410 position paper nic g revised

Nic Grosjean ANTH 410

M. Scoggin

1

Indigenous Archaeology

Indigenous voices of the world have historically been marginalized or entirely

absent from historical accounts, governance, education, and other forms of human

action and interaction. The term ‘indigenous’ in this instance and context is chosen

specifically to engender two unique yet related notions. The first connotation of

‘indigenous’ is the popular and common definition for the term, roughly related as ‘what

culture(s) existed in a place before historic European colonization of the globe’

Contemporarily, China and the United States take the role of the colonizers. The second

connotation of ‘indigenous’ is meant to refer to the self and one’s personal voice (this

connotation includes all people). That condition of the second connotation is thereafter

altered as our minds become colonized and acculturated through influences in our

households, education, and careers, becoming re-defined. In this paper the term

‘indigenous Anthropology’ or ‘indigenous archaeology’ refers to the contemporary

inclusion of indigenous peoples and opinions into Anthropology and archaeology. This

use of the term ‘indigenous archaeology’ is meant to infer the same meaning as Joe

Watkins does in his book Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and

Scientific Practice. The terms ‘indigenous Anthropology’ and ‘indigenous archaeology’

are not meant to refer to Messerschmidt’s use of the term ‘Indigenous Anthropology’,

which denotes practicing Anthropology within and upon one’s own culture

(Messerschmidt).

These interpretations of ‘indigenous’ and this indigenous/colonized voice

interaction are paramount to anthropology and the choices we make, both as humans

and as anthropologists. Anthropology—the study of humans, human ancestors, and


M. Scoggin

2

humanness—during the twentieth century shifted its foci and ethical intentions, not from

indigenous to colonial, but from colonial to indigenous. Historically, anthropology and

archaeology have been conducted through a Western (Euro-American) cultural lens.

This Western cultural lens portrays a given culture through the dominant Western

culture and rhetoric, and quite possibly is not a complete or correct examination of a

given. Contemporarily, an understanding the culture that is being studied is requisite to

properly understand portray a culture anthropologically or archaeologically. Issues in

anthropology have recently ranged from epistemological, to practical, to theoretical and

numerous points between. Intrinsically these opinions, issues, and theories vary

depending on who is reproducing as well as practicing them. Contemporarily, the

practices of anthropology and archaeology have increasingly been conducted through

an indigenous lens and have included indigenous voices and views. This increased

inclusion of indigenous views and voices belies a necessary change in anthropology

and archaeology, and is essential in order to more-aptly and more-respectfully

document humans and their history.

As identified by James Clifford, notable past faults of anthropology and

archaeology—and those anthropologists and archaeologists whom practiced it—vary

from acting as authorities on native artifacts or acting without consultation with the

respective tribes to conducting excavations without receiving prior permission from all

tribes locally. (Clifford 5). Clifford continues by identifying another past fault as the lack

of exchange information about anthropological and archaeological results between

Native American tribes and anthropologists (Clifford). These historical aspects of

anthropology are rooted in the colonial mind-frame within which anthropology


M. Scoggin

3

developed. Clifford discusses and posits the, “possibilities and limits of collaborative

work,” between Native Americans and anthropologists (Clifford 5). Clifford is qualified to

discuss and ponder these possibilities through his work on Native heritage exhibitions

with Native Alaskans in Southern Alaska (Clifford). One way of resisting or negating

anthropology's colonial influence (gained during the anthropology’s development) can

be found through indigenous anthropology. Indigenous anthropology seeks to address

and amend some issues that historically have both insulted and offended native

communities and simultaneously hindered and caused the evolution of anthropology

and archaeology (Watkins XIII). That being said, the importance of the history of

anthropology cannot be understated. It is from our histories and pasts that we plan for

our futures, and despite present-day criticisms of past anthropologists, they played their

crucial role in the evolution of anthropology and anthropological theory.

Past Anthropologists and their bodies of thought should not be disregarded

because of current disagreement with their methods, practices, or goals, for they offer

and have founded many theories that persist and are enacted today. Franz Boas

contributed greatly to the field of anthropology during his professional career. Boas is

considered widely as the father of American Anthropology, despite being formally

educated in physics and geology (Boas). The aim of anthropological research,

according to Boas, was an attempt to understand humans and their past and present

biology, psychology, and culture (Boas—Aims of Anthropological Research). Boas is

considered the father of American Anthropology because of his legacy: laying the

foundation for Anthropology’s four sub-fields (Boas). Interestingly, Boas utilized cranial

measurements to challenge racial inferiority theories while the same types of


M. Scoggin

4

measurements served others to embolden their theories regarding and supporting racial

categories (Boas). Despite some controversy surrounding Boas, during his career and

after his passing, Boas contributed much to what is considered modern North American

Anthropology (Boas). This influence stems from his body of work and spread outward

through those he influenced professionally—Kroeber, Sapir, and Meade to name a few

(Boas).

