewardship, but ultimately people in not only BC but also elsewhere in other the decision must come from communities, and colonial contexts. Colonial bioarchaeology can take institutions should invite them to the table if the on many incarnations and degrees depending on the communities are not already seeking them out. political autonomy of the descendant community Bioarchaeological theory is developing roots and the bioarchaeological protocols of the consult- in social theory as “social bioarchaeology.” This is ing company or the academic institution. However, advantageous because it brings together social- decolonized bioarchaeology can be demonstrable by anthropological theory and bioarchaeological including descendant communities in decisions made methods to provide a biocultural understanding in all aspects concerning ancestral remains. I feel that of ancestral remains. The structure of positivism is BC has attempted decolonizing approaches to bio- essential to generate reproducible methods in all archaeology with varying degrees of success in both archaeological, bioarchaeological, and even anthropo- consulting, and academic processes of bioarchaeology, logical methods, because objectivity and rigorous data but I also believe that a stronger commitment can collection form the basis for logical interpretations be made to make room for Indigenous perspectives and reproducible methods allow for the comparison particularly where those perspectives negate those between results. However, a more critical stance of of bioarchaeologists. It is vital to bring communities a positivistic bioarchaeology should address “why” into the anthropological, archaeological, and bioar- bioarchaeological studies take place and who will chaeological processes to help shape the perspectives benefit from the knowledge collected, particu- of the anthropologist in sympathy to the commu- larly when working within a colonial environment. nities under study, and by doing so challenge the Bioarchaeology can be colonial when the goals of scientific positivism that determines bioarchaeologi- scientific discovery are obtained at the expense and cal practices in colonial environments. Decolonizing imposition of Indigenous communities, creating an bioarchaeology is how trust could be rebuilt between imbalance of power. Addressing why bioarchaeol- bioarchaeologists and descendant communities who ogy should be done and who benefits from the data were, and are, marginalized by colonial bioarchaeol- in either the context of consulting archeology or an ogy, allowing both sides to learn from each other and academic-led excavation could generate decoloniz- to contribute to the growth of the human experience. ing forms of bioarchaeology by inviting Indigenous communities to determine the research goals that Conclusion would interest them. Decolonizing bioarchaeology I have reflected that bioarchaeology can be at times would require the engagement and involvement colonial or nonreflexive to the scientific biases that of descendent communities in multiple stages of drive the study of ancestral remains. Scientific bioarchaeology, from generating pertinent research biases combined with the fear that consultation questions that reflect what communities wish with descendant communities will limit or negate to know about their ancestors, to incorporating bioarchaeological analysis drives this idea of colo- Indigenous cultural protocols into the pre-, during, nial bioarchaeology. However, the incorporation and post-excavation processes. Engaging in bioar- of Indigenous perspectives regarding the study of chaeology in this way will confront certain colonial ancestral remains can not only build a bridge between biases regarding the practice of studying ancestral scientific and Indigenous perspectives but influence DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 31 the practice of bioarchaeology in colonial environ- References ments positively by generating decolonizing forms of bioarchaeology through a willingness to demonstrate Anderson L. First Nations cultural protocols regarding ancestral 2006 Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of remains and by actively communicating with descen- Contemporary Ethnography 35(4):373-395. dant communities. Bioarchaeological and Indigenous Atkinson P., A. Coffey and S. Delamont perspectives must come together to delve deeper into 1999 Ethnography: Post, Past, and Present. Journal of bioarchaeological questions that would not only ben- Contemporary Ethnography 28:460-471. efit First Nations but also benefit the understanding Barrett, A.R., and M.L. Blakey of humanity. I am confident that as archaeological 2011 Life Histories of Enslaved Africans in Colonial and bioarchaeological perspectives are decolonized New York: A Bioarchaeological Study of the New in BC we will see more integration of First Nations York African Burial Ground. Chapter 8. In Social cultural protocols in bioarchaeological practices and Bioarchaeology. S.C. Agarwal and B.A. Glencross, contribute new bioarchaeological knowledge and eds. Pp 212-251. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. theories. Bochner, A. P. This has been an account of one researcher’s 2005 Surviving Autoethnography. Studies in experiences at a single academic institution and at Symbolic Interaction 28:51-58. a single archaeological consulting firm in BC. It is Budhwa, R. not my intention to suggest that all disciplines oper- 2005 An Alternate Model for First Nations ate in the ways I have presented, or that I am the Involvement in Resource only bioarchaeologists to have ever had the feelings I Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology have just shared. My intention was to use my experi- 29(1):20-45. ences as examples of how my perceptions have been Buikstra, J.E. shaped within these very specific situations, and that 2006 Repatriation and Bioarchaeology: Challenges others facing similar situations could benefit from and Opportunities. Chapter 15. In Bioarchaeology: the reflections I have shared. For those individual The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains. J. E. bioarchaeologist and disciplines that have already Buikstra and L. A. Beck, eds. Pp 389-415. San reached similar conclusions as I have, and are actively Francisco: Elsevier. engaging in practices of decolonizing bioarchaeology, Buikstra J.E. and D. Ubelaker I hope this reflection could serve as an act of solidar- 1994 Standards for Data Collection From Human ity to those who place decolonizing bioarchaeology Skeletal Remains. Research Series 44. Fayetteville, in the forefront on their research. AR: Arkansas Archaeological . Chang, Heewon 2008 Autoethnography as Method. Walnut Creek, CA: . Condrashoff, C. 1971 An Archaeological Survey of Parks and Recreation Reserves by Michael Blake for the Provincial Museum, Summer 1971. Provincial Archaeological Report . Report 1971-0030d. Cybulski J.S. 1975 Physical Anthropology at Owikeno Lake. Provincial Archaeological Report Library. Report 1975-0008a. 32 • H. ROBERSTON

