Society for American Archaeology

Archaeology and Native North American Oral Traditions Author(s): Ronald J. Mason Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 239-266 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694058 . Accessed: 23/10/2011 23:01

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

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

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS

Ronald J. Mason

Archaeologists today are being urgedfromwithin and outside theirprofession to incorporateaboriginal oral traditionsin recon- structing culture histories. Such challenges usually ignore or at least drastically underestimatethe difficulties in doing so. Not least among those difficulties is that of attemptingto reconcile inherentlyand profoundlydifferent ways of conceptualizing the past without violating the integrity of one or the other or both. Thepro and con argumentsare examined theoretically and as actually employed in discrete instances. These raise such problems of incommensurabilityas to severely limit the fruitfulness and even desirability of making the attempt.

Hoy en dia se espera que los arqueol6gos, adentro como de fuera de su profesion, incluyan en sus historias culturales las tradi- ciones orales de los indigenas. Estas peticiones por lo general ignoran o por lo menos no dan suficiente importanciaa las difi- cultades de esta empresa.Entre las mds imponenteses la dificultadde reconciliardos modelos del pasado que son inherentemente y profundamentedistintos. Aquf se examinanlos argumentosde ambas posiciones en teoria y ejemplos. Estos esfuerzos indican grandesproblemas, e inclusive sugieren que la empresaes inatil.

T his essayexamines current challenges to incor- use by archaeologistsof oral traditionsas historical porateNorth American Indian oral traditions data. in archaeologicaltheory and practice. Because As consideredhere, archaeology is a primitivesci- the essay's focus is on archaeologyas it has been and ence with high aspirations.Pursuing these implies potentiallywill be affectedby considerationsof such dedicationto intellectualrigor. A partof anthropol- traditions,for purposesof this discussionarchaeol- ogy, archaeologyalso is one of thehistorical sciences ogy is privilegedwhen confrontedby incompatible as that termhas been defined to include the simul- oraltraditions, ethnographic, linguistic, or any other taneous considerationof nonrecurrentor "contin- informationunless they can be shownsingly or in con- gent"phenomena (as in the evolutionof Mammuthus cert to enjoy preponderantweight. Of course, pre- primigenius,the foundingof the League of the Iro- ferredanswers to culturalhistorical questions such quois, the Battle of the Little Big Horn) and the as archaeologyaddresses lie at the point of conver- "immanent"or recurringand unchanging properties gence of multipleindependent evidentiary lines. But inherentin the physical universe (such as isotopic shortof thatideal, researchers must provisionally go half-lives,universal constants of erosion,the unidi- wherethe predominantevidence and most parsimo- rectionalityof time)(see Simpson1963:121-122 for nious explanationslead, bestowinggreatest trust on a concise, classic statement).The enablingassump- those groundsthey know best. tions for archaeologyas a componentof the scien- Howevermuch one may agree or disagreewith tific enterpriseare those of anyscience. They include LeslieWhite's conclusion that culture historical stud- theexistence of a realworld independent of observers ies "maywell be countedas the most substantialand regardlessof how we construewhat we apprehend; illuminatingachievements of culturalanthropology" the convictionthat thatworld is in principleknow- (1966:36),it wouldbe improperto surmisethat such able, at least withinthe limitationsof ourbiological studiesare the only subjectof interestto archaeolo- andcultural endowment; that it is sufficientlyorderly gists. Nevertheless, the following exposition is to have permittedthe growthof testableknowledge, focused on one aspect of just that:specifically, the knowledge that builds on itself (even by paradigm

Ronald J. Mason * Departmentof Anthropology,Lawrence University, Appleton, WI 54912-0599

AmericanAntiquity, 65(2), 2000, pp. 239-266 Copyright? 2000 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

239 240 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 shifts)and facilitates the posing andinvestigation of believe or disbelieve what they will. Centrallyper- questionspreviously beyond imagining; and that the tinent to this discussion, however,and fair subject proceduresand findingsof all the sciences are ulti- for rebuttalis thepromulgation by some Indiancom- matelymutually compatible. They cohere. mentatorsand their allies in and outside academia Coherence-"consilience" in Edward 0. Wil- of the idea thatall knowledgeclaims deserve equal son's terminology(1998)-is the inspiration,moti- status.Encouraged by politicallyinterested but intel- vation,and Holy Grailof science. It is the glue, the lectuallyextrinsic agencies, such thoroughgoing rel- gravitationalfield attractingand holding together the ativists logically link the doctrine of intrinsic phenomenological kaleidoscope of the scientific equivalenceof culturallyrelative "ways of knowing" purview.It is mutualityof logic, backand forth intel- to appealsfor theirinclusion in the universalistpar- ligibility,adherence to canons of evidence, and the adigmof science, assuming,that is, they do not sim- searchfor anorderly whole by thereduction of seem- ply rejectthe latterentirely. ing disparityto the fewest numberof generalprin- Oraltradition is the facies of "traditionalknowl- ciples. It is demandingin its rigorand suspiciousof edge" concernedwith the preservation("reproduc- unsupported assertions. But such commitment tion"), presentation,and explanationof events in shouldnot be confusedwith a claim to omniscience. now (as of the time of telling) extinct generations. Science, especiallyin its historicalbranches, cannot In preliteratesocieties it is takenas testimonyof cul- affordthe hubrisof consigningto irrelevanceall that turaltenure, a transmittalof the essentialityof iden- is not immediatelyresolvable into its own terms. tity in a people's journey from ancestral to Distinguishingfact from fiction is seldom simple contemporarytimes. Except where captured in writ- where it counts. The often fine line separatingthe ing, as in journalsof explorationor ethnographers' two can be a taut line that trips the unwary.While notes, it exists only in living memoriesand is passed this shouldnot discourageventuring into foreignter- on verballywith or withoutsupporting ceremony or ritory,it is simply prudentto watch where and how otherprops. one steps. Especially is this so given some of the Among manyNative Americans, oral tradition is novelchallenges archaeology now faces.The ancient respected not only as a legitimate repository of compoundquestion "What do we know andhow do knowledge about the past but, especially when we know it?" has renewed salience today with the entwinedwith sacredor religiousbeliefs, as is more intrusion,invited or otherwise,of native and surro- often than not the case, as the sole, genuine, and gate voices in the conservationand "construction" invariantsource. So considered,it is not surprising of history.Previously muffled voices arenow ampli- that,whatever uses oral traditionsmay have in aid- fied and commandattention, and academicpurvey- ing archaeologistsin their work, archaeologyis of ors of "theWestern way of knowing"stand accused little or even no relevanceto Indianadherents of tra- of ethnocentrism. ditionalknowledge. As assertedby RogerAnyon et Although often used interchangeably,in this al., "Archaeologistsare interestedin learningabout essay, following Jan Vansina(1985), oral history the past. Native Americansare interestedin main- refersto the memoriesand recollections of the indi- taining the culturaltraditions they inheritedfrom viduals who experiencedor witnessed in theirown their ancestors who lived in the past" (1997:78, lives the eventsthey relate;its maximumtime depth 83-84). As those authorsalso point out, it is not is thusthat of the oldest survivingnarrator in the rel- invariablythe case thatall or even most Indianssee evant community. Oral traditions extend back no value in archaeology,but rather that archaeology beyondliving memoryand are believed by theirnar- and oraltraditions are separatecategories of knowl- ratorsto be more or less faithfulrenderings of the edge each appropriatein its own culturalcontext. olderhappenings to which they refer.Thus, they are Each " is simply anotherway of knowingthe past" not regardedas fictions or fairy tales. This essay (1997:84). In this compartmentalizationof knowl- examines both the ways native oral traditionshave edge claims, oral traditionis more impervious to beenused by archaeologistsand how theirfuture role archaeologicalimplications than vice versa.Archae- vis-a-vis archaeologyis being currentlydiscussed. ology's essentialrelevance, it appears,is its practi- Exceptas aboriginalknowledge-claims discordantly cal applicationin helping with Indianland claims, intrudewhere they do not belong, they areirrelevant waterrights, NAGPRA repatriation cases and, less to whatfollows. All people areor oughtto be free to importantly-unless directly supportive of those Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 241 concerns-in corroborationof oral tradition(see pies of such esteemmay be foundin Dongoskeet al. Swidler et al. 1997). (1997), Lurie (1960:802-804), Radin (1923), Schmidt and Patterson(1995), and Swidler et al. A Red Herring (1997). Itspolar opposite relegates the historical con- Requiringimmediate discard if real issues are to be tent of oral traditionto irrelevanceif not worthless- addressedin discussing the relationsof oral tradi- ness (e.g., Lowie 1915, 1917; Trigger1976:19-20; tion, traditionalknowledge, and archaeologyis the Tuchman1996 [butwith salientexceptions, mainly false but astonishinglydurable claim of only quasi- respectingoral history as distinctfrom "tradition"]). translatabilityamong languages.An exampleis the Most scholarly opinion is distributedsomewhere following assertionby Anyon et al. (1997:79): betweenthese opposites,less oftenrevealed in state- There is really no way to adequately translate ments of explicit allegianceto a generaltheoretical and interpret into English, for example, how programthan expediently injected in the contextof Zuni observationslead to conclusions about the a specific problem (e.g., Brumbachand Jarvenpa world. English simply lacks the critical con- 1990;Clifton 1998:30; de Laguna1958,1972:24-29, cepts needed to characterize Zuni thought 286-288; Hickerson1988:32-33; Kehoeand Kehoe processes in this regard. 1959; Pendergastand Meighan 1959; Salzer 1993; This atavisticopinion is flatly contradictedby the Swanton 1915). Typical of this latter genre is an testimony of millions of fluent bilinguals and by openness to oral traditionsas employableindepen- mountainsof linguisticstudies that demonstrate that denthistorical data, but with cautionaryreservations anythingthat can be said can be said in any lan- abouthow they shouldbe used. guage.If a psycho-or sociolinguisticstatement is the Althoughnot focused on NorthAmerican prob- intentionof the authors,that is equallyindefensible. lems, excellent reviews of some of the recurring The philosopherNicholas Rescher (1997:30) rebuts issues raised in attributinghistoricity to oral tradi- this idea: tions and histories have been published by David Anthropologistsdo often say that a certain soci- Dunaway and Willa Baum (1996 [esp. Lynwood ety has a conception of rationalitythat is differ- Montell'sessay]); Jack Goody andIan Watt (1968); ent from ours. But that is literally nonsense. David Henige (1982); GregoryNagy (1996); and Those others can no more have a conception of JanVansina (1985). rationality that addresses an object different from ours, than they can have a conception of Reasonsfor Using Oral Traditionsin iron that addresses an object different from Archaeology:Precis ours, or a conception of elephants that addresses objects different from ours. If they The literatureon the uses of oraltraditions in archae- are to conceive of those particularthings at all, ological reconstructionsof the past commonlyoffer then their conception must substantially accord one or moreversions of one to sevenjustifying argu- with ours. Iron objects are by definition what we take them to be; "elephant"is our word and ments.While no singlepublication includes them all, elephant our conception. If you are not talking most makereference to morethan one as warrantfor about that, then you are not talking about ele- whateveris undertaken.That two of these species of phants at all. You have simply "changed the justificationmay reasonablybe consideredbut spe- subject,"and exited from the domain of the dis- cial cases or subsets of anotherwill be apparent. cussion (his italics). However,their repeated citing as if they were inde- Perceptions of Historical Veracity pendent of and additional to other reasons has in Oral Traditions promptedtheir separatelisting below. This catalog is distilledfrom many sources without,it is hoped, Evaluationsof the historicalveracity of folk or oral caricatureor over-simplification.It does not include traditionsvary, of course,among archaeologists, eth- suchintellectually extraneous reasons as stipulations nologists, folklorists,and historiansfrom high trust of governmentagencies and the rhetoricof political, to suspicionand even dismissal.At the high end of racial,or culturalassertiveness. Some of these,how- the spectrumof regard,oral traditionis grantedat ever,will necessarilymake an appearancein the fol- least equalitywith documentaryevidence or ethno- lowing discussion because of their increasing graphicor archaeologicaldata, however high or low salience in discussionsof the natureof the past and these may be thoughtto rate.A few specific exam- how it shouldbe representedor "produced." 242 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

The pertinentpro argumentsseem to reduce to Pro Argument#2. WhoShould Know Their Own the following: History as Wellas, Let Alone Better than, Those 1) Oraltradition is as valid as any otherkind of WhoMade It, Even If TheyNever Wroteit informationabout the pastand deserves equal status. Down? 2) Who shouldknow theirown historyas well as, let alonebetter, than those who madeit, even if they These two argumentssupporting the use of oral tra- neverwrote it down? ditionare intimately linked, often being conflatedin 3) Oraltraditions, being "emic"phenomena, are the same statementeven though they are mutually extraneouslyunchallengeable and must be accepted contradictory.(Different histories, as histories , are as independentinformation. equallyvalid or they arenot.) When studentsof cul- 4) Much of the past survives exclusively in the ture history endorse either or both of these views, spokenword. they have not thoroughlyconsidered their implica- 5) Verbaltraditions and Westernhistoriography tions, have ignoredthem and areuntroubled by log- access uniquely differentkinds of knowledge and ical incompatibility,or aresimply exercising a politic thus addressparallel realities, each as valid as the but emptyconcession of noblesse oblige. The latter, other. apt to be more consciously committed,is the more 6) Archaeology and oral traditionsoverlap and serious, being disingenuous with those who may supplyin theircombination a richerview of the past hold those propositionshonestly. It is certainlythe thaneither offers alone. case that either or both argumentsare taken seri- 7) Archaeology,a productof Westernciviliza- ously by many AmericanIndians, including some tion, is ethnocentricand must be balanced if not who work as archaeologists,much of the general replacedby "alternativehistories." public, as well as by contributorsto the historiogra- phy of the "anti-colonial"and "anti-neocolonial Reasonsfor Not Using Oral Traditionsin libraries"(e.g., Martin1987; Schmidtand Patterson Archaeology:Precis 1995;Swidler et al. 1997).The declarationof at least The case against employing oral traditionsin the equal validityof oral and scientificallybased histo- practiceof archaeologyweakens if it does not inval- ries, while usually qualifiedby context or amend- idateeach of the foregoingarguments. Additionally, ment, also has been baldly endorsed without less simply reactivedisapprobation appears in one modifications,as the following examplesshow. or anotherversion of the following four con asser- Roger Anyon and his coauthorsgive clear sup- tions,either alone or in some combination.These dis- portto these two relatedpropositions, decrying any till into the following: implication". . . thatoral traditions are less validthan 1) Dependenton memory and verbal transmis- scientifically based knowledge"(1997:84). Main- sion, oral traditionsare simply not trustworthy. taining that "oral traditionscontain culturalinfor- 2) The genre by its natureis more an artifactof mationabout the past [includingwhat they call 'real contemporaryculture than a recordof the past. history'],carefully preserved and handed down from 3) Oral traditions are closed belief systems, generationto generationwithin a tribe"(Anyon et beholden to authorityand impervious to external al. 1997:78),they concludethat each kindof knowl- challenge. edge (scientificarchaeology and oral tradition)". . . 4) All or partsof oral traditionsmay be consid- is simply anotherway of knowing the past."How- eredsacred, only partlyor not at all accessibleto out- ever,expounding one variationon a themecommon siders;guardians of such lore determinewhat may in the writings of proponentsof this position, they be releasedand how it may be used. introduce the not un-important qualifier ". . . oral tra- ditions can transcend scientific knowledge with Discussion of the Pro Arguments respectto culturalheritage" (Anyon et al. 1997:84). The equal validityof these two "ways of knowing" Pro #1. Oral TraditionIs Just as Valid Argument is thus compromisedand turns out to be less than as Other Kind about the Past Any of Information universal,with science occupyingthe inferiorposi- and Deserves Equal Status. tion. Withinwhatever limits may sometimesbe set Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 243

