Download Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology

AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Through Wary Eyes:
Indigenous Perspectives
on Archaeology
Joe Watkins
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87131-0001; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
2005. 34:429–49
The Annual Review of
Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org
doi: 10.1146/
annurev.anthro.34.081804.120540
c 2005 by
Copyright Annual Reviews. All rights
reserved
0084-6570/05/10210429$20.00
Key Words
Aboriginal, ethics, Indigeneity, Fourth World, colonialism
Abstract
Archaeology has been linked to colonialist attitudes and scientific
imperialism. But what are the perspectives of Indigenous groups concerning the practice of archaeology? Numerous organizations recognize the distinctive needs of Indigenous communities throughout the
world and have adopted agreements and definitions that govern their
relationships with those populations. The specific name by which
Indigenous groups are known varies from country to country, as local governments are involved in determining the appropriateness of
particular definitions to populations within their borders. This paper begins with an examination of the various aspects that have been
used to determine whether or not a group of people might be considered “indigenous” under various definitions, and then uses the
history of the relationships between North American archaeologists
and Indigenous populations as a background for the examination
of some of the political aspects of archaeology that have impacted
Indigenous populations. It then proceeds to discuss perspectives on
archaeology offered by members of various Indigenous populations
throughout the World.
429
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHO IS “INDIGENOUS”? . . . . . . . .
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES
ON ARCHAEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . .
North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mesoamerica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The “Southern Cone” . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scandinavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Australia and New Zealand . . . . . . .
ETHICS, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND
INDIGENOUS ISSUES . . . . . . . . .
DOES “UNSPOKEN” MEAN
“UNPROBLEMATIC”? . . . . . . . . .
430
430
432
433
433
436
437
438
439
439
440
441
INTRODUCTION
Who are the Indigenous people throughout
the world whose perspectives on the practice of archaeology are becoming more important? In North America they might be called
by general names such as “American Indians,”
“Native Americans,” “Native Alaskan corporations” or “Native Hawaiians”; in Canada
they may be referred to as “First Nations”
or “Meti”; in Australia they might be called
“Aboriginals,” “Maori” in New Zealand, or
“Sami” in Scandinavia. Despite the fact that
each group has a specific name by which it
identifies, a particular name by which these
people are recognized in particular countries
or regions, these “indigenous people” are generally lumped into a category that identifies
their relationship with the dominant government that controls the land upon which they
live.
WHO IS “INDIGENOUS”?
Although it certainly is beyond the scope of
this article to reach any conclusion regarding the definition of “Indigenous” in relation
430
Watkins
to world popuations, it is necessary that the
reader understand the myriad of issues that
spring from this one word. One can get an
encyclopedia’s definition (Wikipedia 2004),
but such definitions are less useful in this instance than an anthropological one.
According to the International Labor Organization, Indigenous people are “peoples in
independent countries whose social, cultural,
and economic conditions distinguish them
from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or
partially by their own customs or traditions
or by special laws or regulations.” Or, they
might be “regarded as indigenous on account
of their descent from the populations which
inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time
of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or
all of their own social, economic, cultural, and
political institutions” (ILO 1989). Economic
organizations maintain their own definitions
of who is “Indigenous” (Asian Development
Bank 2004), and the World Health Organization has developed a set of ethics for dealing
with Indigenous groups (WHO 2004). All of
these definitions are related to various aspects
of the communities’ involvement with outside
organizations or governments.
If we examine these definitions, we can see,
as Sylvain (2002, p. 1075) notes, that there
are “four broad criteria for identifying indigenous peoples: (a) genealogical heritage (i.e.,
historical continuity with prior occupants of
a region); (b) political, economic, or ‘structural’ marginalization (i.e., nondominance);
(c) cultural attributes (i.e., being ‘culturally
distinct’); and (d) self-identification.”
Regardless of the criteria that are used, Indigenous populations are often seen as “politically weak, economically marginal, and culturally stigmatized members of the national
societies that have overtaken them and their
lands” (Dyck 1992, p. 1). The interruption
of land tenure by colonizing interlopers, the
suppression of native language by a dominant
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
society that seeks to integrate dissimilar cultures into a singular “homogenous” one, the
perception by their “conquerors” that Indigenous people are an inferior race, and the social
and economic marginalization of the group as
a whole all contribute to the ongoing perception of Indigenous populations as second-class
citizens. Commonly known as the “Fourth
World,” such Indigenous groups generally are
often subsumed within the national heritage
that surrounds them. Karlsson (2003, p. 407)
points out some of the problems inherent in
recognizing Indigenous groups, however defined, through a discussion of the situation on
the Indian subcontinent, where subordination
of people by ruling groups has led to “internal colonization.” In the Indian situation that
Karlsson describes, “cultural difference is thus
stressed, whereas the question of being ‘original settlers’ is regarded as less significant.”
Other anthropologists have examined the
issue of what is meant by the term “Indigenous.” Béteille’s 1998 article “The Idea of Indigenous People” debated the utility of the
concept, and comments by Childs & Delgado
(1999) further refined the issue. Using the
Current Anthropology format of primary article and outside reviewer comments placed
immediately following it, Greene (2004) examined culture as politics and property (using the issue of pharmaceutical bioprospecting) with other anthropologists (Bannerjee
2004, Bannister 2004, Brush 2004, Castree
2004, Dhillion 2004, Hayden 2004, Lewis
et al. 2004, McAfee 2004, Veber 2004) offering detailed comments. On a more general note, Kuper (2003) examined the concept of “Native” from the anthropological
perspective. The detailed comments offered
by Asch & Samson (2004), Heinen (2004),
Kenrick and Lewis (2004), Omura (2003),
Plaice (2003), Ramos (2003), Robins (2003),
Saugestad (2004), Suzman (2003), and Turner
(2004) further expanded the discussion and
increased its utility. Even archaeologists
[Nicholas & Bannister (2004), with comments
by Brown (2004), Hamilakis (2004), Ouzman
(2004), and Vitelli (2004)] chose to examine
the possibility of Indigenous groups exerting ownership claims of intellectual property
rights over archaeological material, thereby
extending the notion that Indigeneity carries
with it a modicum of special favor above and
beyond that of the other “non-Indigenous”
ones in the same situation or country.
In Australia, “Indigenous” is equated with
“Aboriginal,” and “Aboriginality” has been
the topic of discussion for nearly two decades
(Anderson 1985). Special Issue 2 of The Australian Journal of Anthropology (Thiele 1991)
provided a series of articles reflecting on the
status of “Aboriginal Studies” in Australia.
Archer (1991, p. 163) noted that “Aboriginality as a construction for purposes of political action has all the characteristic contradictions of nationalism,” and Lewins (1991,
p. 177) noted “it is not possible to keep Aboriginality and politics apart.” Thiele (1991,
p. 180) argued Aboriginality involves “descentism,” based “solely on the grounds of biological parentage.” Roughly (1991, p. 211) wrote
that race, nationality, possession, and difference were “the controlling and central terms
in the written history of a racial discourse
that must be continuously deconstructed,”
whereas Sackett (1991, p. 235) detailed the
stereotypical belief held by some that “Aboriginal values and practices are somehow or
another more ‘ecologically sound’ than those
of non-Aborigines.” Finally, Davidson (1991,
p. 256) noted that, in the changing relationships between archaeologists and Aborigines, “the motives of the Aboriginal and nonAboriginal peoples in the cooperation have
not always been the same.” This discussion
again chose to recognize that being “Indigenous” carries with it a marked difference.
