Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Indigenous peoples of the Americas wikipedia , lookup
Underwater archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Pseudoarchaeology wikipedia , lookup
Community archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Culture-historical archaeology wikipedia , lookup
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