on epistemologicalequality, as in the previousquo- of information")the modem Hopi and Zuni tribes tation, the seriousnessof adherenceto the funda- knowthat they may ". . . claimcultural affiliation with mentalpostulate is difficultto mistake.This is even theMogollon, Hohokam, Salado, Fremont, and other (especially?)true where, through error or misrepre- archaeologicalcultures" (Dongoske et al. 1997:605) sentation,supporters of thisview claimto findappro- and that ". . . Zuni and Hopi ancestors in the ancient bation where critical examination of contending past. . traversed,lived in, and buried their dead views is in fact intended(Ferguson et al. 1997:250, throughoutalmost all of present-dayNew Mexico, misquotingStephen Shennan 1989:2 [1994:2]). Arizona, and portions of Colorado, Utah, and One cannotobject, obviously, to the specialpriv- Nevada"(1997:606). Furthermore,"much of what ilege of transcendencegranted oral traditionover definescultural or ethnicidentity is containedwithin scientificknowledge by Anyon andhis coauthorsas the historyof the membersof that [a NativeAmeri- long as "culturalheritage" remainsthe referential can] culture,and members of the tribesare in a good context.Analogously, Biblical literalistscannot be position to identify the traitsthat are used for self- expected to reject their commitment in order to identification"(1997:606). accommodatea discordantscientific worldview. But This last statementis one of manyto be found in yielding to the "culturalheritage" qualifier makes the literaturelinking the autonomyof andhigh con- nonsenseof those sameauthors' outrage that archae- fidencein oraltradition to theunique value to be seen ologists do not treat the two kinds of knowledge in the self-knowledgeinvoked in the second argu- equallyand do not consideroral tradition an integral ment. Thereis intuitiveappeal in the notion thatno component of scientific history, presumably on one can know the historyof a people betterthan the somethinglike an equalfooting with stratigraphyor people who made it (of course,it was the ancestors radiocarbondating. These authorscollided with a of the people who claim to know theirown history logical brickwall anddidn't know it, althoughother who made it; the claimantsdidn't). wreckage at the same place should have warned Threequarters of a centuryago RobertH. Lowie, them. invoking a distinctionbetween history and stories Eithera triflemore cautious or simplymore con- aboutthe past, dismissedthis claim, concluding: fused, some of the contributorsto the volume The ... I have a very strong suspicion that lurking AmericanIndian and the Problemof History(Mar- behind the readiness to accept primitive for real tin 1987) hit the same obstacle.Thus, Calvin Mar- history is the naive unconscious assumption tin, while seeming to argue,albeit opaquely, for the that somehow it is no more than fair to suppose desirability of combining Indian and "white" that people know best about themselves. This assumption, of course, need only be brought up (Euroamerican,Western) versions of Indianhistory, into consciousness to stand revealed in its mon- damns the latter for intellectual imperialism (the strous nakedness. The psychologist does not Westernscholar ". . . colonizes the Indian'smind, ask his victim [sic] for his reaction-time, but like a virus commandeering the cell's genetic subjects him to experimental conditions that machinery"[Martin 1987:6]) and builds a wall into render the required determinationpossible.... How can the historian beguile himself into the which he then runs: belief that he need only question the natives of . . . the two core philosophies [of Indian and a tribe to get at its history? (Lowie 1917:163). Westernhistory and almosteverything else] in operationhere, the biological [Indian!]and Nevertheless,to repeata crucialpoint made ear- anthropological["white"!] , are fundamentally lier, a sensitive issue is ethnocentricsovereignty: antagonisticand irreconcilable,at least as "we"Zunis, Cheyennes, Mohawks, whomsoever, by presentlypracticed. There are two very differ- ent cosmic errands being carried out here rightof heritageare in a positionto knowmore about (Martin1987:9; my brackets). ourselvesand the historythat produced us thancan be knownto orbe legitimatelysubstituted for by out- Some of the same enthusiasmfor incompatibili- siders. Thus, Russell Handsmanand TrudieRich- ties is exhibitedby KurtDongoske and his coauthors mond, championing ".. . everyone committed to (1997). They claim that somehow (apparently buildingmore open, culturallydemocratic commu- because"it is religiousleaders who maintainthis type nities,"seek to construct"counterhistories" that are 244 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 much more sympatheticto oral traditionsthan has sociallyintrospective or intra-societally private pro- been the case with "colonialistpractices" (practices duction,vs. anobjective or inter-societally,publically that are said to include most contemporaryarchae- accessible,knowledge claim. The autonomyof such ology) that". . continueto marginalizeand misrep- histories is usually taken on culturallyrelativistic resent the lives and experiencesof Indianpeople" grounds as an ethnographicgiven, regardless of (1995:90-91). Archaeologistsmust, in the wordsof whatever evidence may be adduced of alteration some others,"respect the valuesof oraltraditions in throughgenerational transmission or via diffusionof ways that do not demean either [its or scientific] elementsfrom othersocieties. As a self-portraitof a approach[es]to understandingthe past"(Anyon et particularsociety's history, the received account must al. 1997:85). be evaluatedon its own terms;it is no more to be Of course,people areentitled to theirbeliefs and challengedthan is that society's kinship system or ought not be belittled for them. But just as those cosmology. Studentsof culturehave to acceptwhat raisedin andparticipating in a social world ordered they find, whatevertheir personal disbelief, and try by a pre-scientificmetaphysics are not to be required to understandwhat they have learned both as a unique to jettisontheir beliefs for those of scientists,unless phenomenonand as an instanceof a class of similar they presume to work at science, so are the latter phenomena.That the people being studiedmay not relievedof analogousconstraints. When incompat- agree with whateverinterpretations or conclusions ible statementsare made or positions taken on the arereached in no way commitseither them to change basis of those quite disparate"ways of knowing," theirways or the observerto apologizefor the sense mutual respect and tolerance are simply humane made of his or her observations. accommodations.But this does not license import- Proclamationsof independenceof oral tradition ing folk beliefs into scientific discourse any more and the natureof its relationshipto archaeologyare than mandatingits reverse. Such mutualproscrip- straightforwardlypromulgated in a numberof the tions do not therebyimply epistemologicalequiva- essays published in the influentialvolume Native lence in eitherthe reliabilityof factualclaims or the AmericansandArchaeologists (Swidler et al. 1997). meansby whichthey are attained, but simply respect A few excerptsfrom one of the more trenchantof for the inviolabilityof whatsome would liken to the those essays, the earliercited work of RogerAnyon rulesof differentgames. But seekingthe past is more et al. (1997), exemplifythis point of view: thangames or gamesmanship,otherwise who would ... the utility of archaeology to enhance Native care? American oral tradition in traditional cultural contexts is limited and often irrelevant(p. 78). Pro Argument#3. Oral Traditions,Being "Emic" Phenomena,Are ExtraneouslyUnchallengeable While oral tradition can be very illuminating little and Must Be Accepted as Independent for archaeologists, most archaeology has meaning to Indians as a way to enhance oral tra- Information. dition itself within a traditionalcultural context The "emic" perspective, of course, proffers the (p. 80). "insider's"view: presumablyhistory as it was lived [An archaeological site in New Mexico]. . is by its participants,not as viewed by outside com- also illustrative of the relevance of oral tradition mentators.But as alreadynoted, except for the imme- to archaeology but the lack of relevance of archaeology to the oral traditionitself (p. 81). diate past, the provinceof what we are calling oral history,all of theoral traditions perpetuated inAmer- The Zuni, however, have made no use of the ican Indiansocieties are in fact contemporarycom- archaeology to corroboratetheir oral traditions. It simply is not necessary because archaeology mentarieson ancestralactions. It is not the ancestors has no relevance in this aspect of Zuni oral tra- who speak but their progeny.Nevertheless, propo- dition (p. 82). nents of this third argumentclaim unique insights derivableonly throughenculturation in and accep- In the present world of governmentallyfunded tance of the values andbelief system of the particu- archaeological practice, the ground-shiftingper- lar society whose historyis at issue. Thathistory is spectivereflected in declarationslike thosejust cited unassailableexcept within the historiographythat was translatedinto operationalimperatives when the produced it, being a subjective, in the sense of NativeAmerican Graves Protection and Repatriation Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 245

Act of 1990 (NAGPRA)came into existence.How- guistic, ethnographic,and physical anthropological ever,being the product of a politicalact, not theresult evidence always limited and often ambiguous,how of scientificlogic, thatlegislation, however puissant can oral tradition'sposition as sometimes the lone it proves to be, is irrelevantto the epistemological gateway to the past be challenged?Indeed, it can- focus of the presentessay. not, and Lowie himself did not. He admittedthe But returningto the argumentof oral tradition obvious and then argued,in effect, "So what?" autonomy,including also the frequentlyinferred or We cannot know them [oral traditions] to be even explicitly expressedaddendum asserting rele- true except on the basis of extraneous evidence, vanceto scientificculture history, the problem of con- and in that case they are superfluous since the necting the two becomes salient. Leaving aside linguistic, ethnological, or archeological data gratuitousremarks about the racismof theAmerican suffice to establish the conclusions in question. When linguistic comparison has proved the academiccommunity and the chargethat its mem- close affinity of Crow and Hidatsa, the tradition bers recoil from dealing with complexity, Roger of a common origin shared by the tribes speak- Echo-Hawkmakes this point in his chapterin Swi- ing those languages does not lend to the result dleret al. (1997). How andto whatdegree autochtho- one iota of additional certainty. Where "other nous oraltraditions can or shouldbe conjoinedwith data" are lacking, the use of the oral traditions for historical reconstructionmust be discounte- archaeologicaldata is an issue revisitedin the fol- nanced as a matter of obvious methodological lowingsections of thisexercise. The necessary corol- caution. We cannot safely reject as mythical laryof thethesis of oraltradition autonomy is thesame that part of a traditionwhich conflicts with our statusfor scientifichistory, whether based on docu- conception of physical possibility and retain the mentary,archaeological, ethnological, linguistic, or remainderas correct (Lowie 1915:598). biological data. This corollary authorizes,indeed While folk or oral traditionsmust be acknowl- mandates,the scientistto employoral traditions only edged as all thereis to representimportant pieces of if, when, andas they seem useful andare compatible the past, whether reliably or not, they command with the tenetsof scientifichistoriography. respectand attention as humandocuments. Further- more, as ethnographicdata they reveal invaluable Pro #4. of Argument Much the Past Survives insights into aspects of a people's psychology,val- Exclusively in the Spoken Word. ues, social structure,cosmology, etc. But Lowie's In many places, for many times, for many kinds of uncompromisingstance with respectto their status questions, oral traditionis all there is. Is it to be as history(in the modemWestern sense of thatterm) ignored because it stands alone? Yes, was Robert is difficult to refute, however indelicate-indeed Lowie's forthrightanswer to thatquestion when he offensive-it may appearto present-daysensitivities. declared,much to the objectionsof RolandB. Dixon His 1917paper in TheJournal ofAmerican Folk-Lore (1915) and John R. Swanton(1915), " .. .1 cannot is a commandingpiece of work and deserves to be attachto oraltraditions any historicalvalue whatso- readby contemporarystudents of folklore, history, ever under any conditions whatsoever" (Lowie and anthropology.In it he asked and answeredthis 1915:598).At the end of his essay, he retreatedjust question: sufficientlyto state: If we do not accept aboriginalpathology as con- The utmostI am able to concede is that a tradi- tributionsto our pathology, if we do not accept tion referringto the remotepast may furnisha start- aboriginal astronomy,biology, or physics, why ing-point for linguistic, archeological, or other should we place primitive history alone on a investigations;but our knowledgeof native history quite exceptional pedestal, and exalt it to a rank co-ordinate with that of our own historical sci- will in the end dependwholly on the resultof these ence? (Lowie 1917:162) inquiries(Lowie 1915:599). Thatfor much of antiquityoral traditionsare all But still, we mightask, in the absenceof anything we have is self-evident.The statementis inarguable. else, may we not provisionallyaccept all or partsof With writing absent north of Mesoamerica until oral traditionsuntil such time-if ever-as they are introducedby Europeans,with even a rich archaeo- refuted by a more compelling type of testimony? logical recorddumb in prodigiousdimensions, and And if more than one traditiontells the same tale, with the historicalinsights and implicationsof lin- does not that agreementconfer authenticityto the 246 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