Cybulski, J.S., A.D. McMillan, R. S. Malhi, B. M. Kemp, Kleinman A. H. Harry and S. Cousins 1997 The Violences of Everyday Life: The Multiple 2007 The Big Bar Lake Burial: Middle Period Human Forms and Dynamics of Social Violence. In Remains from the Canadian Plateau. Canadian Violence and Subjectivity. V. Das, A. Kleinman, M. Journal of Archaeology 31:55-78. Ramphele, P. Reynolds, eds. Pp 226-241. Berkeley: Doloriert, Clair and Sally Sambrook University of California Press. 2012 Organisational Autoethnography. Journal of Lawhead S. Organizational Ethnography 1(1):83-95 1980 A Report on the Investigations of the 1979 Eldridge, M. Mobile Salvage Crew. Provincial Archaeological 1978 Preliminary Report for the 1977 Hope Report Library. Report 1979-0015 Archaeological Project. Provincial Archaeological Littleton, Judith Report Library. Report 1977-0016. 2011 Moving From the Canary in the Coalmine: Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams and Arthur P. Bochner Modeling Childhood in Bahrain. Chapter 13. 2011 Autoethnography: An Overview. Historical In Social Bioarchaeology. S. C. Agarwal and Social Research. 36(4):273-290. B. A. Glencross, eds. Pp 361-389. Malden, MA: Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner Wiley-Blackwell. 2006 Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography: An Marechal, G. Autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2010 Autoethnography. In Encyclopedia of Case 35:429. Study Research. A. J. Mills, G. Durepos and E. Ewing, Robyn G. Wiebe, eds. Pp 44-47. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE 2011 Finding Middle Ground: Case Studies in Publications, Inc. Negotiated Repatriation. MA thesis, Department Marcus, George E. and Michael M. J. Fischer of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, 1999 Anthropology as Cultural Critique. Second British Columbia. Edition. Chicago: The Press. Hollimon, Sandra E. May, Vanessa 2011 Sex and Gender in Bioarchaeological Research: 2011 Autoethnography. In Encyclopedia of Consumer Theory, Method, and Interpretation. Chapter Culture. Dale Southerton, ed. Pp 78-79. Thousand 6. In Social Bioarchaeology. S.C. Agarwal and Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. B. A. Glencross, eds. Pp 149-182. Malden, MA: Mitchell, D.H. Wiley-Blackwell. 1967 Archaeological Investigations, Summer 1966. Howe G. Provincial Archaeological Report Library. Report 1981 Report of the Vancouver Island, Lower 1966-0004. Mainland, Caribou Regional Archaeological Nicholas, George P. Impact Assessment. Provincial Archaeological 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: Report Library. Report 1980-0006. The Practices and Politics of Archaeology in Johnson Fladmark, Sharon British Columbia. The American Indian Quarterly 1973 Report: Shuswap Lakes Archaeological Project. 30(3-4):350-380. Provincial Archaeological Report Library. Report Ortner, Donald J. 1972-0019. 2003 Identification of Pathological Conditions Joyce, Rosemary in Human Skeletal Remains, Second ed. San 2005 Archaeology of the Body. Annual Review of Francisco: Elsevier Academic Press. Anthropology 34:139-158. Pearson, O.M. and J. E. Buikstra Klassen, M. A. 2006 Behaviour and the Bones. In Bioarchaeology: 2008 First Nations, the Heritage Conservation Act, The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains. J.E. and the of Heritage Stewardship. The Buikstra and L. A. Beck, eds. Pp207-226. San 40(4): 8-17. Francisco: Elsevier Academic Press. DECOLONIZING BIOARCHAEOLOGY • 33

Roberts C. Tung, Tiffany A. 2011 The Bioarchaeology of Leprosy and Tuberculosis: 2012 Violence, Ritual, and the Wari Empire: A Social A Comparative Study of Perceptions, Stigma, Bioarchaeology of Imperialism in the Ancient Diagnosis, and Treatment. Chapter 9. In Social Andes. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Bioarchaeology. S. C. Agarwal and B. A. Glencross, Turner, Bethany L. and Valerie A. Andrushko eds. Pp 252-282. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 2011 Partnerships, Pitfalls, and Ethical Concerns in Sanger D. International Bioarchaeology. Chapter 4. In Social 1962 Report on Excavations at EdRk:4, Near Lillooet, Bioarchaeology. S.C. Agarwal and B. A. Glencross, BC. Provincial Archaeology Report Library. Report eds. Pp 44-67. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 1962-0003. Ubelaker, D. H. Sofaer, Joanna R. 2006. The Changing Role of Skeletal Biology at 2006 The Body as : A Theoretical the Smithsonian. Chapter 3. In Bioarchaeology: Osteoarchaeology. New York: Cambridge The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains. J. University Press. E. Buikstra and L. A. Beck, eds. Pp 73-82. San 2011 Towards a Social Bioarchaeology of Age. Francisco: Elsevier. Chapter 10. In Social Bioarchaeology. S.C. Ubelaker, D.H. and L. Grant Agarwal and B. A. Glencross, eds. Pp 285-311. 1989 Human Skeletal Remains: Preservation or Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Reburial? Yearbook of Physical Anthropology Stutz, Liv Nilsson 32:249-287. 2008 More Than Metaphor: Approaching the Human Walker, P.L. Cadaver in Archaeology. In The Materiality of 2000 Bioarchaeological Ethics: A Historical Death: Bodies, , Beliefs. F. Flahlander Perspective on the Value of Human Remains. In and T. Ostigaard, eds. Pp 19-25. Oxford:BAR of the . International Series 1768. M.A. Katzenberg and S.R. Saunders, eds. Pp 3-39. Toronto, ON: Wiley-Liss.