Burgeoning partially from the lasting influence of the, “murky ferment of French

colonial history,” are such theorists as Sartre, Bourdieu, and Foucault (Goodwin-Smith).

All three of these men had measurable impact and influence on anthropology as a

practice and science, yet all three will not be discussed here. Despite Foucault not

being an Anthropologist, his theories are still relevant to the field of Anthropology and

are discussed contemporarily. Arguably one of Foucault’s greatest contributions to

Anthropological theory was his theory on post-structuralism (Goodwin-Smith). Post-

structuralism is a theory that arose in response to structuralism. Post-structuralism

states that there is not a unified truth and instability is inherent to all structures

(Eagleton). This aspect of post-structuralism is especially relevant to Anthropology.

Furthermore post-structuralism identifies that power structures reinforce hierarchies

(Owl). Boas and Foucault both influenced anthropology as a study and a science and

these influences created opportunities for new advancements in anthropology and

anthropological theory.

Despite, and arguably because of, some past scholars’ and anthropologists’

lacking utilization of indigenous voices and knowledge, the study of anthropology and

archaeology has begun to incorporate indigenous peoples and their viewpoints into


M. Scoggin

5

anthropological and archaeological work. As stated by Ferguson, "fundamental changes

are occurring in the way archaeology is conducted in the Americas" and as Ferguson

points out, there will always be both proponents and opponents to any kind of change

(Ferguson). Ferguson looks to the chance this change presents—both for Native

Americans and anthropologists and archaeologists—to work together conducting

indigenous archaeology (Ferguson). Not only are indigenous voices now more valued,

sought, and presented, but also anthropology and archaeology are being conducted by

indigenous peoples, as will be discussed in more depth later.

Vine Deloria was a prominent Native American scholar and leader with a law

degree from the University of Colorado (Deloria). Deloria was a pivotal figure in

American politics of the twentieth and early twenty-first century and during the civil

rights movement and the American Indian Movement (Deloria). In his first book, Custer

Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto Deloria “redefined the relationship of Native

Peoples to Anthropologists and Archaeologists” (Leventhal 3). In short, Deloria

condemned the study and characterization of Native Americans as a strange, perishing

type of people, necessary to study and quantify (Stocking). Deloria suggested that

anthropologists should refrain from studying Native Americans unless those

anthropologists could present a tangible advantage in accepting such proposed study

(Deloria). Deloria wanted Anthropologists, “to seek tribal permission for their work and

to focus on ‘applied’ research helpful to Indians in the here and now” (Stocking 270).

Seeking tribal permission before a project is started through explicit contract

agreements has now become a standard Archaeological practice (Clifford). Deloria

gave, “Native individuals and their governments…intellectual, theoretical, philosophical,


M. Scoggin

6

and substantive arguments necessary to support their inherent personal and national

sovereignty" (Wilkins 151). Another crucial aspect of Deloria’s body of work, “sought to

improve the nation-to nation and intergovernmental relationships of and between First

Nations, and between First Nations and non-Native governments at all levels" (Wilkins).

Deloria had an aunt, Ella C. Deloria, who was an anthropologist, publishing works on

American Indian linguistics and ethnography (Deloria).

In their book Digging It Up Down Under: A Practical Guide to Doing Archaeology

in Australia, Claire Smith and Heather Burke discuss in-depth the process of conducting

archaeology in Australia (Smith). Their book is relevant to this essay because of the

importance Smith and Burke place on interaction between local Aboriginal tribes before,

throughout, and concluding the archaeological process (Smith). Smith and Burke state

that historical archaeology is, "the heritage of contemporary communities" (Smith 206).

An important caveat made by Smith and Burke is on the possibility of archaeological

results coming into conflict with the truths held by a given community regarding their

understanding of their culture and history (Smith). Alternate truths, no matter how

immiscible, all can offer to share alternate and worthy understandings of ourselves and

the world that surrounds us. A key example given by Smith and Burke where the

inclusion of Aboriginal people in anthropological and archaeological work is beneficial

and arguably indispensable is the analysis of rock art in Australia (Smith). The

interpretations of rock art by culturally-foreign anthropologists are limited to descriptive

and comparative analyses, and these interpretations may be entirely erroneous to the

actual meaning of painting (Smith). This limitation is overcome when Aboriginal

Australian artists and elders local to the painting(s) in question are consulted (Smith).


M. Scoggin

7

This positive, focused interaction between Aboriginal Australians and anthropologists

and archaeologists is one instance where a great array of information becomes

available to learn about. Rock art in Australia is used by Aboriginal people to document,

“social activities, economy, material culture, ideology, and environmental context”

encompassing all parts of their lives, history, culture, and environment (Smith 173).