account and, by extension, to the genre itself? intelligibility. This dire conclusion is weakened, Responding to these queries raises others. How however,by the fact that the argumentseems to be detailedor vague are the "histories"with respectto deployedmore as strategythan principle and is more actors,roles, storyline, temporalperspective, place? honoredin the breachthan in practice.Taken as less To what degreecan the independenceof seemingly uncompromisingthan presented, at least one chink corroboratingtraditions be established?And how? in the armorof disputationis discernible. How matter-of-fact as opposed to symbolically Whetherstrictly or loosely adheredto, pro argu- embellishedare they? These areknotty questions, of ment #5 may be seen as a re-wordedcomposite of course, the answersto which are contingenton the the firstfour affirmative arguments, especially of #3 particularcases. Even willingness to considersuch which grapples with the issue of the "emic"per- questions invites considerationof the theoretical spective.It is indeedthat, but it also appearsto cap- admissibilityof oral traditionsas potentialsources ture a furthernuance, even an additionalmeaning, of informationfor scientificstudies. However, even that I think is easier to detect in their combination a historiographermore open to the possibility than thanin anyone of thoseprevious four arguments con- Lowie has had to concludethat sidered separately.That added meaning, if I am ... one of the historian'smost difficultprob- detectingit aright,is not uniqueto NativeAmerican lems is thatoral evidencechanges impercepti- or any otheroral traditionbut is familiarin Western bly as time passes. . . .a principle of natural historiographyas well. It emerges in Roger Echo- selectiontends to operate,by whichthose tradi- Hawk's caution on oral tradition"historicity" (see tions thatare best able to outlivechanging cir- below);in DorothyLippert's inquiry, "but isn't there cumstancesare those that exist today.But, as withplants and animals, surviving requires that a sense of wantingto connectwith the ancientpeo- they adaptto whateverchanges they encounter. ples thatdrew all of us into this [archaeological]pro- However reluctantly,we must assume that fession?" and her lament, "It seems to me to be manycontemporary versions of traditionsare to dangerousto define a past that does not possess a some extent the debrisof an obliteratedpast, humansoul" (1997:123); in PatriciaO'Brien's com- the resultof its mentallandscape being repeat- edly exposed to weathering, its shapes plaint that "Toomany studies not only do not deal depositedin secondarypatterns and shifting with women in the archeologicalrecord, they do not with the wind. Inevitably,many traditions can- deal with men nor even withpeople" (1990:62, her notbe regardedas historicalfact. Accepting this italics); LynwoodMontell's sympatheticrecording will be hardestwhen thereis nowhereelse to of culturalhistorians and folklorists expressing con- turn,but this is a pity ratherthan an argument (Henige1982:4-5). cernabout 'jeopardizing consideration of thehuman element in history"(1996:180); Joan Gero's self- I might well have quoted Bahr (1998a), Goody answeringquestion "Are we [archaeologists]really andWatt (1968), Montell(1996), orVansina(1985), tryingto reduce... .theamount of prehistorichuman amongothers, who have employedoral traditions in consciousness that accounts for what we observe, theirown research,to the same effect. A largecom- eager to eliminatehuman agency altogether,to get ponent of the problem reduces to the question an automaticcorrespondence between actions car- "Whichoral history?Whose version?"In JamesA. ried out in prehistorictime andphysical evidence?" Clifton'spithy observation, "Today's tradition often (1990:115-116); and,to implicatemyself as well, in enough is last year's novelty"(1998:30). my own sometime glimpse of ghosts amidst the debrisof extinctcommunities even thoughI thinkI Pro #5. Traditionsand Argument Verbal Western know where they properly reside (e.g., Mason Access Kinds Historiography UniquelyDifferent 1981:109). and ThusAddress Parallel of Knowledge While the authorsI have quotedwere addressing Each as Validas the Other Realities, a varietyof problems,I do not believe I do them an At face value, this could be takenas such a declara- injusticeby linkingtheir words to a common,but not tion of incommensurabilityas to vitiate any mean- commonlyvoiced, sense of a lingeringdeficiency in ingful dialog between proponents of the two what it is those of us engaged in archaeologythink epistemologies.Attempts at communication,even if we know aboutthe past, a deficiencyforeign to oral initiated,would immediatelyfail for lack of mutual tradition.True enough, pro argument#5 assertsthat Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 247

the two "ways of knowing"manifested in oral tra- prisoners"usurpation of receivedwisdom by an abra- ditions on one handand scientificor Westernhisto- sively foreign creed, one thatdisallows the recalci- riographyon the otherare mutually independent and trant into its mysteries and demands that native equallyvalid pathways to the past. (At this pointthe potentialinitiates be intellectuallyborn again. One objectionmay be raised that neitherof these actu- does not have to accept oral traditions,nor be reli- ally gets at the past-that we really have no way of giously inclined, to empathize with those in this getting on to that braidedor multi-strandtrail fol- predicament.And the scientistmay empathize,too, lowed by thepeople themselves who livedin thepast perhapshaving experienced in his or herown life the andexperienced it as the present.There is no way to same or similardilemma. This is the fate all must resurrectthe engagedimmediacy of what they were risk who would "live the examinedlife." And those about,no matterthe pretensionsof archaeologistsor who choose it mustnot recoil from the consequences even lineal descendantsto "speak"for extinct gen- of such an examination.Nothing is gained but that erations.)The "two [accessible]ways of knowing," somethingis lost. if we accept the dichotomy,would seem to unlock Still, therelingers a sense widely sharedby sci- differentdoors, each opening onto disparate"reali- entists and non-scientistsalike thatmore is present ties"-unique ontological realms requiring non- at an archaeologicalsite thanphysical remains. Put interchangeable intellectual (and emotional) anotherway, many people bringmore thanclinical equipmentto explore. curiosityto suchplaces. Anyone who has lookedhas Partof the "equipment"required to negotiatethe seen it among museum-goersand visitorsto histor- realmof a sovereignoral tradition, but prohibited in ical and archaeologicalsites: a desire, even a need, the scientific,is religiousbelief: to see with one's own eyes whathas previouslybeen . . . scholars are hesitant to defer to Indian known only vicariouslyand, moreover,if possible, experts on oral traditions since most such to physically touch. As a Civil Warbuff, I reacted experts are religious leaders who emphasize the more thanintellectually when I firstsaw the Gettys- spiritual aspects of oral traditionsand who typ- burgbattlefield. Emotions are engaged as well as the ically see academic analysis as inappropriate.A religious approach accepts oral texts as the intellect in encounterswith the past, and cannotbe source of holistic truths rather than as docu- totally divorced.But whereas they need not be by ments that require evaluation for historicity, . those whose principalinterest is " . . . in maintain- (Echo-Hawk 1997:89). ing the culturaltraditions they inheritedfrom their It would appearthat for many adherentsof tradi- ancestors. . ." (Anyon et al. 1997:83-84), it is the tional knowledgethe scientificproscription of reli- dutyof scientists,as scientists,to disentangleas rig- gious beliefs in reconstructionsof culturalhistory is orouslyas possibletheir effects. However much emo- a fundamentalflaw. While in seculardiscourse, as tion is spurto motivationand a rewardof research, just seen, the flaw residesin the seeming absenceof it is a potentiallytreacherous companion in the exer- humanimmediacy. Whatever their differences, both cise of reason. perspectivesrecoil before pictures of the past that Intellectually,everybody knows thatpeople now seem to show abstract,reified cultures and naked faceless and nameless once inhabited the places environmentalforces mechanically grinding out his- identifiedas archaeologicalsites andthat those for- tories, with people almost a byproduct.With such mer inhabitantsonce hadbeen real flesh-and-blood concerns,elucidating the past with the canonsof sci- men and women and childrenjust like themselves, entificmethodology alone can be seen as hittingthe howeverdifferent in particularities.But more com- targetbut missing the point. What seems to somepeo- pelling thanthis is thefeeling thatthe formerinhab- ple as a denialof humanagency in historyis a highly itants somehow linger in their works to remind debatablecharge, of course, but it is not one to be visitors of the indispensabilityof people, however lightly dismissed. For people who have long taken much the strangersfocus on potsherds,biface-uni- theirhistory from traditionalistnarrators, the threat face ratios,sociocultural systematics, law-like gen- to venerablecertainties and the self-identifications eralizations, and so on. It is a mystical feeling, they supportunderstandably invite defensive reac- undoubtedly,but one not in oppositionto or in defi- tions. This must be especially so when the people ance of a commitmentto rationality.This is knowl- affectedperceive the new dispensationas a "takeno edge with an emotionalimpact, with an immediacy 248 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 that thrills and humbles.Although hesitantlypub- Pro Argument #6. Archaeology and Oral licly voiced, it is, I think,a not uncommon,if fleet- Traditions Overlap and Supply in Their ing, partof archaeologicalexperience. These were Combination a Richer View of the Past than not, after all, amoebas who built the ruins and Either Offers Alone. droppedthe detritusmodems now contemplate,nor were they space aliens. They were our kind, our This thesis differs from the foregoing in positing species, of our evolutionarylineage. We, the visi- enough common groundto make each historiogra- tors, reachout hoping to touch them and,believing phy potentially relevant to the other. It thereby that in some sense we have, we discover our com- relaxes, if ever so slightly, the stricturesof thor- monality. We can look into the bony faces of oughgoingcultural relativism, the armorof oraltra- unearthedskeletons and, like Hamlet, see our own dition underthe termsof pro arguments#3 and #5. mortality. Scientist, humanist, butcher, baker, It now admitssome vulnerabilityof traditionalhis- microchipmaker, we can see and come away from toryto externalcritique and offers the hope of richer such a site anywherein the world andknow thatwe views of the past throughcollaboration rather than have had an encounterwith our own, more ancient intransigentco-existence. Still, that collaboration selves. involves traffic along a predominantly one-way The claim of mutualindependence of two "ways street. of knowing" about the past, one reliant on verbal The inequalityof the potentialmutual relevance traditionsand faith, the other on empiricism and alludedto above is of a decidedly differentnature, logical argument,is a fact. The furtherrequisition of course,as viewed fromthe two sides.The archae- of different "realities"correspondingly unlocked ologist, trainedin the philosophyand procedures of by those methods is anothermatter, one dependant science, is obligatedto follow whereempirical data, on how "realities"is to be defined, whether sim- logicalthinking, and ever-evolving questioning seem ply as artifactsgenerated out of antecedent"know- to lead. The same is not true of the guardiansand ing" or as that which precedes, is independentof, transmittersof traditionalhistory, where, a priori, and is revealedby the accretionallessons of learn- what has been acceptedas truthfrom generationto ing how to know. In the first case, argument is generation is largely immune from critical ques- pointless because communication is impossible. tioning, thoughnot from change. The fact that sci- The second scenariois precludedby contradiction ence in the form of archaeology and physical (therecan be, by definition, but one reality). What anthropologyis occasionally conceded the ability, remainsare knowledge claims, of which only one minimallyand peripherally, to addnew information of the two sets invites externalverification or dis- to whatoral tradition has previously offered its adher- crediting. ents is inescapablyan admissionof some inadequa- This is a simplifiedrendition of a more compli- cies, though not necessarily errors, in received cated situation, of course. There is a good bit of wisdom.In short,many American Indian spokesmen empiricismand logical thinkingin oral traditional for oraltraditions now acceptthat scientific evidence history,and the realmof scientific archaeologyand can be useful in adding informationwhere tradi- historiographysupplies ample testimony to the uni- tional knowledge is either silent or safely ambigu- versalhuman capacity to live with compartmental- ous. Public acknowledgmentthat oral traditionsare ized contradictionsand even morecomfortably with open to correctionthrough scientific evidence, how- ambiguity.There is leakage between these modal- ever, is extremely rare. The prevailingview is as ities, and each is not as impermeableas might at quotedbelow. first seem. The genuine contrastsare in degrees of Echo-Hawk [in his chapter in the same book potential and actual openness to correction by from which this quotation is taken] is right appeal not to authoritybut to evidence and rigor- when he says that the successful integration of ous argument.If little of the latteris allowed, then oral traditions with information from archaeol- both "histories"must go their own ways, never to ogy and physical anthropologyhas great poten- tial for reshaping the academic construction of converge.And thatwould be a pity. If testing is not ancient human history. From a scholarly per- proscribed,then the groundis preparedfor the next spective, the combination of human osteology, affirmativeargument. archaeology, and Native American oral tradi- Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 249

tions will yield a more complete understanding with sometimes wholly unanticipatedclasses of of the past than can be gained by using any one information,information sufficiently different from of those sources by itself (Ferguson et al. 1997:241, italics mine). (See also the congru- what archaeologistshave been trainedto expect as ous quotationspreviously listed under pro argu- to cause them to wonder " . . . what was the real ment #3.) 'folklore,'our informants'concept of the world or our anthropologicalvision of reality?"(Brumbach Whereasgenuine reciprocity in the acceptanceof and Jarvenpa1990:4 1). Otherexamples of a com- information between the two kinds of histories patible nature include archaeologists calling on remainsthe exception ratherthan the rule, interest native informants,either directly or via records of in usingoral traditions as independentsources of data oral accounts in ethnographiesor historicaldocu- bearingon the pastis lively in contemporaryarchae- ments, for what they can say about times equally ology and anthropologyand has a long tenure(for recent or as remote as severalcenturies ago, assays some early perspectives,see the exchange among of reliabilitynormally decaying as temporalclaims Lowie (1915, 1917),Swanton (1915), Dixon (1915), increase.Such exercises may providethe archaeol- and Goldenweiser(1915). As indicatedin a preced- ogist with local place names, informationpertinent ing partof thisessay, that interest runs the gamut from to site functions(memorials, for instance,or shrines considerationbut rejection throughlip service to not recognizablefrom physical traces),names and seriousand sustainedcommitment. attributesof historicalor mythicalpersonalities and Probablya heftymajority of archaeologiststoday deities associatedin nativeconsciousness with par- would be willing to go at least as far as Hickerson ticularplaces, recitationsof mundaneas well as fab- (1988:32-33) or Clifton (1998:30) in crediting ulous events not documented in writing, helpful "memoryethnography," "migration legends," and suggestionsregarding puzzling site features,possi- "traditionalhistory" as having some potentialhis- ble stipulations of certain artifact functions and torical usefulness-more so as they relate to rela- meanings not otherwise likely to be knowable to tively recent time-and if used with caution. Such archaeologists,and attributionsof things or places accounts are even more acceptable, of course, if to specific clans,medicine modalities, or ceremonies compatible with other independentdata. In fact, (see the essays in Swidler et al. 1997 for represen- many scholars are preparedto grantcredence to a tativecases). A reasonableexpectation should be that considerablywider applicabilitythan that endorsed particularinstances of any of theseputatively expert in this "minimalist"position. That wider applica- attestationsmay diverge radically from others in bility may embracenot only a willingness to extend difficulty of assimilation into the paradigm of the time depthinto which, it is claimed, oral tradi- archaeological inquiry. It is incumbent on the tion can throwlight, it can add detail and facilitate researcher,of course, to receive these solicited or a fuller,richer, and more humane appreciation of the profferedopinions with a willingness to learnfrom past than is possible by use of conventionalscien- them, but also with polite cautionand a determina- tific methodsalone. "Easy"examples, that is, those tion to distill from them only and whateveris sus- unlikely to be challengedwithout fairly substantial ceptibleto independentverification or falsification. contradictoryevidence, range from interviewswith As oral traditionsclaim to descend from more old native informantswho plausibly claimed first- remotegenerations or to issue from a timeless past, hand knowledge of the origin and meaning of cer- they correspondinglyrelinquish much or even all of tain boulder effigies or petroforms made by whateverhistorical value researchers may be inclined BlackfootIndians in the late nineteenthcentury and, to grantother members of the genrereflective of the by extension, second-handaccounts of similarfea- recent past. Historicalmemory inescapably erodes tures attributedto the Crow, Mandan, and Sioux overtime and its credibilitybecomes so degradedthat peoples in the same century-information other- the feasibilityof meaningfultesting is attenuatedto wise simplyunobtainable (Kehoe and Kehoe 1959), the vanishingpoint. What archaeologistsand histo- to the use of Cree and Chipewyanarchaeological rians continueto debate are the rate and degree of field crew memberswho had actuallybuilt or lived erosion and attenuation.Probably all studentshave in the campsor othersites ethnoarchaeologistswere theirown scales beyondwhich they areunwilling to studying,and were thus able to supply researchers go. Even so committeda reconcilerof the two gen- 250 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 res as J. M. Levi (1988) retains the distinction culture of the Yakutat Tlingit (de Laguna betweenmyth and history. 1972:24-29,286-288). She has since pointedout to Considerationof oral traditionallusions to tem- me thather 1958 articlewas an incidentalby-prod- porallyremote-even prehistoric-times is a daunt- uct of her largerresearch project (personal commu- ing andeven desirabletask, provided its undertaking nication).At issue here is how the estimationof the does no violence to the evidentialdemands of mod- ages of the legendaryevents was arrivedat. How em historiographicdiscipline. No one embarkedon independentof thegeological/radiocarbon study was this type of projectwill seriously consider as his- thatestimation? torical data the patentlyfabulous: claims of New The firstof thetwo relevantradiocarbon dates was Worldgenesis, for example, or undergroundtribal processedjust two yearsafter de Laguna'sfinal field originsor, in a refreshingchange, at least for me, the study and four years after her first, the geological absoluteassurance I once receivedfrom a self-iden- investigationsthat procuredthe samples for dating tifiedBritish Columbian tribal historian that her peo- overlappingwith hers. Given the geologists'desire to ple retain detailed "memories"of their ancestors informher of theirresults, it is evidentthey hadbeen crossing the Bering Straits. Indeed, something of in communicationregarding their separateresearch equalincredibility has recentlybeen publishedin an programs.The file report on thegeology is dated1957, academic journal and endorsed as genuine, if onlya yearbeforede Laguna'spublication. One would "messy,"history by a studentof Tsimshianoral tra- liketo knowhow definitive de Lagunathought her time ditionswho purportsto find evidenceof "precision" estimatesto be before the geological studies were in the recitationsof adawx ("epic")stories asserted completedand to whatextent-if at all- she was ret- to collectively span at least 10,000 years (Miller rospectively influenced, before finishing her own 1998). An "ethno-ethnohistory,"as the authorcalls paperfor publication,by the resultsof the then still his work,surrenders its criticalinvulnerability when youthfulbut prestigious authority of the radiocarbon offered as somethingelse additionalto its intrinsic method.These are questionsthat suggest some cau- natureand when randomodds and ends of decon- tionbefore accepting at face valuethe suggestedcon- textualizedgeological and archaeologicaldata are gruence of a folkloric relative sequence and an proferredas corroboration.Nevertheless, serious independentradiometric chronology. studieslaying claim to impressivetime depths,that is, beforefive or six generationsago, do come read- The Ancient Mukwitch in Utah ily to mind.The following selectionshave been cho- A much-citedstudy purportingto demonstratethe sen for criticalexamination because they areamong tenacity and reliabilityof oral traditionsextending the most frequentlycited and influentialexamples back at least a further350 years to before ca. A.D. of the genre. 1150 concerns modern Paiute Indians in southern Utah.David M. Pendergastand ClementW. Meighan Ice Movements at Yakutat Bay, Alaska (1959), while excavatingthe Paragonahsite in Utah, Fredericade Laguna(1958) has proposedthe con- reportbeing impressedby the compatibilityof con- cordance of Icy Bay-YakutatBay (northwestern temporarySouthern Paiute beliefs with archaeolog- Alaska panhandle)aboriginal traditions and radio- ical evidence of ancient incursions by Puebloid carbondated glaciological events extendingas far people into thatpart of the GreatBasin, people the backas approximatelyA.D. 1400. The concordance Paiutescalled Mukwitch.But the authors'impress- emergesin legends de Lagunacollected of episodes ibility is difficult to understandgiven the general of glacialmovements blocking and unblocking those characterof the alleged parallels(presence of pot- bays and openingnew land for settlement,her esti- tery,metates, pit houses, surfacestorage structures) mateof the likely age of those stories,and the radio- andtheir dismissal without comment of commingled carbon-datedgeological evidenceof ice movements error(the Mukwitchgrew no corn-only one infor- in thearea. This often-referenced paper unfortunately mantthought they did,they had knowledge of trains, lacks supportinginformation about the datingof the "they knew that white men were coming to their legends necessaryfor its criticalevaluation. This is land,"they had no baskets)and the fantastic(some likewisethe case for the extendedaccount later pub- of the Mukwitchturned to stone).A more mundane lished in her much broaderstudy of the historyand explanationof the correspondenceof Paiute tradi- Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 251