Although not anthropological, legal analyses of Indigenous rights and issues provided
by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission (ATSIC 2004), the Australasian
Legal Information Institute (Pritchard 2001),
and the Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights
Project of the University of Minnesota Human Rights Center (2003) also are important to consider regarding the description of
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
431
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
“Indigenous.” These documents carry with
them the international recognition of aspects above and beyond those of professional
organizations, and also carry with them the
appearance of some sort of “governmental
sanction.”
Comparative (cross-cultural) articles on
international aspects of Indigenous communities have been developed as well, including Dow and Gardiner-Garden’s 1998 “Indigenous Affairs in Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, United States of America, Norway
and Sweden,” Morse’s “Comparative Assessments of Indigenous Peoples in Australasia,
Scandinavia, and North America” (1997), and
Cohen’s (2003) comparison of Australian “Indigeneity” with those of Latin America.
But, beyond the vagaries of definition,
what has been archaeology’s relationship and
perspective on Indigenous populations?
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HISTORY
Native groups have struggled to obtain, tell,
or protect their past. In the United States, numerous authors such as Bray (1996), Downer
(1997), Ferguson (1996), Kelly (1998),
Klesert & Downer (1990), McGuire (1992),
Pullar (1994), Swidler et al. (1997), and
Trigger (1980, 1986, 1989) have documented
that struggle. In Canada, Friesen (1998),
Gotthardt (2000), Gotthardt & Hare (1994),
Hare & Gotthardt (1996), and Hare & Greer
(1994) have presented archaeological perspectives on Indigenous archaeologies, whereas
Nicholas & Andrews (1997) described more
the future relationships between First Nations
and archaeologists. In Australia, Anderson
(1985), Mulvaney (1991), and Pardoe (1992)
have been at the forefront of the discussions
that have taken place within the anthropological literature. Yet, although these present a
history of the relationships between Indigenous populations and archaeology, these discussions generally center around the situation
as it appears in one particular country or another. Hubert (1994) and Lowenthal (1994)
432
Watkins
offer good overviews of the conflicts in the
United States and Australia, and Watkins’
(2001) comparison of the conflict between
archaeologists and native peoples in the
United States and Australia regarding the disposition of cultural materials from founder
populations (which may be considered ancestral to entire continental populations) suggests that the concerns of native peoples in
these two industrialized countries are quite
similar.
But how has archaeology, as a discipline,
dealt with Indigenous people and their perspectives on the field? Throughout its development, archaeology generally has operated
as if it exists apart from and outside of the
people whose past it studies—whether those
people are the descendants of the actual people who created the archaeological sites (such
as the survivors from Pecos Pueblo who now
reside at Jemez Pueblo in the Southwestern
United States), or whether those people are a
more generalized group of descendants (such
as American Indian tribes that share general
relationships with an archaeological culture).
Many archaeologists continue to operate as if
the body of science operating within the political structure of the dominant government
is a harmless entity to nondominant groups.
In North America, for example, a number
of anthropologists (Bettinger 1991; Downer
1997; Ferguson 1996; Kehoe 1998; Lurie
1988; McGuire 1992, 1997; Meltzer 1983;
Nicholas & Andrews 1997; Trigger 1980,
1986, 1989; Watkins 2000a, Zimmerman
1997) have traced the history of anthropology
and its relationships with American Indians
and Canadian First Nations.
Anthropologist Bruce Trigger was one of
the first anthropologists to force American archaeologists to come to terms with the idea
that science exists as a part of the social structure in which it operates. He writes: “problems social scientists choose to research and
(hopefully less often) the conclusions that
they reach are influenced in various ways. . .
(among them). . . the attitudes and opinions
that are prevalent in the societies in which
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
they live” (1980, p. 662). He argued that, in
the United States during the one hundred
years between the 1770s and the 1870s, the
view that American Indians were inferior to
“civilized” people was used to rationalize the
seizure of Indian lands and the violation of
their treaty rights. Going beyond the historical record and writing about contemporary
issues, Trigger (1986, p. 206) suggested that
“archeologists have turned from using their
discipline to rationalize Euro-American prejudices against native people, as they did in the
nineteenth century, to simply ignoring native
people as an end of study in themselves.” In
a more critical history of archaeology, Kehoe
(1998) argues that archaeologists continue to
treat American Indians as belonging outside
of science and act as if only they (the archaeologists) have the ability to present and
understand the processes that led to the development of American Indian culture and
prehistory.
Fowler (1987) also examined the role of
archaeology in the United States, noting that
it (as a discipline) might have been at least
partially complicit in the removal of American Indians from their lands. Its failure to
accept (or to prove) the American Indian’s
relationship with the archaeological cultures
within their lands served to disconnect them
from their past and strengthened the government’s “arguments for moving the ‘savage’ Indians out of the way of white ‘civilization’”
(1987, p. 230). The extermination of American Indians by westward moving settlements
of the United States was made morally easier by the apparent primitiveness of the natives, and the controversy over the originators
of the archaeological cultures encountered
by the Europeans served well as a justification for exterminating the Indian groups that
were viewed as having destroyed North America’s only “civilized” culture (Trigger 1980,
p. 665). The political aspects of archaeology
and identity are still being debated and discussed on a worldwide scale (Brothwell 2004,
Meskell 2002, Ratnagar 2004, Smith 2004,
Zimmerman 2001).
INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES
ON ARCHAEOLOGY
North America
As can be recognized based on the previous
discussion, archaeologists in North America
and Australia, two continents with large numbers of Indigenous people, began examining
the relationships they maintained with the Indigenous populations of their area more than
two decades ago. Whereas archaeologists have
written of those relationships, few Indigenous
people have offered written comments on the
discipline of archaeology or their relationships with archaeologists. An early attempt at
including the Native voice and Native perspectives on archaeology was the Preservation
on the Reservation volume edited by Klesert &
Downer (1990), where Native Americans participated in group discussions that followed
formal presentations about various aspects of
the archaeological enterprise. These discussions were published in the final volume and
offer intriguing snippets of the relationships
as they were perceived at that time.
The publication of papers compiled from
three inter-related forums held at the Society
for American Archaeology meeting in New
Orleans in 1996 (Swidler et al. 1997) by individual American Indians who participated in
archaeology in one form or another (Begay
1997, Carter 1997, Cypress 1997, EchoHawk 1997, Ferguson et al. 1997, Forsman
1997, Fuller 1997, Jackson & Stevens 1997,
Jemison 1997, Kluth & Munnell 1997, Lippert 1997, Martin 1997, White Deer 1997)
also gave the discipline the opportunity to
see the ways that individual American Indians viewed the discipline that purported to be
“writing unwritten history” (Watkins 2000b)
or integrating that history with archaeology
(Echo-Hawk 2000).
Although there is a general paucity of
comments concerning archaeology, some
academic-based American Indians have offered acerbic perspectives on archaeology.
Historian James Riding In (1992, p. 12), a
member of the Pawnee tribe of Oklahoma,
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
433
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
wrote, “Individuals who violate the sanctity
of the grave outside of the law are viewed as
criminals, Satan worshippers, or imbalanced.
When caught, tried, and convicted, the guilty
are usually incarcerated, fined, or placed in
mental institutions. Yet public opinion and
legal loopholes have until recently enabled
white society to loot and pillage with impunity American Indian cemeteries. Archaeology, a branch of anthropology that still attempts to sanctify this tradition of exploiting
dead Indians, arose as an honorable profession from this sacrilege.” Another historian,
Devon Mihesuah (1996, p. 233), a Choctaw
Indian from Oklahoma, offered, “[to American Indians] the only difference between an
illegal ransacking of a burial ground and a scientific one is the time element, sun screen, little whisk brooms, and the neatness of the area
when finished.” Even organizational statements, such as those offered by American Indians Against Desecration before the World
Archaeological Congress (Hammil & Cruz
1994) provided much needed information
concerning the perspectives of American Indians about American archaeology.