Joe Watkins is an authority on the integration of Native Americans into

archaeology as he is a Choctaw Indian and a practicing archaeologist. He also is a

proponent of this paper’s use of the term ‘indigenous archaeology’. In his book

Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice, Watkins calls

for the advancement and increased practice of indigenous archaeology. In his view,

indigenous archaeology would be defined as including native peoples as partners with

equal decision-making power in cultural resources management and its practice

(Watkins). Watkins himself is an example of indigenous archaeology, but also gives

examples in his book where indigenous archaeology has been implemented (Watkins).

One major example given by Watkins is the Navajo Cultural Resources Management

Program (Stamps). The Navajo Cultural Resources Management Program was created

by, and is run by and for, the Navajo Nation (Begay). The Navajo Cultural Resources

Management Program has its roots in the Navajo Nation’s Tribal Museum (Begay).

During the 1950s the Navajo Nation’s Tribal Museum was heading an active

archaeological and historic research program (Begay). By 1977, the Navajo Nation

formally established their cultural resources management program (Begay). The Navajo

Nation later created the Navajo Historic Preservation Department in 1986, which was

largely empowered by the Navajo Nation’s passing of the Cultural Resources Protection


M. Scoggin

8

Act (Begay). The act placed, “the authority for Navajo historic preservation decisions

with the Navajo Nation and the Historic Preservation Department (Begay). These

actions by the Navajo Nation are a further example showing how indigenous

anthropology and indigenous archaeology can create benefit for all parties involved.

Indigenous voices have historically been disregarded and absent from historical

accounts, governance, education, and many other human interactions. The term

‘indigenous’ in this instance and context is chosen specifically to engender two unique

yet related notions. This essay argued for the increasing need and necessity for

implementation of an indigenous form of archaeology. Indigenous anthropology and

archaeology mark a shift in greater anthropological and archaeological ethical intent.

Indigenous archaeology rejects the Western cultural lens in sake of a culturally relevant

lens. Contemporarily, anthropology and archaeology have increasingly relied upon a

culturally-native cultural lens, provided through the inclusion of native peoples into

anthropology and archaeology. This increasing inclusion of native peoples, views, and

voices into anthropology and archaeology is necessary in order to document human

history through more respectful and complete means.


M. Scoggin

9

Bibliography

Begay, Daryl R. “Navajo Preservation: The Success of the Navajo Nation Historic

Preservation Department” CRM Vol. 14, No. 4 National Parks Service. Web.

http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/14-4/14-4-all.pdf

Boas, Franz. “The Aims of Anthropological Research” Science, New Series, Vol. 76, No.

1983 (Dec. 30, 1932). 605-613. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1656627

"Boas, Franz." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity,

Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, (2008). 344-346. Gale Virtual

Reference Library. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3045300218&v=2.1&u=hum_gvrl&it=r

&p=GVRL&sw=w

Clifford, James. “Looking Several Ways: Anthropology and Native Heritage in Alaska”

Current Anthropology. Vol. 45, No. 1 (2004). 5-30. Web.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/379634

"Deloria, Vine Jr." Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2004.

481-484. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3404701728&v=2.1&u=hum_gvrl&it=r

&p=GVRL&sw=w

Ferguson, T. J. “Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology”. Annual Review of

Anthropology. Vol. 25 (October 1996). 63-79. Web.

http://www.annualreviews.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25

.1.63

Leventhal, Richard M. "Vine Deloria, Jr. (1933--2005)." Expedition Vol. 48.1 (2006): 3.

Academic Search Elite. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.


M. Scoggin

10

Messerschmidt, Donald A. “On Indigenous Anthropology: Some Observations” Current

Anthropology. Vol. 22, No. 2 (Apr., 1981). 197-198. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742723

Goodwin-Smith, I. “Resisting Foucault: the necessity of appropriation” Social Identities,

(2010). 587-596.

Eagleton, Terry “Marxism, Structuralism, and Post-Structuralism: In the Tracks of

Historical Materialism by Perry Anderson” Diacritics. Vol. 15, No. 4 (1985). 2-12. Web.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/464931

Smith, Claire; Burke, Heather. “Digging It Up Down Under: A Practical Guide to Doing

Archaeology in Australia” New York: Springer Science+Business Media, (2007). Et al.

Print.

Stamps, Richard B. “Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific

Practice” by Joe Watkins” American Antiquity. Vol. 68, No. 1 (2003). 196-197. Web.


Stocking George W., Jr. Review “Indians and Anthropology: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the

Critique of Anthropology by Thomas Biolsi; Larry J. Zimmerman; Vine Deloria”. Pacific

Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (May, 1998), 270-272. Web.


Watkins, Joe. "Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific

Practice". Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press, (2000). Et al. Print.

Wilkins, David E. “Vine Deloria Jr. and Indigenous Americans” Wicazo Sa Review, Vol.

21, No. 2 (Autumn, 2006). 151-155. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140273

410 position paper nic g revised

Technology

Transcript of 410 position paper nic g revised