tions and the archaeology,and one invokingmuch sive age for Paiute historical memories, mention less necessityto suspenddisbelief, is to creditPaiute must be made of the famous publicationto which society with a less extravagantmemory and a greater they appealfor ancillarysupport. This is the report sensitivityto theircontemporary social andphysical on the uniquelate Pueblo II/earlyPueblo III burial environments.They had long exploredmuch of the excavatedat the Ridge Ruin site nearFlagstaff, Ari- terrainor knew people who had visited where they zona (McGregor1943). This incrediblyrich burial hadnot; surficial archaeological sites arecommonly of "a prominent old man of forty" (McGregor encounteredand the Paiutes knew the location of 1943:298), dated to the first quarterof the twelfth manyof them;collectors and archaeologists had been century, was accompaniedby numerous artifacts at work in southern Utah before Pendergastand McGregortook to be of a "ceremonial"nature. Some Meighan;all butone of the Paiuteinformants spoke of these artifactswere shown to severalHopi Indi- Englishand had long been in contactwith non-Indi- ans who thereuponnot only agreedwith the archae- ans;newspaper and magazine stories inevitably dif- ologist's"ceremonial" identification but felt thatthey fuse to even the illiterate; and BernardDeVoto's could specify the particularceremony they repre- jaundicedregard for thatstate notwithstanding, even sented,even giving local communitycognates for its Utah had and has local radionewscasts. name.All thisdespite the gapof eightcenturies inter- vening between the burial'sinterment and its exca- A Navajo-Hopi Drama vation and the fact of Hopi agreement that the In dramaticcontrast to the foregoing allegationsof ceremonyin question had ceased to be performed reliablememories surviving from the distantpast in about50 yearspreviously. McGregor was convinced Utahare the creativedisparities in oralaccounts sep- the Hopis knew what they were talkingabout when aratedby a mere 44 years regardinga known his- one of theirnumber hazarded a correctguess about toricalevent in Arizona(Vansina 1985:19-20). Two the approximategeographical provenience of the site versions of the event were publishedin 1892 and a from which the artifactscame. He was furthercon- thirdin 1936. The first two recordfirsthand ("oral vincedwhen threeof theirnumber successfully (and history")reminiscences of two Hopi survivorsof a independently)described other ceremonial items Navajoattack made on a partyof 10 Hopis as they they had not been shown but which they believed trekkedfrom FortDefiance to FirstMesa sometime shouldhave been foundwith the burial.These were in the period 1853-1856. Among the at least four not simplygeneric categories like potteryand arrow- Hopis killed was the village chief. The Hopis heads, but accuratelydescribed complex things: "a launcheda retaliatoryraid soon thereafter.Peace was clublike object with serratededges, a double-horn- then madebetween the two tribeswhen a boundary like object, and a cap with a point on the top" was establishedto separatethem. Althoughone of (McGregor1943:295-296). the two oralhistories is moredetailed than the other, Here, then, is a powerfulexample of analogical they are both in substantialagreement. reasoningbacked up andverified by successfulpre- The thirdversion of this story,that published in dictionfrom an incompletetest sample.It would be 1936, is no longer a personalnarrative but is a sec- difficultto arguethat it representssomething less than ondhandrendition-an "oraltradition," the original a continuityof symbolic culturalpractices, even if narratorsand participantsbeing dead. As Vansina specific points of meaningare likely to have under- pointsout, significant alterations to the"history" were gone some alterationduring those eight centuriesof made in the interim.Not least among them is the the ceremony'stenure. Like the significationof the mythologizingof the hostilitiesand the validationof fish or the cross in Christiansymbolism, the diag- the boundaryestablishment, and the gross exagger- nostic attributescritical to the Hopi exegesis of the ationof the personalqualities and role of one of the physicalvestiges of a prehistoricceremony depended orginalparticipants. A lot of inventiontook place in for their recognition on the survival of meaning the yearsbetween the historyand the tradition. linked to form. While not an example of historical narrative,the interpretationof the Ridge Ruin bur- Ridge Ruin: Symbols vs. Narrative "History" ial does testify to the longevityof aspectsof oraltra- But returningto the previousdiscussion of Pender- dition, in this case the conservation of certain gast andMeighan respecting their claims of impres- symbolic devices. And properlyused, that is a tool 252 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 not to be neglectedin any reconstructionof cultural internallyconsistent composite account can be con- history. structedfrom the recorded variants" (1989:156). (For some representativesamples see Bahr 1971, 1998a, Pursuing the Hohokam into History? 1998b; Fewkes 1912:42-52; Mason 1921; Russell Virtuallyevery textbookdealing with NorthAmer- 1908:206-242, 247-248, 272-282, 339-346.) ican Indians or archaeologyhighlights the South- In additionto the O'Odhamaccounts, some Hopi western culture area as the model of cultural clan migrationlegends hint at Hohokam ancestry. conservatism.Particularly in the case of the Pueblo Hopi potteryhas been recoveredfrom a numberof tribes,it is cited as such a paragonof continuitythat late Hohokam sites, and Teague (1993:444-452) archaeologistsworking here can be more confident mentionscertain other parallels that could supporta thanmost of those workingelsewhere in projecting connection.These include tales of a destructiveflood, ethnographicallyrecorded social structures,sym- sacrifice of children, and overthrowinga priestly bolic representations,religious beliefs, etc. into the hierarchy with resulting social disruption (see archaeologicalpast. Althoughthe degree to which below). A 1775 accountby the Franciscanmission- thisis trueis oftenexaggerated, the claimis not with- ary Pedro Font cited by Teague (1993:447, see out merit (e.g., Cordell 1997). Of pertinencein the Fewkes 1912:58-61) reports that the Gila River presentinstance is how faroral traditions in this area Pimas attributedthe Hohokamruins in their coun- maybe creditedwith genuine historical content. One tryto the Hopis.The Zunis also havebeen nominated of the most frequentlycited currentproponents of as participantsin the "Hohokammulti-ethnic for- historicalcredibility is Lynn Teague (1989, 1993). mation"(Shaul and Hill 1998:377,389-390; Teague She asserts: 1993:447-450). Now determiningwhatever mod- An earlierstudy (Teague 1989) presented a pre- erntribe(s) might be biologicallyor culturallyderiv- liminaryexploration of this issue. It was found ablein wholeor in partfrom the prehistoric Hohokam thatthe oralhistories [traditions] can be shown cultureis a problemessentially distinct from thatof to conformto the archaeologicalevidence to an appraisingthe historicityof the oraltraditions, even extentnot easily attributedto the construction thoughthe solutionof eitherproblem would be use- of an after-the-factexplanation for the presence of numerousruins throughout the region.These ful in addressingthe other.This criticaldistinction historiesreflect directknowledge of events in needs to be bornein mind. prehistoricArizona (Teague 1993:436, my The missionary'saccount mentioned above is one bracketsand italics). of the chief props for Teague'scontention that oral According to various renderingsof O'Odham traditions in the Southwest sometimes reveal a (TohonoO'Odham or PapagoandAkimel O'Odham chronological(chronometric, in this case) accuracy or Pima) oraltraditions (a) they arethe descendents that archaeologicalinvestigations later proved cor- of the people responsible for the prehistoric rect. Father Font, writing in October 1775 with Hohokamculture, (b) they arenot so descended,(c) respect to the aforementionedruins, simply men- theirancestors conquered the Hohokampeople, (d) tioned the suspiciouslyround figure of "some five they are descended from both the conqueredand hundredyears ago, accordingto the histories and theirconquerors, or (e) no mentionof the Hohokam scantynotices of it which exist and are given by the is madeat all (Bahr1971; Teague 1993). References Indians [Pimas]"(quoted in Teague 1993:441; see to warfareand conquestare attributesof the north- Fewkes 1912:59). Teague, subtractingthat figure ernO'Odham traditions, while theyare rare or absent from the date of the priest's writing,notes that the entirelyamong their southern brethren. As the fore- resultingdate of A.D. 1275 falls withinthe rangeof going suggests,O'Odham oral traditions bearing on thoseruins, particularly those of CasaGrande, attrib- their origin and relationship to the prehistoric utableto late (Civanophase) Hohokam. The several Hohokamculture are fairly numerous. They also are centuries of Civano phase occupations probably in whole or in parthighly convoluted;mutating in came to an end sometimebefore A.D. 1450 (Cordell length,consistency, and particulars; sometimes mis- 1997:200-202). At any rate, it is a virtualcertainty represented due to translation errors (Fewkes that the half-millenniumage estimate was that of 1912:42);and by theirnature inviting of competing FatherFont, not the Indians,and should not be taken interpretations.Teague herself has noted that "no literally.Neither the Pimas nor any other native group Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 253

in the Southwestreckoned time in thismanner or had tions is the informationthat some of the Hohokam the genealogicalcounts from which suchan age esti- settlements were protected by okatilla stockades mate might have been extrapolated.Teague's other (Teague1993:442), an architecturaldetail that would argumentsfor hercontention are drawn from certain nothave survived long enoughfor the historical Indi- O'Odhamoral traditionsand examinedin the con- ans to have seen them at the prehistoricsites. Fur- text of currentarchaeological information thought thermore,their occasional formerpresence is only to be supportiveof them. sometimes archaeologicallyinferable through soil The relevantstories are embedded in a worldhav- discolorationalignments. Suggesting that the pre- ing menwho growfeathers and turn into horrible rap- historicpresence of suchsimple and useful structures tors,game balls thatimpregnate girls andinduce the couldonly be knownto the O'Odhampeople because birthof monsters,whole societies subsistingin the of the veracity of the traditionsignores the fact of bowels of the earth,elites who turnthemselves into theirrecurrent construction into recency. rainbowsor flies and have the ability to darkenthe Furtherevidence of historicity,it is suggested,is landscapeby blowing chimney soot from the palm the story of a greatflood. There are more than one of theirhand, and so on. Played out in this world is of these, but one in particularis supposedto have a dramawhich, stripped of the fantastic, Teague been contemporaneouswith Elder Brother's war and believes is deserving of being called history the downfall of the Hohokamtowns. This flood is (1993:436). said to have followed hardon the heels of a severe Briefly, the pertinentnarrative begins with the drought.In some accountsthere was no flood, the adventures of the O'Odham culture hero Elder sacrificeof a child or childrenhaving successfully Brother,aka Montezuma(Mason 1921). This char- averted a threatened one (Bahr 1971:248-253; acterlived in one of the Hohokamtowns where he Mason 1921). However,Teague draws attentionto had a hardtime getting along with the power-elite regionalphysical studies (1993:443-444) thathave of thathierarchically organized society. He survived yielded evidence of a droughtended by significant severalassassination attempts and came backto life flooding at aboutA.D. 1358, a time within the age after several successful ones. By now thoroughly rangebut not coincidentwith the end of the Civano irritated,Elder Brotherset about raising an army, phase.Although compatible with some versions of recruitingmen from far and wide (including the the alleged events,this is in itself inconclusive,con- earth'sinterior). In what appearsto have been a pre- sideringthe competingversions of the traditionand historicblitzkrieg, Elder Brother and his forces suc- the fact thatmajor floods have recurredfrom earlier cessfully attackedand overwhelmedthe Hohokam prehistorictime into the modem era. towns on the Gila and Salt rivers,concentrating on Potentially the most compelling support for thosecontaining the great houses of prominentchiefs Teague'sendorsement of historicalaccuracy in some andreligious leaders, the controllersof the wind and portionsof those O'Odhamoral traditions she finds rain gods. Songs supposedly sung preceding the credible and indicative of "direct knowledge of attacks are reprintedin Teague (1993:441-442), events in prehistoricArizona" is theiridentification althoughthey areof courseimpervious to validation of the Hohokam archaeologicalsites that are the or falsification.That aside, the "rulers"of some of remains of the towns assaultedby Elder Brother. the assaultedcommunities are given names incor- "Thesettlements identified in the oraltraditions," she poratinga termtranslated as doctor.Teague cites an says, "arean archaeologicallyaccurate inventory of informantof JulianHayden, in an unpublishedman- the late Classicperiod platform mound sites along a uscript,who volunteeredthat all Hohokamvillages lengthy segment of the Gila River" (Teague had a doctoror medicine man (1993:443), a pretty 1993:440)-granting, thatis, a willingnessto extend safe but not especially enlighteningcross-cultural the benefit of doubt in certaincases. All 8 of these generalizationdependent neither on accessto history sites are culturally attributableto the Hohokam nor oraltradition. At one of the towns ElderBrother Civanophase even thoughother superficially simi- hadto contendagain, this time successfully,with no larearlier Hohokam sites arein the sameareas. There less than a fellow deity, one who had opposed him are approximately18 of the latterin the immediate since the creationof the world (Teague1993:442). vicinity of the warroute (Teague,personal commu- Anotheralleged sign of historicityin the tradi- nication).In the appendixin her 1989 publication, 254 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