There are, of course, many other American Indian perspectives on archaeology, and
not all of them are “antiarchaeology.” Don
Sampson, a former Chairman of the Board of
Trustees for the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation, stated in a position paper that “[w]e want the public and
scientists to understand that we do not reject
science. In fact, we have anthropologists and
other scientists on staff, and we use science every day to help in protecting our people and
the land.” His views are probably shared by
many American Indian groups participating in
the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer program of the United States Department of the
Interior’s National Park Service, or those running tribal archaeology programs (TwoBears
2000). His views, however, do not accept the
notion that science should replace traditional
worldviews: “we do reject the notion that science is the answer to everything and therefore it should take precedence over the reli434
Watkins
gious rights and beliefs of American citizens”
(Sampson 1997).
North American archaeologists have been
active in seeking out the views of American Indians, First Nations, and other “Indigenous” people as part of procedures required during projects under cultural (or
heritage) resources management legislation,
often making an effort to integrate the minimum requirements of the appropriate laws
to make the projects meaningful to local
groups (Ferguson & Colwell-Chanthaphonh
2004). In the United States, laws such as
the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
of 1990 all require some level of interaction between archaeologists and American Indian tribes that are recognized by the federal
government, Alaska Native corporations, and
Native Hawaiians.
Canada does not have such far-reaching
laws because cultural resources management programs operate primarily through
two organizations—Parks Canada, a Federal
Crown Corporation responsible for administering all aspects of Canada’s 29 national
parks and more than 100 monuments and
forts, and the Archaeological Survey of
Canada, a branch of the National Museum
of Man, which operates an archaeological salvage program to minimize the loss of archaeological resources and information caused by
construction projects.
Although there are no nationwide heritage
laws that govern the practice of archaeology in
Canada, the relationships between First Nations and archaeologists are relatively strong.
Laws relating to heritage are implemented
primarily on provincial, municipal, and
corporate levels. Additionally, the absence of
a Canadian national law means that “there is
no leverage to hold the province accountable
for bilaterally funded projects, no precedents
for the provincial politicians to become used
to funding large scale mitigation projects,
and no heritage legislation for federal lands,
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
including reserves” (Syms 1997, p. 54). In
British Columbia, for example, the relationship between Simon Fraser University and
the Secwepemc (Shuswap) Nation has led
to a strong collaborative program (Nicholas
2000); in the Yukon, the Yukon Heritage
Branch has worked collaboratively with First
Nations such as the Carcross/Tagish (Hare
& Greer 1994), the Inuvialuit (Friesen 1998),
and the Kwanlin Dan (Gotthardt & Hare
1994). In spite of the absence of a nationwide
perspective on heritage issues, Canadian relationships with First Nations are seen to be
strong, primarily the result of archaeologists
taking into consideration the wishes of the
Indigenous populations in the research arena
rather than through a regulatory or legal
framework. Nicholas (2000, p. 163), in British
Columbia, notes that “consultation with the
appropriate First Nation is now a prerequisite
for obtaining an archaeological permit. This
requirement occurred in response to demands
for greater Aboriginal representation, and
overall, has had a positive impact on the
discipline as it makes archaeologists more
responsive to contemporary needs and their
work more relevant.”
Yellowhorn (2000, p. 137), a Canadian
First Nation man, presents a summary discussion of the “impact that Indians are likely
to have on archaeology” beyond their roles as
mere technicians or “resource managers.” His
doctoral dissertation through McGill University was aimed at awakening what he terms
“Internalist Archaeology”—what may be defined as an archaeology developed by and for
the benefit of particular Indigenous groups by
“articulating a theoretical foundation that emanates from the Indian’s sense of the past”
(2002, p. 27). This archaeology, he notes,
might be used by “Indian researchers guided
by Fourth World ideology” to “embrace resistance to an establishment that seeks to appropriate their heritage for its own purposes”
(2002, p. 31). Yellowhorn eloquently states
his perspective on the uses of archaeology for
Indigenous groups: “Internalist archaeology
scouts the two paths that Native people must
make into one by seeking the common landmarks of a global antiquity common to humanity and the local customs that respect a
unique sense of the past” (2002, p. 346).
The discovery of a 600-year-old human
body in a glacier in August of 1999 demonstrates some of the attitudes of the elders of
the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations of
Canada toward archaeology. When three people hunting sheep in a remote corner of British
Columbia discovered the frozen remains of
a human in a melting glacier in Wilderness
Park on August 14, 1999, tribal elders favored
obtaining scientific information from the find
prior to its reburial. Ron Chambers, a tribal
member of the park management board, is
quoted as saying “The elders did say that they
felt it was as important to get as much information as possible from this person—that’s
kind of an endorsement of scientific study”
(Brooke 1999).
The framework for the study of the adult
male called Kwäday Dän Ts’ı́nchi, meaning
“long-ago person found” in Tutchone, was announced in September 1999. The Canadian
government and tribal groups set up a scientific advisory panel to evaluate research proposals for scientific studies, and then turned
the remains over to descendants for burial
(Beattie et al. 2000).
In spite of the agreement to allow the studies, Diane Strand, a heritage resource officer for the Champagne and Aishihik First
Nations, said the agreement was not unanimously endorsed: “You have one-third of the
people saying ‘Bury him,’ one-third of the
people saying ‘You’re doing the right thing,’
and the other one-third saying ‘We don’t
know.’ But the goal is learning and educating”
(Sorenson 1999).
Bob Charlie, chief of the Champagne and
Aishihik First Nations, noted that the archaeologists were respectful to the Nations’
wishes: “Their willingness to cooperate has
been quite pleasing to us. They have been
very patient, because I’m sure they would
have liked to jump ahead and plow ahead
with it” (Brooke 1999). Thus, First Nation
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
435
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
perspectives on archaeology have been positively influenced by the actions of the archaeologists involved in this study.
In addition, other projects undertaken by
archaeologists in conjunction with First Nations in Canada (Charlie & Clark 2003,
Friesen 1998, Gotthardt 2000, Gotthardt &
Hare 1994, Hare & Gotthardt 1996, Hare &
Greer 1994) have led not only to increased
involvement of the First Nations in archaeology, but also to better relationships between
the archaeologists and the people who are the
subject of their studies as both parties understand the issues that arise from each group’s
perspectives.
Mesoamerica
The tension between cultural properties and
the groups that relate to them has become increasingly obvious in Latin America. Coggins
(2003) writes about the inherent conflict in the
economic progress sought by Latin American
countries toward “globalization of the economy and the internationalization of culture
to create a global patrimony” while struggling toward “the reestablishment of separate national languages and cultures” within
those countries. In Mexico, for example, political rulers appropriated great heritage items
from the social and cultural “peripheries” of
the country to construct a national identity
that suited their needs, yet Indigenous people
were given little opportunity to be involved
in the nation that was constructed. And although the politics of archaeology in Mexico
are currently moving away from centralization toward regionalization as regional museums such as the one at Oaxaca’s Monte Alban
spring up to highlight regional accomplishments rather than national ones, Indigenous
people are seen “not as things of equal value
with the present, but as ‘tourist attractions’”
(Ames 2000, p. 23).