Teague lists 10 settlements"encountered in Elder deployedarguments that compel seriousconsidera- Brother'sconquest" (1989:175-176). Summarizing tion. Even with the sometimesless thanpersuasive herinformation, it seemsthe O'Odham have supplied supportingevidence criticized earlier, the fact of names for two of those settlementsand for five of some concordanceof O'Odhamand archaeological theirleaders, the otherfive being unknownor con- site identificationscommands attention and invites troversial.She has indicatedas certainor probable furtherattempts at explanation. the locations of half of the towns, the othersbeing eitherunknown or uncertain.Dating Elder Brother's A Rock Art Story from Wisconsin warnear or at the end of the Civanophase-no later Conjoiningarchaeological data and an interpreta- thanA.D. 1450-indicates a gap of a good fourcen- tion of the rock art at the GottschallRockshelter in turiesbetween thatcampaign and the middle of the southwesternWisconsin, Robert J. Salzer (1987, nineteenthcentury and the earlydecades of the twen- 1993, 1997) maintains that he has been able to tieth when the oral traditionswere recorded.Even demonstrate" . . . thatat least some of the storiesof with the uncertaintiesjust reviewed,the survivalof the modern Winnebagopeople were being told a suchdetail in purelyverbal form over so long a period thousandyears ago" (1993:95). The "some"turns out of time is remarkable.Remarkable, that is, if the to be one, specifically that identifiedas the legend story is not purely mythical or is a garbledrepre- of Red Horn, or He Who WearsHuman Heads As sentation of events from a later time mistakenly Earrings, which, he says, " . . . has been passed on attributedto an earlier.Lacking space to considerthis by wordof mouthwith sufficientaccuracy to permit furtherhere, it must suffice to indicatethat one stu- a twentieth century archaeologistto identify that dent of O'Odham oral traditionshas in fact sug- story in the paintedfigures on the wall of a rock- gested two candidatesfor the latterpossibility: the shelter"(1993:95). This conclusion, if correct,would traumaof the Spanishentrada and the later impact be impressivetestimony to the potentialof verbally of the GhostDance (Bahr 1971). transmittedstories to survivein recognizableguise Recent linguistic studies either express opposi- for somethingon the orderof forty generations.If a tion to Teague'shistorical reading of the O'Odham legendcollected in the earlyyears of thepresent cen- traditions,at least with respectto theirimplications turyby ethnographers(in thisinstance by PaulRadin for languagehistory (Hale and Harris 1979) or,aside [1948] among the Winnebagoesand Alanson Skin- from proposinga northernhomeland for the Tepi- ner [1925] among the lowas) can indeed be shown man language stock, to which Upper Piman lan- to have existed a thousandyears earlier,may not guages belong, they are neutral. Shaul and Hill accountsof a more historicalnature have similarly (1998:392) find themselves unable "to distinguish endured?To seriously entertainthis latterpossibil- between a scenariothat sees these people (or some ity mandatesa considerableburden of proof before of them) [O'Odhamspeakers] as the contemporary concedingthe legitimacyof theformer claim. Unfor- descendantsof participantsin the core Hohokam tunately,the kind of clinchingtest like thatprovided complex or one in which they entered the core in the case of the Ridge Ruinburial is missingin this Hohokamarea at the time of, or after,the Hohokam case. Plausibility, even if granted in the case of collapse." Gottschall,does not equalprobability, let alone cer- It may be thatTeague has indeed identifiedgen- tainty. uinehistorical content in theO'Odham and Hopi oral At the GottschallRockshelter, archaeological evi- traditionsand, further, that she has correctlygrasped dence and radiocarbonassays have securely dated its significance.Although many archaeologistsare the groupof pictographsbelieved to depict the Red inclined to see some continuitiesbetween the pre- Horn myth. This composition, as Salzer calls it, historic Hohokam and the modern O'Odhamcul- includeshuman and animalfigures. There are three tures, and other archaeologists are less inclined portrayalsof humansand eithertwo or four of ani- (Cordelland Smith 1996:229), accreditingthe oral mals (only two of the latter seem unambiguously traditionsas in some degree,in some sense, histori- independentof humancostuming). The one figure cal remains a separateissue and one that has not selected as diagnosticis regardedas the protagonist been definitivelysettled either in Teague'spapers or himself, Red Horn.The otherpaintings, considered here.Teague has marshaleda varietyof evidenceand to signal some of the "supportingactors," can cer- Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 255 tainly be construedas compatiblewith the legend, Pro Argument#7. Archaeology,a Product of althoughthey arenot necessarilyunique to it. Unac- WesternCivilization, is Ethnocentricand Must companiedby the main character,they, including Be Balanced If Not Replaced by "Alternative the two humanfigures thoughtto be giants, might Histories." as plausiblybe attributedto anynumber of othersto- ries, includingthose of Algonquianspeakers as well The disciplineof archaeologyis indeeda productof as theSiouan-speaking Winnebagoes (Hochungaras) WesternEuropean civilization, and a ratherlate one andJowas. Although Salzer presents a full andcare- at that.It was ethnocentricin its originsin the sense ful comparisonof the art styles and motifs of the thatit emergedas a productof the culturalevolution GottschallRockshelter with those at Mississippian of British,Danish, Euroamerican, French, German, andrelated sites in the nearand farther south, the crit- Italian,Swedish, and other such nationalities and did ical queryfocuses on the recognitionof the "diag- not ariseamong the Aruntas, Dinkas, Fijians, Hopis, nostic figure" as Red Horn. For this he (Salzer PolarEskimos, Shah Nawazis, Yahgans, and others. 1987:464, 1993:86) has relied on RobertL. Hall's It is not ethnocentricbecause it eschews the narcis- (1991:31) identification.That identification is based sistic,ethnically-unique, quasi-religious character of on " ... .what appearsto me to be Long Nose God the lattersocieties in favorof a universal,culturally masquettestattooed on his [thefigure's] chest in the transcendentalepistemology in principle open to areaof each nipple.One of Red Horn'ssons had lit- anyone instructedin its procedures.Whereas areas tle humanheads on each breast;the otherhad human of "traditionalknowledge" enmeshed in theoral "his- head earrings like his father" (Hall 1991:31, tories"of, say,Zunis or Hopis, areoff-limits to non- 1997:148-151).Hall's discussion of thepossible sig- Zunisor non-Hopis(see Anyon et al. 1997), no such nificanceof the Long Nose God motif and its rela- proscriptionsobtain in scientific inquiry.In polar tion to prehistoricideology is both informed and contrastis the "openadmissions policy" of the uni- ingenious.Nevertheless, the masquetteson the chest versalsodality of archaeologyand the other sciences. of the Gottschallpictograph that "appear" to him do This sodality welcomes Aruntas,Dinkas, Fijians, not do so for everybodywho looks for them.It may and all othersto undertakethe rites of passagecom- indeed be that some of the paintingswere meantto monto all would-bemembers. Although the absolute record the Red Horn myth, but the evidence falls numbersare small, this membershipis universally shortof convincing.Geographically and temporally distributed,attracting as it does those who, while impressivecontinuities in certainrock art stylistic oftencherishing ritual and respecting tradition, value conventionshave been demonstrated.Their mean- testableknowledge more. ing, inherentlymore elusive, has not. A defensivereaction of many Indiansto archae- In additionto scrupulousexamination of whatever ological conclusions at odds with their own tradi- groundsmay be put forwardin supportof particular tional understanding adopts the argument of oraltraditions as crediblehistory-the nutsand bolts, exclusivity:"You have your history,we have ours." as it were,of theindividual cases being considered- And the differencebetween the two is much more some overarchingtheoretical issues must be given than meets the eye. Anothertrouble arises because theirdue as well. These include a) appraisalof the the erroneousassumption is sometimesmade that we degreeto whichhistory and oral traditions reflect and are all talkingabout the same thing,but fromdiffer- incorporatecommon goals and conceptionsof real- ent perspectives.This returnsus to Rescher'spoint ity; r) appreciationof the likelihoodof only partial, aboutelephants in my previousdismissal of "ARed andperhaps very little, overlapin the foregoingand Herring"--to wit, if others are not talking about thus the inevitabilityof seriousproblems of incom- what we define "history"to be, they are not talking mensurability;c) recognitionthat whateverhistory abouthistory but aboutsomething else. And indeed and oral traditionare takento be, each may vary in this is often the case (Kuznar1997; Rescher 1997). practicein its success in expressingits message;and Traditional"history" is not history,although it may d) the weight that must be accordedthe natureand containvestiges of history that may or may not be limitationsof memory.Although some of theseissues susceptible to "winnowing fact from fiction" have alreadybeen broached,they will be treatedin (Cowgill 1993:561). Today,of course, many ques- greaterdetail later in this essay. tion such assertions,arguing that they are an illegit- 256 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

imate privilegingof Westernvalues over those of my wife remembersdiscovering. The great-grand- otherpeople, a sort of epistemologicalbullying of father of a friend and colleague died of gunshot the powerless,an attemptto take over and recastin woundsin a mannerappropriate to the heroin a Wild ourown image the culturesof others.But this is cant Westnovel or movie; his sister,alas, claimsproof of anddoes littleto encouragecommunication let alone an ignoble demise in circumstancesmore worthyof addresssubstantive issues about the natureof cul- a farce.This personclearly saw X strikeY first,that turalhistory and how we canpossibly know it. Some personis adamantthat Y struckthe first blow. And criticsof the Western"way of knowing,"as we saw so it goes. Everyonecan offer their own examples. earlierin proarguments #1 and#2, champion"alter- So commonplace, indeed unavoidable, are such nativehistories," knowingly combiningapples and experiencesthat whole literatureshave evolved to orangesor ignorantof the distinctionaltogether. For deal with themand their implications for researchin still others,none of this mattersat all. One version psychology,sociology, ethnography, and history, and of philosophicalnihilism currently chic in academic for the practicalneeds of public opinion surveys, circles, and even archaeologicalsquares, sees noth- merchandising,law enforcement, social services, ing in historicaldisputations-or indeedin all knowl- andjurisprudence (e.g, the reliabilityof eyewitness edge and all claims to objectivity-but ideology, testimony). politics,and economic self-interest (Nassaney 1994). Nevertheless, a still widely shared bias exists, On such grounds,oral traditionsmust be as useful even among many archaeologists,that credits Indi- or as worthlessas anyother would-be source of infor- ans, a priori, especially those identified as "elders," mation about the past. Power, not reason, tips the with powersof memorycredibility far beyond any- scales. thingthat would be grantedanybody else. It maywell be that Native Americans,and otherformerly non- Discussion of the Con Arguments literatepeoples as well, paidcloser attentionthan do Manyof the objectionsto the use of oraltradition as literatefolk to preservingaccuracy in their memo- an additionalor alternativesource of informationfor ries of especially important events. Even with archaeologicalreconstructions of the pasthave been mnemonicaids such as ritualchants and prayers and anticipatedin the foregoing section. The following other associative verbal formulae, notched sticks, discussions elaborateon some of the more impor- paintedbuffalo robes, wampum belts, and so on, the tantof these andadd further considerations. It needs pastis "preserved"in memory.There is nothingelse. to be stressedagain that these negative arguments are But in whose memory?What is the selectiveprocess specificallydirected at the employmentof oral tra- wherebyX's memoryis given ascendancyoverY's? ditionsas historicaldata, that is, as havingparity with Andfor how long andin whatcircumstances? Except the methods,data qualifications,and metaphysical for the social value that may be placed on the pos- stanceof Westernhistoriography. sessionof a good memory,no evidenceexists to indi- cate an intrinsic difference in the processes of Con #1. on and Argument Dependent Memory memoryacquisition, retention, or recollection among Verbal Oral TraditionsAre Transmission, Simply differentsocieties. The psychological mechanisms Not Trustworthy. are innately human, their productinherently tran- Memoriesfalter, and theirrecitation is as much an sient. The forensic psychologist Elizabeth Loftus adaptationto the circumstancesof their elicitation concludes that "Contrary to popular belief, . . . facts as a recapitulationof theirbirth. This occursin a sin- don't come into our memory and passively reside gle lifetime and is universal.I rememberthe sheer there untouched and unscathedby future events" force of the singing of God Save the King causing (Loftusand Ketcham 1991:77). Continuing life expe- the chandeliersin our churchto move duringa cer- riences interactwith memoryand so alterit that". . emony sendingoff one of the local regimentsto war. . experimentalpsychologists think of memory as My fathertold me we would do this, so I watched, being anintegrative process-a constructiveand cre- and we did. I know we didn't,but I rememberthat ative process-rather than a passive recording we did. My cousin in the Dieppe raid remembered processsuch as a video-tape."Researchers have been thatmore Germans shot at him thanat anybodyelse. able to show that memory deterioratesover time. I rememberdiscovering an archaeologicalsite that "Aftera week, memoryis less accuratethan aftera Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 257 day. After a month, memory is less accurate than after (1985:111). A candidatefor a NorthAmerican par- a week. And after a year, memory will be less accu- allel concerns the builders of the famous effigy rate than after a month" (Loftus and Ketcham moundsof Wisconsinand its environs. 1991:77). Mark Twain once confessed, "It isn't so In his classic monographon theWinnebago tribe, astonishing, the number of things that I can remem- Paul Radin creditedthe historic representativesof ber, as the number of things I can remember that thattribe with having "unquestionably"constructed aren't so" (quoted in Loftus and Ketcham 1991:31). the effigy mounds,even going so far as datingmost of them to Memories don't just fade [Loftus observes], . . . the eighteenth[!] century(1923:79-80, they also grow. What fades is the initial percep- 82, 85). His informationcame fromthe testimonyof tion, the actual experience of the events. But living Indiansthemselves. Some of "theolder peo- every time we recall an event, we must recon- ple claimedto havedistinct recollections of the erec- struct the memory, and with each recollection tion of some of them"(1923:79). A quite different the memory may be changed-colored by suc- ceeding events, other people's recollections or picture of this attributionhas been published by suggestions, increased understanding,or a new JamesB. Griffin.The latterhas written"When McK- context. ern [thearchaeologist W. C. McKem]asked the peo- Truth and reality, when seen through the filter ple with whom Radin had workedhow they knew of our memories, are not objective facts but their ancestors had built the Effigy Mounds they subjective, interpretativerealities. We interpret repliedthat Radin told themthat was the case"(Grif- the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and fin 1995:15-16). Since Radin's time, anything pieces, deleting uncomplementaryor disturbing recollections, sweeping, dusting, tidying things remotelyclose to an eighteenth-centurydate for the up. Thus our representationof the past takes on effigy mounds has been ruled out by convincing a living, shifting reality; it is not fixed and radiocarbon and other evidence. And until just immutable, not a place way back there that is recently,almost all archaeologistshave been agreed a preserved in stone, but living thing that thatthe Winnebagoes had little or nothingto do with changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoebalike creature with powers to the famous mounds(see Mason 1993 and the other make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. essays in Overstreet1993). Enormous powers-powers even to make us Returningto the restructuringof oral traditions, believe in something that never happened whetheror not learnedinterviewers are implicated, (Loftus and Ketcham 1991:20). JackGoody and IanWatt(1968), as well as Vansina Placed in a larger context, that is, memories accu- and otherstudents, have laid stresson what I would mulated into oral traditions, Jan Vansina (1985:172) describeas thecontinuous retreat of non-literatesoci- finds that "The effects of restructuring [the changes eties from their own pasts as new generationspre- wrought by the operation of memory, changed social empt the always limited capacityof social memory situations, and other contingencies] can be devas- to accommodatetheir own contemporaryneeds. This tating to historical information." Although still per- process of retraction of the historical tail is suaded that oral traditions are worthy of careful ineluctable,and it affects genealogies as well as the consideration by historians, he cautions that "Tem- other componentsof the culturallegacy that travel poral transpositions are frequent, fusion prevents one with society through time. As Goody and Watt from disentangling the original elements that were (1968:33-34) put it, citing earlierwork by Bronis- fused, selection discards data, and secondary causes law Malinowski: are eliminated by sequential reordering and by the . . . genealogies often serve the same function operation of the cultural ideas of causality" that Malinowski claimed for myth; they act as (1985:172). Vansina, citing an African example, 'charters' of present social institutions rather notes a further complication. Sometimes traditions than as faithful historical records of times past will be jettisoned when confronted by a new author- (1926:23, 43). They can do this more consis- " tently [than can literate societies] because they ity: . . when an informant perceives from a ques- operate within an oral ratherthan a written tra- tion asked by a supposedly learned interviewer that dition and thus tend to be automatically the latter believes the answer to be such and such, he adjusted to existing social relations as they are or she may simply concur, not just in a desire to passed by word of mouth from one member of please, but also out of a new found conviction" the society to another. The social element in 258 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

remembering results in the genealogies being detailed analyses of oral traditions (1985:23-24, transmutedin the course of being transmitted; 168-169). These describea metaphoricalhourglass, and a similar process takes place with regardto other cultural elements as well, to myths, for albeitwith elastic sides capableof stretchingor com- example, and to sacred lore in general. Deities pression. The upper chamber is oral history or and other supernatural agencies which have "recentness"(Bahr 1998a), the time of the recent served their purpose can be quietly dropped past,the shallowpast of real,remembered people and from the contemporary pantheon; and as the events as recollectedand commented on by the old- society changes, myths too are forgotten, attrib- uted to other personages, or transformedin their est membersof a community;although typically cal- meaning. ibrated by genealogy, this is time susceptible in principleto calendricalmeasurement and it involves One of the most importantresults of this home- ostatic tendency is that the individual has little locatableplaces. The lowerchamber of thehourglass perception of the past except in terms of the is oral tradition,the time of "ancientness"(Bahr present; whereas the annals of a literate society 1998a), of origins,the timeless past of myth, of the cannot but enforce a more objective recognition relativelydeep but unfathomedtime of creatorsand of the distinction between what was and what heroes who confound the distinctions of what in is. . . .Myth and history [in non-literate soci- eties] merge into one: the elements in the cul- recent times separategods, humans, and animals. tural heritage which cease to have a Both chamberscontain a lot of information.The contemporaryrelevance tend to be soon forgot- recent chamber'scontents, however, rapidly dwin- ten or transformed; and as the individuals of dle with increasingage as the neck of the hourglass each generation acquire their vocabulary, their is approached. That neck is what Vansina genealogies, and their myths, they are unaware that various words, proper names and stories (1985:23-24, 168-169) has labeled "the floating have dropped out, or that others have changed gap."It representseither an hiatus or a featureless their meanings or been replaced. frontierrelieved only by one or a few names or ref- it ... The pastness of the past, then, depends upon erences.The length of time encompassesis typi- a historical sensibility which can hardly begin cally unknownand unknowable.For all intentsand to operate without permanent written records; purposesit may be milleniaor a mere generationor and writing introduces similar changes in the two-a "wink"as Bahrputs it (1998a:32). transmission of other items of the cultural The tenureof the floatinggap andthe two cham- repertoire. bers of the hourglassis most succinctlyexpressed in While subsequent commentaries on texts may Bahr'scomparison of Pima,Maricopa, and Yavapai vary, and the original writers of those texts may often mythologies: have had purposes other than or additional to hon- Since the mythologiesare continuous,we can est reporting, the written record is the closest we are get someidea of the lengthof this most ancient ever apt to come to whatever it was that came to be period.The ancientnessseems brief. As for the time at the post-gap,recent end, for thesepeo- set down in text. there sometimes exist Furthermore, ples andfor all those whomVansina surveyed, additional contemporary and/or later texts relevant approximatelyall of the world's tribals, the to the first and to each other that can be consulted recentpast is also quiteshort, going backonly for purposes of authentication, cross-checking, aug- about100 or 150years from any given 'now.'In mentation, changes in interpretation, and so forth. short,if the gapwas a wink,the time of ancient- ness endedjust somewhatbefore the birth of the at is direct access to an Here, least, original voice; oldest living person;and the ancientness,too, oral traditions offer at best word-of-mouth rendi- was brief, that is, the 'runningtime' or 'told tions of word-of-mouth stories with little or no hope time' of an entiremythology does not seem to of comparison with older versions, let alone the pro- be long, the equivalentto a few generationsat totype. And as history, oral traditions appear to have most ... (Bahr1998a:32). but a shallow time depth. How shallow? Scholars Mythologies serve more than one function,but such as Jan Vansina, Donald Henige, and Donald probably their chief function is, as Malinowski Bahr have labored to take soundings. (1926:23,43) andmany later students have convinc- In his impressive cross-cultural sampling of non- ingly argued,as "charters"or foundationalclaims for literate societies, Vansina has discovered a nearly the legitimacy of the societies promulgatingthem. universal trifurcation of the past as revealed in And as such,they almost inevitably acknowledge the Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 259 existence of neighboringgroups, albeit usually ret- ual's place in society, rights and obligationsinher- rospectivelyand throughindirection, if only to sig- ent in thatplace, societal identity,rights to territory nalthe individual society's separateness (Bahr 1998a, andresources, relationships with other societies, and 1998b). They are adaptiveinventions. And myths so on. Only in literatesocieties, and then among a and oral traditionschange with contemporarycon- minorityof thepopulation, is therethe possibility and tingencies as well as with the passage of time. The the actualityof systematicand sustainedinterest in historicismof oral historiesis limited, shallow,and historicalinquiry and, in theoryat least, in disinter- retractsfrom a past that slips into, and eventually ested questioningand testing.While it may be cor- though,the neck of the hourglassinto myth. I find rect to say thatin both cases currentneeds arebeing the metaphorof thehourglass appealing, but I would served,in literatesocieties an enduringrecord of the add to it a small hole at each end. As societies tra- pastaccumulates and is availablefor criticalscrutiny verse time, they ingest, as it were, but a portionof and testable modeling. The upper chamberof the the externalitiesimpinging on them;these enterthe hourglassexpands at the expense of both the float- upper chamber of the hourglass while the larger ing gap and the lower chamber.Not that the latter world of externalitiespasses them by, unperceived disappear("most people most of the time.. .").Wit- even, andunknowable to them.At the bottomof the ness the ongoing confrontationsin the popularcul- lowerchamber is the otherhole, a blackhole through turebetween evolutionism and creationism, modem which, inevitably,even mythsare sucked into obliv- Biblicalscholarship and the fundamentalistdoctrine ion. Thehourglass remains, now stretched,now com- of inerrancy,genetic conceptionsof "race"and the pressed, moving with the rest of society through categoriesprinted on governmentforms, archaeo- time, its contentsrefreshed even as the old aregrad- logical criteriafor positing cultural affiliation of arti- ually lost. But only in thatupper chamber, the time facts andsome of thosemandated by NAGPRA,and of recentness,is therea realisticchance of isolating so on. anythingthat may be meaningfullylabeled history. The thirdcon argumentis only partlytrue. While All else, valuablefor other ends, is not " . . . to be hardly wide-open systems congenial to criticism, understoodas fragmentaryand corrupted remains of and certainly recycling received wisdom, even if stories that once existed in the same conceptual imprecisely,oral traditions of neighboringgroups are frameworkas recentEuropean narrative history, or in some sort of communicationor "conversational at least chronicle"(Cowgill 1993:561). relationship"with one another,as noted by Bahr (1998a), and as indicatedby overlappingelements, Con #2. The Genre Its Nature Is Argument by including dollops of recognizably similar myths. More an Culturethan Artifact of Contemporary Interactingwith one anotherand subjectedto some a Record of the Past. of the same vicissitudesof life, it would be strange if any oral traditionhad ever been totally impervi- Con Argument#3. Oral TraditionsAre Closed ous to outsideinfluence, however ethnocentric it Belief Systems,Beholden to Authorityand typ- ically is. Exceptunder unusual conditions of extreme Imperviousto External Challenge. stress, such as those implicatedin the diffusion of Althoughthese two argumentsshare some common new institutionslike the GhostDance or the Native ground,the assertionsthey are meant to representare AmericanChurch, resistance to challengesto tradi- not of equal weight or validityas theystand. tionalknowledge is aptto be mostpronounced where People need storiesto live by, and for most peo- importantreligious considerations also areinvolved. ple most of the time it doesn'tmatter if they aretrue, And this leads to the next and last con argument. so long as they arebelieved or at least servethe cur- Con #4. All or Parts Oral Traditions rentneeds they arethought to address,in which case Argument of Be Considered or Not they will be believedanyway. When they cease to be May Sacred, Only Partly at All Accessible to Outsiders;Guardians of believed and are felt to be inadequateto society's Such Lore Determine What Be Released and needsthey are modified or replaced (Bohannan 1952; May How it May Be Used. Halbwachs[in Coser 1992]; Leach 1954:264-278). Those needs are usually mundane rather than Insofaras this is true,the would-beincorporator of abstractlyphilosophical and pertainto the individ- traditionalhistory into scientific reconstructionsof 260 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 the past must treatit with extremecaution or even paredto see themreceive the same roughtreatment ignoreit altogetheron thejurisprudential grounds of meted out to seculardata. If insteadthey are with- "inadmissibleevidence." held in whole or in part,those ideas shouldbe priv- "Hopi cultural advisers," say Anyon et al. ileged by scientists and all fair-mindedpeople to (1997:85), "arethe best judges of what aspects of enjoy sanctuary undisturbed. And in that case, oral traditionsconstitute historical information and archaeologistsare ill-advised to place any reliance what aspects constitute esoteric knowledge that on a pick-and-choosesampling of thebits andpieces should remain confidential."The Hualapais want thatmay be dribbledout to them from secrettroves only tribal members to conduct any researchthat they can have no handin assaying. may be done with Hualapaioral traditions"so that sensitiveinformation can be controlledand the tribe Conclusions can be sure it is used for appropriatepurposes" Althoughlegally requiredto acceptpolitically man- (1997:86). "TheZuni Tribedoes not encouragethe datedas well as scientificcriteria in meetingthe stip- use of oraltraditions in scholarlyresearch, except in ulationsof NAGPRA,probably most archaeologists a very limited fashion by researchersemployed by in NorthAmerica are inclined to cautionin theirown the tribeand for purposesZuni cultural advisers feel researchin takingoral traditions as histories.Because are acceptable to tribal cultural sensitivities" informationis always scantieror less definitivethan (1997:86). Echo-Hawkmaintains that "a religious one would like, the possibility that oral traditions approachaccepts oral texts as the sourceof holistic incorporatereal historical information that might use- truthsrather than as documentsthat require evalua- fully be conjoinedwith the archaeologicalis a tanta- tion for historicity"(1997:89). Comparableasser- lizing prospectnevertheless. Distinguishing genuine tions abound.As statedearlier in this essay, people promise from the siren songs luring the incautious arefully entitledto believe as they wish andto guard onto epistemologicalshoals is the problem. theirbeliefs from foreign intrusions. Addressingone aspectof this conundrum,that of Now neitherIndians nor anybodyelse, however, foragingfor possibleclues to absolutechronologies, can reasonablyexpect whatever they have to offerto David Henige, albeitusing mainlyAfrican and Near be unquestionablyaccepted as historicaldata, par- Easterndata, has characterizedthat effortas a hunt ticularly when what may be equally relevant, or for a chimera.We too often erroneouslyassume, he indeedeven crucialto understandingwhat has been says, that non-literatesocieties "haveremembered offered,is withheldon the groundsof sacrednessor their past 'calendrically,'that is, lineally, sequen- some otherprivilege. There is no room for the con- tially, and even chronometrically.In fact, achronic- sideration of private information as data in any ity is one of the concomitants of an oral non- archaeologyaspiring to scientificstatus. In the con- calendricalsociety" (1974:14). Relative chronolo- temporarypolitical climate, what should be a truism gies frequentlyoccur, obviously,but they are usu- needsreiteration and defense. Notwithstanding pub- ally minimallyinformative and often manufactured lished as well as privatecalls for "theincorporation to address current interests rather than preserve of traditionalhistory into the suite of evidenceused arcanehistorical ones. Not uncommonly,the rela- by archaeologistsfor interpretingthe past"-even tive chronologyis butan expression of the metaphor- though doing so must "potentiallyrequire the rec- ical hourglass:recency and the ancientnessof myth, onciliationof contradictoryviews" (Dongoskeet al. with or withoutsomething signaling the waist. The 1997:606)-the bluntfact of innumerableand fun- usualcharacter of oraltraditional events and the mag- damentalirreconcilabilities must be faced and not nitudesof the intervening"befores" and "afters" are fudged. But this is difficultif not impossible to do tantamountto all but the most recentend of recent- when the would-beintegrator or incorporatoris per- ness being devoid of chronology. "History"sans mittedto use this informationbut not that informa- chronologyis not history.And this is not mereword- tion and thus cannot evaluatethe connections and play. Eric Wolf's magnificent sermon (1982) meritsof whateverthe controllingauthority decides notwithstanding,Samuel Kramer (1959) knew what he or she may use. he was aboutwhen he wroteHistory Begins at Sumer. If religiousconceptions are held to haverelevance Quite apart from the niggardliness or even in scientificdiscourse, their sponsors should be pre- absenceof anythingidentifiable as chronology,any- Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 261 one havingany familiaritywith the genreat all is not traditionshave provenworthwhile, more seem triv- surprisedby the large tractsof oral traditionpopu- ial or even worthless,while most are of indetermi- lated by fabulousbeings involved in fantastichap- nate value because of problems of testing. By penings. Even the most dedicated searchersafter comparing the disparate results, proponents and credibleinformation in this corpushave little diffi- skeptics together might at least cease talking past cultyrecognizing and dismissing the incredible-the each other, identify the causes of disparity,and, contentsand essence of myth,the lower chamberof where necessary, agree to disagree and know the the hourglass. reasons why. But the fabulousand incredibleinhabit recency A good placeto beginis theevaluation of sources. (the upperchamber of the hourglass)as well, espe- If the archaeologistuses informationprovided by a cially as the floatinggap is approached.Things and native informant, some sophistication in ethno- events that never happenedoccur here as well as graphicdata evaluation is virtuallymandatory. How thingsthat did, thingsthat belong earlierare brought knowledgeableis the informant?How did he/she forward,dislocated, and transformed into something come by the informationbeing sought?Is it verifi- else, events known on other grounds to have able? Clearanswers to these kinds of questionsare occurredare missing entirelyor havebeen radically more likely to be approximatedthan realized.And disguisedby reinterpretation,mistake, or ignorance. thatsome informantsmay be identifiedby the com- Europeansare resurrectedIndians, prehistoric lin- munity or by themselves as "elders,"a credential earmounds in Wisconsinwere defensiveworks built with known power to disarm otherwise worldly in the nineteenthcentury, stone arrowpointswere scholars,is a potentialtrap as likelyto havebeen con- madeby wormsor waterspirits, horses have always structedby the informationseeker as by its giver.As been present, horses were just recently created or the literarycritic Audrey Jaffe has writtenin another introducedby a culturehero, potterywas made by context,'The assertionof knowledgeand authority... pressing clay into a hole in the ground,the differ- does not necessarilyreflect their secure possession" ent "races"had different creations, ravens talk, bears (quotedin Rosenberg1996:145). cravetobacco, people can turninto animalsand vice In the majorityof cases, however,oral traditions versa-the recital is endless. And it is fascinating are derivedsecondhand from ethnographersor his- and indispensable for many anthropologicaland toricaldocuments, or even moreindirectly from eth- folkloristicpurposes in additionto its intrinsicvalue nohistorians.These sources,too, have to be assayed as cherishedcultural patrimony and even entertain- for credibilityif anythingof weight is to be built on ment.This is not materialto be laughedat or deni- their testimony.And rare is the ethnographer-or gratedas worthless. It also is not to be made into anybodyelse-who is equally dependableeven in somethingit is not. It mustbe understoodon its own all departmentsof his orher competence. Once again, terms,in its own context.Freely grantingthe some- exampleswill occurto most archaeologists.Lowie's time survivalof informationof possible use to the complaintsfrom the early twentiethcentury about archaeologistor othercultural historian, oral tradi- picking and choosing among oral traditionswere tion is not academic or scientific history simply noted earlier.His complaintsare paralleled in more recorded in another language. These are distinct recentcritiques. For example: genres and should be treated as such. As just In the case of Radin and the Winnebago, his acknowledged, they are not mutually irrelevant, stature as an ethnographercasts a long shadow however.Even thoughthe relationshipis asymmet- and throws the cloak of authorityover whatever rical, as we have seen, culturalhistorians have long else he was doing besides his own ethnographic been and always will be attractedto anythingthat business. Archaeologists lean on the bits and pieces of possibly pertinent information, using might help in throwinglight on the past. them to supportone or anotherinterpretation of Archaeologistssuspicious of injectingtidbits of their archaeological data .... Radin's collec- traditionalhistory into the data of their discipline tion of 20th-century memories may or may not must necessarilypay attentionto the effortsof their represent earlier Winnebago culture at all. To less reticentcolleagues (who in turn should recip- agree with those recollections when they are useful and ignore them when they are not gives rocate the interestby trying to understandthe rea- archaeologists a convenient authority to appeal sons for suspicion). Some of those efforts at using to but no way of demonstratingthat their analo- 262 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