In Mexico, one circumstance from 2002
drew attention to a local perspective on archaeology. A story posted on the Mesoweb on
October 9, 2002, entitled “Protest Leads to
436
Watkins
Discovery Announcement” (http://www.mes
oweb.com/reports/discovery.html), painted a murky picture of the involvement of the
local, Indigenous community with the archaeology (and archaeologists) in the area. Moises
Morales, described in the story as a “renowned
Palenque guide,” established a protest at the
entrance to the Cross Group site at Palenque
to draw attention to a new monument from
Temple XXI—described as a “throne-altarplatform”—discovered by archaeologists of
the Instituto National de Antropologı́a e Historia (the National Institute of Anthropology
and History). The newspaper La Republica en
Chiapas reported that pressure from the people of Palenque had led to the public announcement of a discovery that had been
kept secret since August 27, 2002. Morales
protested the silence concerning the discovery of the “throne-altar-platform” through a
placard posted at the site’s entrance. The sign
began, “In view of the event of August 27,
2002, and as an energetic protest against your
indifference to the people of Palenque, particularly the youth, permit me to ask you . . . .” It
then went on to imply that the archaeologists
displayed disregard for the city of Palenque,
its authorities, and the governor of Chiapas
by failing to report the discovery when it was
made, by moving the platform “in order to
protect it,” and by having a banquet in an elegant restaurant. Morales asked: “Who is paying for your career? Is this how you repay us?
Can you prove me wrong?”
In this situation, the local population
viewed the site of Palenque as belonging to
them in as much of an economic sense as a
proprietary one. That is, the situation that
was brought under scrutiny was not the intellectual or social impact of the archaeological
interpretations on the local population, but
rather the economic impact of the archaeological enterprise on those people.
In November 2002, a conference entitled
“Toward a More Ethical Mayan Archeology”
held at the University of British Columbia offered some Mayan people the opportunity to
offer their views on archaeology and its impact
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
on local Indigenous groups. The conference,
organized by Cohodas (2002), brought together Indigenous people and professional archaeologists who offered their opinions not
only on the economic impacts of archaeology,
but also on some of the philosophical
aspects of archaeology as it is practiced in
Mesoamerica. The conference attendees examined the use of such terms as the “Mayan
collapse” and the psychological and political
implications such terminology has on local
Indigenous groups. Presentations by members of Indigenous Mayan groups (Castañeda
2002, Cocom 2002, C Cojtı́ 2002, R Cojtı́
2002, Lopez 2002) drew attention to some aspect of the political implications between archaeology and Mayan groups, and offered individual Mayan perspectives on the ways that
archaeology could be more beneficial to local
Indigenous groups.
The majority of these presenters were
academics or students pursuing a degree in
archaeology, and their perspectives on archaeology are derived not from interaction with archaeologists as an outsider, but primarily from
interaction with the discipline through internal relationships. In the rest of Mesoamerica,
few nonprofessionals are given the opportunity to offer their perspectives. The situation
is mirrored in certain areas of South America
as well.
The “Southern Cone”
In South America, a situation similar to that in
Mexico and Mesoamerica seems to exist. Peruvian archaeologist Garth Bawden (personal
communication 2004) noted that there is a
lack of “indigenous” populations (i.e., “original settlers”) due to social factors such as
population decimation due to health problems, migration, or other social aspects resulting from colonization. This absence of
“original settlers” might be viewed as the reason that biological or genealogical differentiation factors have come to be replaced by
economic or social ones. Alejandro Haber,
for example, equates social class with biolog-
ical or genealogical ones in his research, basically equating “peasants” with “Indigenous”
(Haber 2005), whereas another Argentinean
archaeologist, Endere (2002), looks at the relationships between social groups (subordinated and dominant social and governmental
groups) in much the same way that American
archaeologists examine relationships between
dominant and Indigenous groups.
Other circumstances are beginning to signal an end to the silence regarding Indigenous
perspectives on archaeology in South America, however. For example, the July 2003 issue
of the South American publication Chungará,
a publication of the Department of Archaeology and Museology of the Faculty of Social, Administrative, and Economics Sciences
of the University of Tarapaca, Chile, contains a number of articles that are relevant
to the discussion of Indigenous perspectives
on archaeology. Ayala et al. (2003, pp. 275–
285) address the experiences arising from a
project titled “Links between Social Archaeology and the Ollagüe Indigenous Community,” one of whose main objectives was to
improve working relationships between the
Leandro Bravo V. Museum, the Indigenous
community (self-identified as Quechua) and
researchers. Another paper in the same issue
by Jofré Poblete (2003, pp. 327–335) used an
ethnoarchaeological approach that incorporated ethnographic information into archaeological interpretation. Bravo González (2003,
pp. 287–293) writes of work in the native communities of Coyo and Quitor in the Province
of El Loa in northern Chile sponsored by
the communities themselves, where the main
idea of the work is to allow the communities to manage their own patrimony. Romero’s
paper on his work in northern Chile (2003,
pp. 337–346) argues that there has been little interaction between scientific archaeology and the Indigenous population in the
provinces of Arica and Parinacota in Northern Chile. However, Romero notes that, with
the initiation of more effective political policies toward the protection of cultural patrimony and Indigenous rights, archaeologists
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
437
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
and Indigenous populations have begun to interact more openly. Uribe Rodrı́guez & Ádan
Alfaro (2003, pp. 295–304) address the debate
on the ways that societies construct and reconstruct their historic memories, particularly in
Third World nations like Chile. They begin
by describing their scientific and professional
experience with Indigenous and local communities from the Atacama Desert and discuss the
particular cultural contingency of the Chilean
State regarding these issues, ultimately arguing that the archaeological community must
take a position concerning the role of science
and, particularly, archaeology, in the society
of which it is a part.
These are a few instances whereby archaeologists in South America are actively examining Indigenous perspectives on the discipline of archaeology. Interestingly enough,
the current editor of Chungará, Vickie Cassman of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is a North American anthropologist in
a North American university. Unfortunately,
these articles are written by archaeologists beginning to undertake projects that actively
work with Indigenous populations (however
defined) rather than articles written by Indigenous people that give documentation of
their perspectives on the utility, value, or even
the practice of archaeology. It is hoped that as
more articles of this sort are published, more
Indigenous voices will be heard within South
America.
Scandinavia
The Sami are an Indigenous people who live
in four separate countries—Finland, Norway,
Sweden, and Russia. Formerly called “Lapplanders,” the population estimates in 1990
were 17,000 in Sweden, 5700 in Finland, and
over 30,000 in Norway (Morse 1997, p. 310).
Valid population estimates for the Sami in
the former Soviet Union are not currently
available.
The Sami are thought to have originated
somewhere in what is now northeastern Russia, although there does remain some points
438
Watkins
of contention as to the location of their origin (Olsson & Lewis 1995, p. 148). Increased
movement into the upper Scandinavian countries began following contact with the Vikings
in the eighth or ninth century as the Sami were
forced from their more favored area into lands
further northward. Olsson & Lewis (1995,
p. 249) note that the efforts by Denmark and
Sweden to control the Sami resulted in three
major responses: the emergence of a coastSami culture based mainly on fishing and supplemented by agriculture; the emergence of
an inland-Sami culture where agriculture was
supplemented by hunting, fishing, and some
reindeer herding; and a nomadic Sami culture
drawn from both the coastal and inland-Sami
groups mainly occupied with taming, tending,
and herding reindeer.
Marjut & Pekka Aikio document the
paucity of Sami archaeology and the desire
by some Sami archaeology students in Norway to halt archaeological excavations until
“the Sami archaeologists themselves can take
over and perform this invaluable work” (Aikio
& Aikio 1994, p. 128). As part of an attempt
to involve the Sami of Sweden more in the archaeological process, a Program of Sami Studies has been set up under the Department
of Archaeology at the University of Umea.
This program is intended to encourage the
Sami to develop a new curriculum and graduate program integrating theory, method, and
practice in archaeology using a Sami cultural
perspective.
Mulk (1997, p. 123) an archaeologist of
Sami extraction, notes that traces of Sami cultures usually are “hunting pits, hearths, hut
foundations, graves, and sacrificial places,”
with a great number of these sacrificial places
investigated by various authors. Perhaps because there have been few archaeological excavations on Sami cultural sites, Sami perspectives (with few exceptions) have not made
their way into print, other than in relation
to repatriation and reburial of human remains (Schanche 2002, Sellevold 2002). If
Mulk is true in her belief that “to this very
day there are Sami who have a knowledge
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
of old Sami popular beliefs, some of them
practicing as medicine-men” (1997, p. 130)
then perhaps there will be more discussion of issues concerning archaeology on the
horizon.
Africa
In southern Africa the “concern to distinguish
Indigenous Africans from other Africans has
resulted in an overdrawn distinction between
‘cultural’ features of Indigeneity and the
political economic features that Indigenous
peoples share with marginalized minorities”
(Sylvain 2002, p. 1075). As in other portions
of the industrialized world, the voices of Indigenous populations are rarely given a forum
for the presentation of their ideas. Although
researchers such as Engelbrecht (2002) and
Smith & Ouzman (2004) recognize the relationships between the Indigenous groups and
archaeological materials, the people themselves are given few opportunities to speak
about the material. This large continent with
its many separate countries and complex ethnic identity issues remains relatively quiet
concerning Indigenous perspectives on archaeology, but those perspectives should become more known as the researchers begin
increasing their involvement with local populations and as local populations are given the
political, economic, and academic opportunities to participate.
Australia and New Zealand
Jones & Harris (1998, p. 255) note, “Archeologists and anthropologists in New Zealand
are facing the same ethical issues as have
arisen in Australia, Britain, and the United
States.” As noted earlier, Hubert (1994) offered an interesting comparison between situations in Australia and the United States concerning the issue of the reburial of the dead,
in particular, and perspectives of Indigenous
populations in general. Turnbull (2002) and
Aird (2002) also examine the concerns of Indigenous Australian people with the protec-
tion of their dead, the use of archaeology to
strengthen native title claims, and the repatriation of cultural items. Other heritage management archaeologists (Thorley 2002) are
also involved in working with Aboriginal communities to use archeology to strengthen land
rights claims.
Archaeologists in Australia are more likely
to take Indigenous perspectives on archaeology into consideration as part of their research. Researchers such as Greer et al. (2002)
and Smith & Burke (2003) use communitybased archaeology to make the discipline
more useful to the people whose heritage is
being studied by involving the local community in all aspects of the research. Additionally,
research such as that conducted by the University of New England with the Yarrawarra
in New South Wales (Beck et al. 2000, Brown
et al. 2000, Murphy et al. 2000, Smith et al.
2000, Somerville et al. 2000) provides not only
much-needed training for archaeologists and
anthropologists in working with Indigenous
groups, it also gives the community the opportunity to provide their perspectives on the
utility of the enterprise.
But perhaps the most encouraging actions
in relation to Indigenous perspectives on archaeology are those taken by students who
have pointedly asked Indigenous people their
perspectives. Amy Roberts, as part of her doctoral research through Flinders University,
pointedly asked Indigenous South Australians
for their perspectives on archaeology (Roberts
2003). Hubbs, in her thesis through the University of South Australia, compared Indigenous Australian and Hopi (a North American
Indian group) perspectives on archaeology
(Hubbs 2002). As these dissertations get
more widespread notice, more students will
make use of similar investigations to obtain
and publish Indigenous perspectives on the
discipline.
Isaacson, an Australian Aboriginal man
from Mount Isa, Northern Territory, writes
about his perspective on archaeology and
Indigenous groups in relation to the World
Archaeological Congress in Washington,
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
439
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE
INTERNATIONAL ARENA
Indigenous peoples worldwide are facing problems on numerous levels and issues. In May 1971, the United Nations Economic and Social Council authorized the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to
study the problem of discrimination against Indigenous populations. In August 1971, the Sub-Commission appointed José
R. Martinez Cobo as rapporteur to oversee the study. Before
the study was completed, the Sub-Commission was authorized to establish a working group on indigenous populations
to review developments pertaining to the human rights of Indigenous populations and to give attention to the evolution
of standards concerning the rights of such populations. The
Working Group on Indigenous Populations held its first session in Geneva in August 1982 and submitted the text of the
Draft Declaration to the Sub-Commission in 1994. In August
1994, the Sub-Commission adopted the text of the Draft Declaration and submitted it to the Commission on Human Rights
in 1995. Since its submission to the Commission on Human
Rights Working Group (CHRWG) on the Draft Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, few state delegations
have been prepared to accept all articles of the Declaration.
Most argue that at least some require modification, clarification, or correction, with many commenting that particular
provisions are at variance with national legislation and policy
and are therefore unacceptable.
D.C., in 2003. He notes how many Indigenous
speakers “spoke about walking arm-in-arm,
not only with archaeologists but also with each
other, in a partnership of respect” (Isaacson
2004). Such a partnership founded on respect,
in his view, is of paramount importance in
maintaining a working relationship between
Indigenous groups and archaeologists.
In New Zealand, tribally-based Maori
activist Desmond Kahotea, who also happens to be a trained archaeologist, notes
how his “particular perspective on archaeology, and especially my own advocacy
role in land claims and heritage debates,
has served to keep me marginal to mainstream New Zealand archaeology” (Kahotea
2004).
440
Watkins
ETHICS, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND
INDIGENOUS ISSUES
Ethics statements promulgated by the world’s
major archaeological or anthropological
organizations—the American Anthropological Association (1998), the Australian
Archaeological Association (2004), the
Canadian Archaeological Association (1996),
the European Association of Archaeologists
(1998), the New Zealand Archaeological
Association (1999), the Register of Professional Archaeologists (2002), the Society for
American Archaeology (1996), and the World
Archaeological Congress (1989)—recognize
anthropology’s or archaeology’s relationship
with and responsibilities to the Indigenous
populations with which it works. The processes that led to the formulation of these
ethics statements are as important as the final
codes themselves. There is not enough room
to examine the processes in detail here, but
Lynott & Wylie (2000) discuss the Society for
American Archaeology’s Principles of Archaeological Ethics; Nicholson et al. (1996) discuss
the Canadian Archaeological Association’s
Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples; and Zimmerman
& Bruguier (1994) discuss the World Archaeological Code of Ethics as it relates to Indigenous people. The New Zealand Archaeological Association adopted the Society for
American Archaeology’s Principles of Archaeological Ethics with only minor adaptation,
whereas the Australian Archaeological Association’s Code of Ethics mirrors the World
Archaeological Congress’ Code of Ethics.
These Codes, although necessary steps toward integrating the perspectives of nonanthropologists in the discipline and examining
anthropology’s impact (both intentional and
unintentional) on local communities worldwide, have little meaning if they are believed
to take the place of meaningful ongoing communication with Indigenous groups. And such
statements may have no meaning to people
who are not members of the organizations and
associations and who do not agree to be bound
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
by the statements. As the discipline of archaeology questions its relative value and place in
the contemporary world, it becomes necessary
for individual archaeologists to continually reexamine the impact of their relationships with
the nonarchaeologists that surround them as
well as the utility that Indigenous groups can
make of our discipline.
DOES “UNSPOKEN” MEAN
“UNPROBLEMATIC”?
When one looks at the archaeological literature, one can interpret the relative quiet of the
Indigenous voice concerning archaeology in
different ways. Does the paucity of published
comment mean Indigenous groups have no
issues with the way archaeology is practiced
or the way archaeology impacts them, or does
that quietude mean only that no one has asked
their opinion? Perhaps the air is silent only
because Indigenous people are unable to get
their opinions published, or maybe the Indigenous group is afraid to draw attention to
their situation for one reason or another.