gies are correct: connections between modem ering of scientific/historiographicstandards in the ethnographyand even 18thcentury Winnebago service of a well-meaningbut corrosiveecumenism life have not been established (Mason 1985:100,italics mine). of the irreconcilable. The usual form of that demand-fair on its face, appealinglysympathetic, Nevertheless,foolish or angelic archaeologists diversity-celebrating,and so democratic-is the call will continueto pick and choose among the offer- to eschew all vestiges of "hegemonism" and to ings of oral traditions.They shouldbe aware,how- embracethe doctrine of culturalrelativism in archae- ever, that doing so is tantamountto cherrypicking ologicalpractice. Versions of thatcall havebeen cited in a minefield.One or more of threereasons might earlierin this essay. They all admonisharchaeolo- lure them to take the risk: gists and Indians alike to be "respectful"of each 1) Hope for serendipity:good and unanticipated other's"different" but "equallyvalid ways of know- ideas can come from almost anywhereand should ing." In effect, however,they are directedmore at be pursued; archaeologiststhan Indians, urging the former to 2) Extrapolationby analogy, especially where acquiesce in what would amountto the re-mystifi- cultural continuity can be shown or reasonably cationof the past, therebyalso recruitingthem, as it assumed: some of the same information about were,to do thelatter's proper work of adaptingthem- descent systems, postmarital residence patterns, selves to the modem world. Eitherthat or politely sodalities,sexual division of labor,symbolism, tool not to questionthe fiction thatit really doesn't mat- functions,and similaractivities that ethnographers ter if disparateknowledge claims are unequal in or ethnohistorianshave teased out of traditional validity and the philosophiesof knowledge under- knowledgemay prove enlighteningto the archaeol- lying them are in principleand practiceincompati- ogist seeking a richerglimpse of the society once ble. Honesty is not servedby pretendingthat every responsiblefor his or her physicaldata, even if only accountof anythingis equallyvalid. On anygrounds in the minimal sense of constrainingthe range of amenableto logical argumentand empirical testing, speculation;and NativeAmericans are descendantsof ancientimmi- 3) Historicalinquiry: because only a fractionof grantsand did not originatein the New World,how- thepast survives in thearchaeological record, the cul- ever much their traditional histories attest the turalhistorian will inevitablyseek furtherinsights opposite and sensitive educatorsurge equal treat- whereverthey may be found,be it via linguisticcon- mentin elementaryand secondary school instruction nections,biological affinities, statistical adducing of (Harveyet al. 1995:151).Neither the ancestorsof the the diffusion of complex culturalattributes, or tra- Teton Dakota nor anybody else originatedin the ditionalknowledge. Indeed, the searchfor as many Black Hills or crawledout of holes anywhereelse. possibleindependent sources of informationas pos- The Iroquoiswere not the constitutionalmodel for sible is an obligationof any researcher.The method the young AmericanRepublic (Tooker 1988), Indi- of convergent verification, where successful, ans probablydid not make maple sugaruntil after enhancesthe likelihoodof educatedopinion arising Europeancontact (Mason 1986), Chief Seattle did out of "speculativehistory," if not metamorphosing notmake the famous speech attributed to him (Kaiser into genuineknowledge. 1987),the bulkof evidencelocates the genesis of the To pursuethe consequencesof any one of these "ancient"American Indian concept of "Mother investigativewarrants is difficultenough using the Earth"in the nineteenthcentury A.D. (Gill 1990)- assumptionsand proceduresof contemporarysci- even the indefatigableVine DeloriaJr. (1997:213) is ence and its paradigmaticequivalent in systematic fatigued by this one, and all the yearning for the historiography.Success in the former, however, equal credibilityof diverse"ways of knowing"will becomesimprobable as thelatter are called into ques- not makethem what they arenot, however"respect- tion by the intrusion of demands they are not fully" treated and given equal billing at national designed to address.The most disjointingof these monuments and in chic museum exhibits. Even demands today go beyond merely endorsing the metaphoricalsquares cannot be made into circles archaeologicaladoption of verifiable culturaland yet retain their original identity,the best intended historicalfacts that may be extractablefrom tradi- obeisanceto alternativeknowledge claims notwith- tional knowledge.Some, in effect, call for the low- standing. Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 263

Unlike informationdrawn from radiometric dat- formativeexperiences thought by believersto have ing, stratigraphy,or seriationalanalysis, methods made them the people they are today. The latter thathave global legitimacyand arebased on known describeessentially synchronous phenomena repeat- physicallaws or firmlygrounded cultural principles, edly manifestedin any individual'slifetime andare, and that are themselves testable by independent by thatfact, relatively easy to verify.The uniqueness means,most of the contentsof oraltraditions are of of oraltraditions, invariably accompanied as theyare an entirelydifferent nature and should not be treated by the other encumbrancespreviously mentioned, in the same way. Oral traditionis quintessentially make them even more elusive thanthe chronologi- local,however much it tangentiallyacknowledges the cal chimeraof David Henige's (1974) characteriza- existenceof "others;"it is culturallyspecific, mem- tion. Their"prioritizing of historicalmeaning" over ory-dependent,and accepted on faith.Vis-a-vis other "factualaccuracy," their capacity for "myth-time"to locales or cultures,oral traditionis privateknowl- "coexistwith eitherthe presentor the recentpast," edge, not accessible except on its own authority.It their common failureto see "few incompatibilities is foreignto andindependent of the body of axioms, between the world of facts and thatof dreams,"and postulates,corollaries, reductive reasoning, canons "thecontinuing NativeAmerican acculturation [read of evidence, and commitmentto testing that unite annihilation]of time andspace" (Nabokov 1996:25, physics, chemistry,geology, biology, archaeology, 27, 53, 54), when combined with admonitionsto etc. into a common,coherent, consistent way of com- practitionersof Westernhistoriography to "some- prehendingthe world-what E. 0. Wilson calls the how weave Native historicitiesinto the bedrockof search for consilience (1998). Oral tradition, on the their accounts" (Nabokov 1996:54), has an other hand, is particularisticand unintegratedwith ineluctableAlice-in-Wonderland quality. As we have anygoverning hierarchy of understandingother than seen with Martin(1987:3-26) and some others,the the customsand mindsets peculiar to its articulators invitationto step throughthe looking glass is allur- in their unique context of time, place, and circum- ing. It also is a mistake. To study Indian histori- stance.Put anotherway, ographiesin an attemptto understandthem on their ... societies that do not write their history pro- own termsis one thing;to appropriateand make of duce narrativesabout the past that are exempt them a componentor extensionof Westernhistori- from critical scrutiny, . . . these narrativescan- ographyis another.Martin himself unwittingly poses not [therefore] assume the function of reflexiv- the conundrumwhen he damnsthe latterfor forcing ity that we associate with historical consciousness. In this sense, their history is tra- "timeless" people into time when they properly dition not because it is oral or undeveloped, but belong "in eternity"(1987:15). because it is shut off inside a lived relationship When archaeologiststry to augmentthe intellec- to the past and consequently to itself (Lenclud tualtools at theirdisposal by borrowinginformation 1997:62). fromoral traditions, they need to exercisegreater cau- Like religion, you believe oral traditionor you tion than currentcalls for such augmentationtypi- don't.And although,as with religion, theremay be cally recommend.To preserve,let alone extend,the pieces of historyembedded in particularoral tradi- unparalleledpower of science and systematichisto- tions, they must be teased out by adherenceto the riographyto producetestable historical statements rules of rationalinquiry. But the possibility of so requires,like liberty,eternal vigilance. Cautionand doing does not therebyconfer equal epistemologi- vigilance,however, do not meanproscribing chancy cal statuson the two "ways of knowing."And oral or innovativeinquiry, wherever it may lead. There traditionscannot simply be adoptedwholesale into are,as has been shown,vestiges of genuinelyrecov- the structureof science or Westernhistoriography erable pasts in some oral traditions.But because without violating consilience. recordingthe pasthas necessarilyalways been inci- Oraltraditions, as storiesrelating a people's tra- dental and subsidiaryto the main functionsof that versing of time, differfrom those otherbranches of genre-credentialing society's authenticitywhile traditionalknowledge by means of which investiga- adaptingit to currentneeds-it is a difficulttask to torslearn about residence patterns, kinship systems, tease out what may qualify as bona fide historical conceptionsof gender,sodality initiations, and so on. data.Is thepossibility worth the effort?Does thepos- The formerproffers a mythologizedaccounting of sible injectionof elements of false historicitywar- 264 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000 rantweakening the reliabilityof the less question- Bohannan,L. 1952 A GenealogicalCharter. Africa 22(4):301-315. able? Such questions will doubtless be differently Brumbach,H. J., and R. Jarvenpa answeredin each case with variabledegrees of con- 1990 Archeologist-Ethnographer-InformantRelations: The fidence,but hopefully after due consideration of what Dynamics of Ethnoarcheologyin the Field. In Powers of Observation:Alternative Views in Archeology, editedby S. may be lost as well as gained. M. Nelson andA. B. Kehoe,pp. 39-46. ArcheologicalPaper This critical canvassing of the pros and cons No. 2. AmericanAnthropological Association, Arlington, attending the employment of oral traditions in Virginia. Clifton,J. A. archaeologicalreconstructions of culturehistories 1998 The Prairie People, Continuity and Change in has tried,and largely failed, to find sufficientepis- PotawatomiIndian Culture, 1665-1965. Universityof Iowa temological common ground to endorse such Press, Iowa City. Cordell,L. S. employmentas is currentlyin vogue in admonish- 1997 Archaeologyof the Southwest.2nd ed. AcademicPress, mentsif notpractice. Throughout, the intent has been New York. to fairlypresent and respectthe fundamentallydis- Cordell,L. S., and B. D. Smith 1996 IndigenousFarmers. In NorthAmerica , Pt 1, editedby paratenatures of the two epistemologies.As stated B. G. Triggerand W. E. Washburn,pp. 201-266. The Cam- elsewhere(Mason 1997), archaeologists,like scien- bridgeHistory of the Native Peoples of the Americas,Vol. tists generally,are charged with truth-seeking,how- 1. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York. Coser,L. A. (editor) everelusive it may be andhowever displacing or not 1992 MauriceHalbwachs on CollectiveMemory. University of "otherways of knowing."While the purveyorsof of ChicagoPress, Chicago. the olderwisdoms are to be respectedas people,their Cowgill, G. L. 1993 DistinguishedLecture in Archeology:Beyond Criticiz- recountingsof ancientnessare challengeablewhen ing NewArcheology.AmericanAnthropologist 95:551- 573. they are thoughtof as data roughly on a par with, de Laguna,F. say,dendrochronology, seriation, or site distribution 1958 GeologicalConfirmation of NativeTraditions, Yakutat, Alaska.American Antiquity 23:434. maps.Current calls forcross-cultural historiographic 1972 UnderMount Saint Elias: The History and Cultureof integrationnotwithstanding, it is the conclusion of the YakutatTlingit 3 vols. Smithsonian Contributionsto this essay thatoral traditions are more often than not Anthropology,Vol. 7. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Wash- ington,D. C. roadblocksthan bridges to archaeologistsaspiring Deloria,V. Jr. to know "whathappened in history." 1997 Conclusion:Anthros, Indians, and Planetary Reality. In Indiansand Anthropologists:Vine Deloria Jr and the Cri- tique of Anthropology,edited by T. Biolsi and L. Zimmer- Acknowledgments.In addition to the anonymous reviewers, I man, pp. 209-221. Universityof ArizonaPress, Tucson. wish to acknowledge with thanks the following colleagues Dixon, R. B. 1915 Dr.Dixon's Reply.AmericanAnthropologistNewSeries who commented on early versions of this essay and/or pro- 17:599-600. or vided information insights valuable, indeed sometimes crit- Dongoske, K. E., M. Yeatts,R. Anyon, and T. J. Ferguson ical, in its development:Donald Bahr, James Clifton, Linda 1997 ArchaeologicalCultures and CulturalAffiliation: Hopi Cordell, Julie Cruikshank, Lynne Goldstein, Frederica de and Zuni Perspectivesin the AmericanSouthwest. Ameri- Laguna,William Green, Carol Mason, Peter Peregrine,Robert can Antiquity62:600-608. Salzer, Lynn Teague, and James Wright. They are of course Dunaway,D. K., andW. K. Baum (editors) absolved of any errorsor shortcomings,all of which are mine 1996 Oral History, an InterdisciplinaryAnthology. 2nd ed. alone. AltaMiraPress, Walnut Creek, California. Echo-Hawk,R. References Cited 1997 Forginga New Ancient Historyfor NativeAmerica. In Native Americansand Archaeologists,Stepping Stones to Anyon, R., T. J. Ferguson,L. Jackson,L. Lane, and P. Vicenti CommonGround, edited by N. Swidler,K. Dongoske, R. 1997 Native American Oral Tradition and Archaeology, Anyon,and A. S. Downer,pp. 88-102. AltaMiraPress, Wal- Issues of Structure, Relevance, and Respect. In Native nut Creek,California. Americans and Archaeologists, Stepping Stones to Com- Ferguson,T. J., J. Watkins,and G. L. Pullar mon Ground, edited by N. Swidler, K. E. Dongoske, R. 1997 NativeAmericansandArchaeologists, Commentary and Anyon, andA. S. Downer,pp. 77-87. AltaMiraPress, Wal- PersonalPerspectives. In NativeAmericans and Archaeol- nut Creek, California. ogists, SteppingStones to CommonGround, edited by N. Bahr,D. Swidler,K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, andA. S. Downer,pp. 1971 Who Were the Hohokam?The Evidence from Pima- 237-252. AltaMiraPress, Walnut Creek, California. PapagoMyths. Ethnohistory 18:245-266. Fewkes, J. W. 1998a MythologiesCompared: Pima, Maricopa, andYavapai. 1912 CasaGrande, Arizona. Twenty-EighthAnnual Report of Journalof the Southwest40(1):25-66. theBureau ofAmerican Ethnology 1906-1907:25-179. U.S. 1998b BadNews: The Predicament of Mythology.Manuscript GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington,D. C. on file, Departmentof Anthropology,Lawrence University, Gero,J. Appleton,Wisconsin. 1990 Facts and Valuesin the ArcheologicalEye: Discussion Mason] ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN ORAL TRADITIONS 265