Regardless of the real reason, there is no
real way of knowing the basis for the relative silence of the Indigenous communities
throughout the world in relation to the discipline of archaeology. But the more we invite
Indigenous groups to be involved in our discipline and make them equal partners in the
enterprise, the more we should begin hearing
those voices. If we listen, we can hear them
now, as soft as they may be. If we give them
the opportunity to speak, they may shout at
first, but perhaps, with time, we can all converse in normal tones.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Indigenous peoples have an unequal place in the international political and social
structure.
2. Archaeology is viewed by Indigenous peoples as a colonialist enterprise with continuing political undertones.
3. Relations between archaeologists and Indigenous groups in the United States are
generally cool, although some tribal groups use archaeology and its methods to meet
legal standards concerning cultural resources management.
4. In Canada, the lack of a national law regarding cultural (heritage) resources management has generally allowed provinces to establish varying degrees of relationships
with First Nations.
5. In Mesoamerica and South America, the study and awareness of the formal relationship between archaeologists are in their nascent stage, with the relationships only now
being examined openly.
6. In Scandinavia, the Indigenous peoples (the Sami) have only recently become involved
in discussing the archaeological material from the Sami perspective.
7. In Australia and New Zealand, the Aboriginal peoples (the Australian Aboriginals and
the Maori) are more involved with using archaeology as a means of re-establishing
land tenure.
8. The ethics statements of most of the world’s major archaeological and anthropological
associations recognize the responsibilities to the Indigenous peoples whom they study
or with whom they work.
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
441
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
UNRESOLVED ISSUES/FUTURE DIRECTIONS
1. Indigenous peoples need to gain equal footing on the world’s social and political stage.
2. Archaeology needs to continue to examine its relationship with Indigenous peoples
and recognize that stewardship should be shared.
3. Indigenous peoples and archaeologists have much to learn from each other, and open
communication will help ensure that active learning takes place.
4. Indigenous archaeology—archaeology done by and for Indigenous people—is providing an Indigenous voice in the practice of archaeology as a means of allowing
alternative interpretations of the archaeological record.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The idea that Indigenous peoples have the right to be involved in the ways that archaeology
searches through their refuse has been espoused by a myriad of authors over the years. Roderick
Sprague is one of the first archaeologists I can remember whose writings influenced my own;
Dorothy Lippert, Claire Smith, Martin Wobst, and Larry Zimmerman share my resolve to
get more Indigenous voices published and act as intrepid advisors. Today’s authors are more
aware of the influence of Indigenous thought, especially those authors involved in the “Closet
Chickens” listserv. Many of the ideas that have come home to roost with that group inform my
thoughts. I also thank Carol Ellick, whose advice has helped shape not only my writings but
also me, and my children Ethan and Sydney, who continue to shape the father I become.
LITERATURE CITED
Aikio M, Aikio P. 1994. A chapter in the history of the colonization of Sami lands: the forced
migration of Norwegian reindeer Sami to Finland in the 1800s. See Layton 1994, pp.
116–30
Aird M. 2002. Developments in the repatriation of human remains and other cultural items in
Queensland. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 303–11
Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 1998. Code of Ethics. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm
Ames M. 2000. Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: Univ.
B.C. 230 pp. 2nd ed.
Anderson C. 1985. On the notion of Aboriginality: a discussion. Mankind 15:41–43
Archer J. 1991. Ambiguity in political ideology: Aboriginality as nationalism. See Thiele 1991,
pp. 161–70
Asch M, Samson C. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:261–62
Asian Development Bank. 2004. Definition of indigenous people. http://www.adb.org/
Documents/Policies/Indigenous Peoples/ippp 002.asp
ATSIC (Aborig. Torres Strait Isl. Comm.). 2004. An analysis of the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.atsic.gov.au/
issues/indigenous rights/international/draft declaration/draft dec five d.asp
Aust. Archaeol. Assoc. 2004. Code of Ethics of the Australian Archaeological Association.
http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/codeofethics.php
442
Watkins
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Ayala P, Avendaño S, Cárdenas U. 2003. Linkages between a social archaeology and Ollagüe’s
indigenous community (region of Antofagasta, Chile). Chungará (Arica) 35:275–85
Bannerjee SB. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:224–25
Bannister K. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:225–26
Beattie O, Apland B, Blake EW, Cosgrove JA, Gaunt S, et al. 2000. The Kwäday Dän Ts’ı́nchi
discovery from a glacier in British Columbia. Can. J. Archaeol. 24:129–47
Beck W, Brown C, Murphy D, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. Yarrawarra Places:
making stories. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 42 pp.
Begay RM. 1997. The role of archaeology on Indian lands: the Navajo Nation. See Swidler
et al. 1997, pp. 161–66
Béteille A. 1998. The idea of indigenous people. Curr. Anthropol. 39:187–91
Bettinger R. 1991. Hunter/Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. New York: Plenum.
280 pp.
Biolsi T, Zimmerman L, eds. 1997. Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique
of Anthropology. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. 240 pp.
Bray T. 1996. Repatriation, power relations and the politics of the past. Antiquity 70:440–44
Bray T, ed. 2001. The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation. New
York: Garland. 272 pp.
Bray T, Killian T, eds. 1994. Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the
Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. 194 pp.
Brooke J. 1999. Ancient man uncovered in Canadian ice: hunter preserved with clothing, tools.
San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 25:1
Brothwell D. 2004. Bring out your dead – people, pots, and politics. Antiquity 78:414–18
Brown C, Beck W, Murphy D, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. The Old Camp: Corindi
Lake North. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 42 pp.
Brown M. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights
issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 43:342–43
Brush S. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous people incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as
property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:226–27
Can. Archaeol. Assoc. 1996. Statement for principles of ethical conduct pertaining to Aboriginal
peoples. http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/ethical.lasso
Carter CE. 1997. Straight talk and trust. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 151–55
Castañeda Q. 2002. Ethics and intervention in Yucatec Maya archaeology: past and present.
http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Castaneda.html.
Castree N. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:227
Charlie D, Clark DW. 2003. Frenchman and Tatchun Lakes: Long Ago People. Whitehorse,
Canada: Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 26 pp.
Childs JB, Delgado-P G. 1999. On the idea of indigenous. Curr. Anthropol. 40:211–12
Cocom J. 2002. Privilege and ethics in archaeology: the experience as fiction. http://ethical.
arts.ubc.ca/Cocom.html
Coggins C. 2003. Latin America, Native America, and the politics of culture. In Claiming the
Stones, Naming the Bones: Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity,
ed. E Barkan, R Bush, pp. 97–115. Los Angeles: Getty Res. Inst.
Cohen E. 2003. Multiculturalism, Latin Americans, and ‘Indigeneity’ in Australia. Aust. J.
Anthropol. 14:39–52
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
443
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Cohodas M. 2002. Toward a More Ethical Mayanist Archaeology. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/
Introduction.html
Cojtı́ Cuxil D. 2002. Mayanist archaeology and Maya patrimony. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/
CojtiCuxil.html
Cojtı́ Ren A. 2002. Maya archaeology and the political and cultural identity of contemporary Maya
people. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/CojtiRen.html
Cypress BL. 1997. The role of archaeology in the Seminole Tribe of Florida. See Swidler et al.
1997, pp. 156–60
Davidson I. 1991. Archaeologists and Aborigines. See Thiele 1991, pp. 247–58
Dhillion SS. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:227–28
Dongoske K, Aldenderfer M, Doehner K, eds. 2000. Working Together: Native Americans and
Archaeologists. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol. 237 pp.
Dow C, Gardiner-Garden J. 1998. Indigenous affairs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United
States of America, Norway and Sweden. Backgr. Pap. 15, 1997–98. Parliam. Aust., Parliam.
Libr. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bp/1997–98/98bp15.htm
Downer AS. 1997. Archaeologists-Native American relations. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp.
23–34
Dyck N. 1992. Indigenous peoples and the nation-state: ‘Fourth World’ politics in Canada,
Australia, and Norway. Soc. Econ. Pap. 14. Meml. Univ. Nfd.: Inst. Soc. Econ. Res.
Echo-Hawk R. 1997. Forging a new ancient history for Native America. See Swidler et al.
1997, pp. 88–102
Echo-Hawk R. 2000. Exploring ancient worlds. See Dongoske et al. 2000, pp. 3–7
Endere M-L. 2002. The reburial issue in Argentina: a growing conflict. See Fforde et al. 2002,
pp. 266–83
Engelbrecht ML. 2002. The connection between archaeological treasures and the Koisan
people. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 242–44
Eur. Assoc. Archaeol. 1998. The EAA Principles of Conduct. http://www.e-a-a.org/princond.
htm
Eur. Assoc. Archaeol. 1997. The EAA Code of Practice. http://www.e-a-a.org/codeprac.htm
Ferguson TJ. 1996. Native Americans and the practice of archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
25:63–79
Ferguson TJ, Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2004. One valley, many histories: Tohono O’odham,
Hopi, Zuni and Western Apache history in the San Pedro valley. Archaeol. SW 18:1–16
Ferguson TJ, Watkins J, Pullar GL. 1997. Native Americans and archaeologists: commentary
and personal perspectives. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 237–52
Fforde C, Hubert J, Turnbull P, eds. 2002. The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in
Principle, Policy and Practice, One World Archaeol. Ser. 43. London: Routledge
Forsman L. 1997. Straddling the current: a view from the bridge over Clear Salt Water. See
Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 105–11
Fowler D. 1987. Uses of the past: archaeology in the services of the state. Am. Antiq. 52:229–48
Friesen TM. 1998. Qikiqtqruk: Inuvialuit Archaeology on Herschel Island. Whitehorse, Canada:
Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 22 pp.
Fuller R. 1997. A Me-Wuk perspective on Sierran archaeology. See Swidler et al. 1997,
pp. 143–48
González, A. 2003. Archaeology applied to the development of Atacameño communities. Chungará (Arica) 35:287–93
Gotthardt R. 2000. Ta’an Kwäch’än: People of the Lake. Whitehorse, Canada: Gov. Yukon, Herit.
Branch. 32 pp.
444
Watkins
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Gotthardt R, Hare G. 1994. Fish Lake: Uncovering the Past. Whitehorse, Canada: Gov. Yukon,
Herit. Branch. 36 pp.
Greene S. 2004. Indigenous People Incorporated? culture as politics, culture as property in
pharmaceutical bioprospecting (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:211–24
Greer S, Harrison R, McIntyre-Tamwoy S. 2002. Community-based archaeology in Australia.
World Archaeol. 34:265–87
Haber A. 2005. Archaeology at both sides of the iron bars. Archaeologies 1:In press
Hamilakis Y. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights
issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:343–44
Hammil J, Cruz R. 1994. Statement of American Indians against desecration before the World
Archaeological Congress. See Layton 1994, pp. 32–45
Hare G, Gotthardt R. 1996. A Look Back in Time: The Archaeology of Fort Selkirk. Whitehorse,
Canada: Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 32 pp.
Hare G, Greer S. 1994. Désdélé Méne’: The Archaeology of Annie Lake. Whitehorse, Canada:
Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 29 pp.
Hayden C. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting.’ Curr. Anthropol. 45:228–29
Heinen D. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:262
Hubbs D. 2002. Cultural heritage: conflict, contradiction, and rationalization in South Australia.
PhD thesis. Univ. S. Aust., Adelaide. 456 pp.
Hubert J. 1994. A proper place for the dead: a critical review of the “reburial” issue. See Layton
1994, pp. 131–66
Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights Proj. 2003. Study Guide: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Univ. Minn. Hum. Rights Cent. http://www.hrusa.org/indig/studyguide.htm
Int. Labour Organ. 1989. C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989. http://www.
ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/recomm/instr/c 169.htm
Isaacson K. 2004. Walking arm in arm. http://antiquity.ac.uk/wac5/issacson.html
Jackson L, Stevens RH. 1997. Hualapai tradition, religion, and the role of Cultural Resource
Management. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 135–42
Jemison GP. 1997. Who owns the past? See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 57–63
Jones DG, Harris R. 1998. Archaeological human remains. Curr. Anthropol. 39:253–64
Kahotea D. 2004. Commitment to Indigenous Archaeology. http://antiquity.ac.uk/wac5/
kahotea.html
Karlsson B. 2003. Anthropology and the ‘Indigenous Slot’: claims to and debates about Indigenous Peoples’ status in India. Crit. Anthropol. 23:403–23
Kehoe A. 1998. The Land of Prehistory. New York: Routledge. 288 pp.
Kelly R. 1998. Native Americans and archaeology: a vital partnership. Soc. Am. Archaeol. Bull.
16:24–26
Kenrick J, Lewis J. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:263
Klesert AL, Downer AS, eds. 1990. Preservation on the Reservation: Native Americans, Native
American Lands and Archeology. Navajo Nation Pap. Anthropol. No. 26. Navajo Nation
Archeol. Dep. Navajo Nation Hist. Preserv. Dep.
Kluth R, Munnell K. 1997. The integration of tradition and scientific knowledge on the Leech
Lake Reservation. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 112–19
Kuper A. 2003. The return of the native (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 44:389–95
Layton R, ed. 1994. Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London: Unwin Hyman. 272
pp.
Lewins F. 1991 Theoretical and political implications of the dynamic approach to Aboriginality.
See Thiele 1991, pp. 171–78
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
445
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Lewis WH, Lamas G, Vaisberg A, Rogerio Castro N, Elvin-Lewis M. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as property in pharmaceutical
bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:229–31
Lippert D. 1997. In front of the mirror: Native Americans and academic archaeology. See
Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 120–27
Lopez L. 2002. The protection of Indigenous peoples’ knowledge. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Lopez.
html.
Lowenthal D. 1994. Conclusion: archaeologists and others. In The Politics of the Past, ed. P
Gathercole, D Lowenthal, pp. 302–14. London: Routledge
Lurie NO. 1988. Relations between Indians and anthropologists. In History of Indian-White
Relations, ed. WE Washburn, pp. 548–56. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Lynott M, Wylie A, eds. 2000. Ethics in American Archaeology. Washington, DC: Soc. Am.
Archaeol. 168 pp. 2nd ed.
Martin R. 1997. How traditional Navajos view historic preservation: a question of interpretation. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 128–34
McAfee K. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting.’ Curr. Anthropol. 45:231–32
McGuire R. 1992. Archaeology and the first Americans. Am. Anthropol. 94:816–36
McGuire R. 1997. Why have archaeologists thought the real Indians were dead and what can
we do about it? See Biolsi & Zimmerman 1997, pp. 63–91
Meltzer D. 1983. The antiquity of man and the development of American Archaeology. Advan.
Methods Theory 8:1–51
Meskell L. 2002. The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
31:279–301
Mihesuah D. 1996. American Indians, anthropologists, pothunters and repatriation: ethical,
religious, and political differences. Am. Indian Q. 20:229–37
Morse B. 1997. Comparative assessments of Indigenous Peoples in Australasia, Scandinavia,
and North America. Sover. Symp. 10th, pp. 309–44. Oklahoma City: Okla. Bar Assoc.
Mulk I-M. 1997. Sacrificial places and their meaning in Sami society. In Sacred Sites, Sacred
Places, ed. D Carmichael, J Hubert, B Reeves, A Schande, pp. 121–31. London: UnwinHyman
Mulvaney J. 1991. Past regained, future lost: the Kow Swamp Pleistocene burials. Antiquity
65:12–21
Murphy D, Beck W, Brown C, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. ‘No man’s land’: Camps
at Corindi Lake South. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 40 pp.