of 'Powersof Observation.'In Powers of Observation:Alter- Leach, E. R. native Viewsin Archeology,edited by S. M. Nelson andA. 1954 PoliticalSystems of HighlandBurma, A Studyof Kachin B. Kehoe, pp. 113-119. ArcheologicalPaper No. 2. Amer- Social Structure.Harvard University Press, Cambridge. ican AnthropologicalAssociation, Arlington, Virginia. Lenclud,G. Gill, S. 1997 Historyand Tradition. In Presentis Past: Some Uses of 1990 Mother Earth: an American Myth. In The Invented Traditionin Native Societies , edited by M. Mauze, pp. Indian: CulturalFictions and GovernmentPolicies, edited 43-64. UniversityPress of America,Lanham, Maryland. by J. A. Clifton,pp. 129-143. TransactionPublishers, New Levi, J. M. Brunswick,New Jersey. 1988 Myth andHistory Reconsidered: Archaeological Impli- Goldenweiser,A. A. cations of Tzotzil-Maya Mythology. AmericanAntiquity 1915 The HeuristicValue of TraditionalRecords. American 53:605-619. AnthropologistNew Series XVII:763-764. Lippert,D. Goody,J., and I. Watt 1997 In Frontof the Mirror,Native Americans and Academic 1968 The Consequencesof Literacy.In Literacy in Traditional Archaeology.InNativeAmericans andArchaeologists: Step- Societies, edited by J. Goody, pp. 27-68. CambridgeUni- ping Stones to CommonGround, edited by N. Swidler,K. versityPress, New York. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, and A. S. Downer, pp. 120-127. Griffin,J. B. AltaMiraPress, Walnut Creek, California. 1995 The Searchfor OneotaCultural Origins: A PersonalRet- Loftus,E., and K. Ketcham rospectiveAccount. In OneotaArchaeology: Past,Present, 1991 Witnessfor the Defense: TheAccused, the Eyewitness, and Future, editedby W. Green,pp.9-18. Report20. Office and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial. St. Martin's of the StateArchaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Press, New York. Hale,K., and D. Harris Lowie, R. H. 1979 HistoricalLinguistics and Archaeology.In Southwest, 1915 Oral Traditionand History.American Anthropologist editedby A. Ortiz,pp. 170- 177. Handbookof NorthAmer- New Series 17:597-599. ican Indians, vol.9. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, 1917 Oral Traditionand History. The Journal of American D.C. Folk-Lore30 (116):161-167. Hall,R. L. Lurie,N. 0. 1991 Cahokia Identity and InteractionModels of Cahokia 1960 WinnebagoProtohistory. In Culturein History,Essays Mississippian.In Cahokiaand theHinterlands: MiddleMis- in HonorofPaul Radin,edited by S. Diamond,pp.802-804. sissippianCultures of the Midwest,edited by T. E. Emerson ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York. and R. B. Lewis, pp. 3-34. University of Illinois Press, McGregor,J. C. Urbana. 1943 BurialofanEarlyAmericanMagician.Proceedings of the 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul, North American Indian AmericanPhilosophical Society 86(2):270-298. Philadelphia. Belief and Ritual.University of Illinois Press,Urbana. Malinowski,B. Handsman,R. G., and T. L. Richmond 1926 Crime and Custom in Savage Society. Kegan Paul, 1995 ConfrontingColonialism, theMahican and Schaghticoke Trench,Trubner, London. People and Us. In MakingAlternative Histories, the Prac- Martin,C. (editor) tice of Archaeologyand History in Non-WesternSettings, 1987 TheAmericanIndianandtheProblemofHistory.Oxford edited by P. R. Schmidt and T. C. Patterson,pp. 87-117. UniversityPress, New York. School of AmericanResearch Press, SantaFe. Mason, C. I. Harvey,K. D., L. D. Harjo,and L. Welborn 1985 ArchaeologicalAnalogy and EthnographicExample, a 1995 HowtoTeachAboutAmericanIndians:AGuideforthe Case fromthe Winnebago. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: School LibraryMedia Specialist. GreenwoodPress, West- Essays in Memoryof CharlesH. Fairbanks,edited by K. W. port,Connecticut. Johnson,J. M. Leader,and R. C. Wilson, pp. 95-104. Spe- Henige,D. P. cial PublicationNo. 4. Florida Journalof Anthropology, 1974 TheChronology of OralTradition, Questfora Chimera. Gainesville. ClarendonPress, Oxford. 1986 PrehistoricMaple Sugaring:A Sticky Subject. North 1982 Oral Historiography.Longman, New York. AmericanArchaeologist 7:305-311. Hickerson,H. Mason, J. A. 1988 The Chippewaand TheirNeighbors, a Studyin Ethno- 1921 The Papago MigrationLegend. Journal of American history,edited by J. S. H. Brown and L. L. Peers. Rev. ed. Folk-Lore34(133):254-268. WavelandPress, ProspectHeights, Illinois. Mason, R. J. Kaiser,R. 1981 GreatLakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1987 "A Fifth Gospel, Almost,"Chief Seattle's Speech(es): 1993 Oneotaand Winnebago Ethnogenesis: An Overview.In AmericanOrigins and European Reception. In Indiansand Exploring the Oneota-WinnebagoDirect Historical Con- Europe:An InterdisciplinaryCollection of Essays,edited by nection, edited by D. F. Overstreet,pp. 400-421. The Wis- C. F. Feest, pp. 505-526. RaderVerlag, Aachen. consinArcheologist 74(1-4). Kehoe, T. F., andA. B. Kehoe 1997 Letterto the Editor.SAA Bulletin 15(1):3. 1959 BoulderEffigyMonuments in theNorthern Plains. Jour- Miller,J. nal of AmericanFolk-lore 72(284):115-127. 1998 Tsimshian Ethno-Ethnohistory:A "Real"Indigenous Kramer,S. N. Chronology.Ethnohistory 45:657-674. 1959 HistoryBegins at Sumer.Doubleday, Garden City, New Montell,L. York. 1996 Prefaceto "The Saga of Coe Ridge."In Oral History, Kuznar,L. A. An InterdisciplinaryAnthology, 2nd ed., edited by D. K. 1997 Reclaiminga ScientificAnthropology. AltaMira Press, Dunawayand W. K. Baum, pp. 175-186. AltaMiraPress, WalnutCreek, California. WalnutCreek, California. 266 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 2000

Nabokov,P. Shennan,S. 1996 NativeViews of History.In The CambridgeHistory of 1994 Introduction:Archaeological Approaches to Cultural the Native Peoples of the Americas,Vol. I, NorthAmerica, Identity.InArchaeologicalApproaches to CulturalIdentity, Pt I, editedby B. G. Triggerand W. E. Washburn,pp. 1-59. editedby S. Shennan,pp. 1-32. Routledge,New York. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York. Simpson,G. G. Nagy, G. 1963 ThisView of Life.Harcourt, Brace and World, NewYork. 1996 HomericQuestions. University of TexasPress, Austin. Skinner,A. Nassaney,M. S. 1914 Notes on the PlainsCree. AmericanAnthropologist New 1994 An EpistemologicalEnquiry into some Archaeological Series, 16(1):68-87. andHistorical Interpretations of 17thCentury NativeAmer- 1925 Traditionsof the Iowa Indians.Journal of theAmerican ican-EuropeanRelations. In ArchaeologicalApproaches to FolkloreSociety 38:425-506. CulturalIdentity, edited by S. Shennan,pp. 76-93. Rout- Swanton,J. R. ledge, New York. 1915 Dr. Swanton's Reply. AmericanAnthropologist New O'Brien,P. J. Series 17:600. 1990 Evidencefor the Antiquityof GenderRoles in the Cen- Swidler,N., K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, andA. S. Downer (edi- tralPlains Tradition. In Powersof Observation:Alternative tors) Views in Archeology, edited by S. M. Nelson and A. B. 1997 NativeAmericans andArchaeologists, Stepping Stones Kehoe, pp. 61-72. ArcheologicalPaper No. 2. American to CommonGround. AltaMira Press, WalnutCreek, Cali- AnthropologicalAssociation, Arlington, Virginia. fornia. Overstreet,D. F. (editor) Teague,L. S. 1993 Exploringthe Oneota-WinnebagoDirect Historical Con- 1989 The Post-Classicand the Fate of the Hohokam.In The nection. The WisconsinArcheologist 74(1-4). 1982-1984 Excavationsat Las Colinas,Syntheses and Con- Pendergast,D. M., and C. W. Meighan clusions, by L. S. Teague and W. L. Deaver,pp. 145-167. 1959 Folk Traditionsas HistoricalFact: A Paiute Example. ArchaeologicalSeries 162, Vol. 6. Arizona State Museum, Journalof AmericanFolk-lore 72(284):128-133. Universityof Arizona,Tucson. Radin,P. 1993 Prehistoryand the Traditions of the O'Odhamand Hopi. 1923 TheWinnebago Tribe. Thirty-SeventhAnnualReportof Kiva 58:435-454. the Bureauof AmericanEthnology 1915-1916. U.S. Gov- Tooker,E. ernmentPrinting Office, Washington,D. C. 1988 The UnitedStates Constitution and the roquoisLeague. 1948 WinnebagoHero Cycles:A Studyin AboriginalLitera- Ethnohistory35:305-336. ture. Memoir No. 1. Indiana University Publications in Trigger,B. G. Anthropologyand Linguistics.Waverly Press, Baltimore. 1976 TheChildren ofAataentsic, a Historyof the HuronPeo- Rescher,N. ple to 1660. McGill- Queen'sUniversity Press, Montreal. 1997 Objectivity,the Obligationsof ImpersonalReason. Uni- Tuchman,B. versityof Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana. 1996 Distinguishingthe Significantfrom the Insignificant.In Rosenberg,B. OralHistory, An InterdisciplinaryAnthology, 2nd ed., edited 1996 Little Dorrit's Shadows, Characterand Contradiction by D. K. Dunawayand W. K. Baum, pp. 94-98. AltaMira in Dickens.University of MissouriPress, Columbia. Press,Walnut Creek, California. Russell, F. Vansina,J. 1908 The Pima Indians. Twenty-SixthAnnual Reportof the 1985 OralTraditionas History.University ofWisconsin Press, BureauofAmerican Ethnology, pp.3-389. U.S. Government Madison. PrintingOffice, Washington,D. C. White, L. A. Salzer,R. J. 1966 The Social Organizationof EthnologicalTheory. Rice 1987 PreliminaryReport on the GottschallSite (47 Ia 80). The UniversityStudies, Vol. 52, No. 4. Houston. WisconsinArcheologist 68(4):419-472. Wilson, E. 0. 1993 OralLiterature and Archaeology. The Wisconsin Arche- 1998 Consilience,the Unityof Knowledge.Alfred A. Knopf, ologist 74(1-4):80-119. New York. 1997 WisconsinRock Art.In WisconsinArchaeology, edited Wolf, E. R. by R. A. Birmingham,C. I. Mason, and J. B. Stoltman,pp. 1982 Europeand the People WithoutHistory. Universityof 48-77. The WisconsinArcheologist 78(1-2). CaliforniaPress, Berkeley. Schmidt,P. R., andT. C. Patterson(editors) 1995 MakingAlternativeHistories, the PracticeofArchaeol- ogy and Historyin Non- WesternSettings. School of Amer- ican ResearchPress, SantaFe. Shaul,D. L., and J. H. Hill 1998 Tepimans,Yumans, and Other Hohokam. American ReceivedApril 26, 1999; accepted July 27, 1999; revised Antiquity63:375-396. September8, 1999.