N. Z. Archaeol. Assoc. 1999. NZAA Code of Ethics. http://www.nzarchaeology.org/ethics.htm
Nicholas GP. 2000. Archaeology, education, and the Secwepemc. In Forging Respect: Archaeologists and Native Americans Working Together, ed. KE Dongoske, KE Aldenderfer, K
Doehner, pp. 153–63. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol.
Nicholas GP. 1998. The SFU-Secwepemc Education Institute Archaeology Field School.
Midden 3:2–5
Nicholas GP, Andrews T. 1997. Indigenous archaeology in the postmodern world. In At a
Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, ed. G Nicholas, T Andrews, pp. 1–18.
Vancouver, BC: Archaeol. Press
Nicholas GP, Bannister KP. 2004. Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property
rights issues in archaeology (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:327–42
Nicholson B, Pokotylo D, Williamson R. 1996. Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples: A Report from the Aboriginal Heritage Committee. Can. Archaeol.
Assoc. Dep. Can. Herit.
446
Watkins
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Olsson S, Lewis D. 1995. Welfare rules and indigenous rights: the Sami people and the Nordic
welfare states. In Social Welfare with Indigenous Peoples, ed. J Dixon, R Scheurell, pp. 141–85.
London: Routledge
Omura K. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:395–96
Ouzman S. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights
issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:344–45
Pardoe C. 1992. Arches of radii, corridors of power: Reflections on current archaeological
practice. In Power, Knowledge, and Aborigines, ed. B Attwood, B. Arnold, pp. 132–41.
Melbourne: La Trobe Univ.
Plaice E. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:396–97
Poblete D. 2003. A proposal for approaching the archaeological heritage of the Belén community (Region of Tarapacá, Chile). Chungará (Arica) 35:327–35
Pritchard S. 2001. Indigenous peoples’ rights and self-determination. Australasian Legal Information Institute, Human Rights Defender Manual. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/
HRLRes/2001/8/
Pullar GL. 1994. The Qikertarmuit and the scientist: fifty years of clashing world views. See
Bray & Killion 1994, pp. 15–25
Ramos AR. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:397–98
Ratnagar S. 2004. Archaeology at the heart of a political confrontation: the case of Ayodhya
(with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:239–49
Regist. Prof. Archaeol. 2002. Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance. http://
www.rpanet.org
Riding In J. 1992. Without ethics and morality: a historical overview of imperial archaeology
and American Indians. Ariz. State Law J. 24:11–34
Roberts A. 2003. Knowledge, power and voice: An investigation of indigenous South Australian
perspectives of archaeology. PhD thesis. Flinders Univ., Adelaide
Robins S. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:398–99
Rodrı́guez U, Alfaro L. 2003. Archaeology, cultural heritage, and native populations: reflections
from the Atacama Desert. Chungará (Arica) 35:295–304
Romero Á. 2003. Archaeology and Indigenous communities of northern Chile. Chungará (Arica) 35:337–46
Roughly A. 1991 Racism, Aboriginality, and textuality: toward a deconstructing discourse. See
Thiele 1991, pp. 202–12
Sackett L. 1991 Promoting primitivism: conservationist depictions of Aboriginal Australians.
See Thiele 1991, pp. 233–46
Sampson D. 1997. (Former) Tribal chair questions scientists’ motives and credibility. http://www.
umatilla.nsn.us/kman2.html
Saugestad S. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:263–64
Schanche A. 2002. Saami skulls, anthropological race research and the repatriation question in
Norway. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 47–59
Sellevold BJ. 2002. Skeletal remains of the Norwegian Saami. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 59–62
Smith A, Beck W, Brown C, Murphy D, Perkins T, Somerville M. 2000. Red Rock: Camping
and Exchange. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 38 pp.
Smith B, Ouzman S. 2004. Taking stock: identifying Khoekhoen herder rock art in southern
Africa (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:499–515
Smith C, Burke H. 2003. In the spirit of the code. See Zimmerman et al. 2003, pp. 177–200
Smith L. 2004. The repatriation of human remains—problem or opportunity? Antiquity
78:404–13
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
447
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Soc. Am. Archaeol. 1996. Principles of Archaeological Ethics. http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/
ethics.html
Somerville M, Beck W, Brown C, Murphy D, Perkins T, Smith A. 2000. Arrawarra Meeting
Place. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 42 pp.
Sorenson E. 1999. B.C.’s ‘Long Ago Man’: a snapshot in time. Seattle Times, Sept. 14. http://
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com
Suzman J. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native’. Curr. Anthropol. 44:399–400
Swidler N, Dongoske KE, Anyon R, Downer AS, eds. 1997. Native Americans and Archaeologists:
Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. 289 pp.
Sylvain R. 2002. Land, water, and truth: San identity and global Indigenism. Am. Anthropol.
104:1074–85
Syms EL. 1997. Increasing awareness and involvement of Aboriginal People in their heritage
preservation: recent developments at the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. See
Nicholas & Andrews 1997, pp. 53–68
Thiele S, ed. 1991. Reconsidering Aboriginality. Aust. J. Anthropol. 2(2): Spec. issue
Thorley P. 2002. Current realities, idealized pasts: archaeology, values and indigenous heritage
management in Central Australia. Oceania 73:110–25
Trigger BG. 1980. Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. Am. Antiq. 45:662–76
Trigger BG. 1986. Prehistoric archaeology and American society: an historical perspective. In
American Archaeology: Past and Future, ed. D Meltzer, DD Fowler, JA Sabloff, pp. 187–215.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Trigger BG. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Turnbull P. 2002. Indigenous Australian people, their defence of the dead and native title. See
Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 63–86
Turner T. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:264–65
TwoBears D. 2000. A Navajo student’s perception: anthropology and the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Student Training Program. See Dongoske et al. 2000, pp. 15–22
Veber H. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as
property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:232
Vitelli KD. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights
issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:345
Watkins J. 2000a. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira. 218 pp.
Watkins J. 2000b. Writing unwritten history. Archaeology 53(6):36–41
Watkins J. 2001. Yours, mine, or ours?: conflicts between archaeologists and ethnic groups.
See Bray 2001, pp. 57–68
White Deer G. 1997. Return of the sacred: spirituality and the scientific imperative. See Swidler
et al. 1997, pp. 37–43
Wikipedia. 2004. Indigenous peoples. In Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Indigenous people
World Archaeol. Congr. 1989. The Vermillion Accord on Human Remains. http://ehlt.flinders.
edu.au/wac/site/about ethi.php
World Archaeol. Congr. World Archaeological Congress First Code of Ethics. http://ehlt.
flinders.edu.au/wac/site/about ethi.php
WHO. 2004. Ethics and Health. http://www.who.int/ethics/indigenous peoples/en/
index.html
Yellowhorn E. 2000. Indians, archaeology, and the changing world. See Lynott & Wylie 2000,
pp. 126–37
448
Watkins
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Yellowhorn E. 2002. Awakening Internalist Archaeology in the Aboriginal World. PhD thesis.
McGill Univ., Montreal
Zimmerman L. 1997. Remythologizing the relationship between Indians and archaeologists.
See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 44–57
Zimmerman L. 2001. Usurping Native American voice. See Bray 2001, pp. 169–84
Zimmerman L, Bruguier L. 1994. Indigenous peoples and the World Archaeological Congress
Code of Ethics. Public Archaeol. Rev. 2:5–8
Zimmerman L, Vitelli KD, Hollowell-Zimmer J, eds. 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira. 336 pp.
www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes
449