Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org
by Georgetown University Medical Center- DAHLGREN MEDICAL LIBRARY on 09/13/07. For personal use only.
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Key Words
Aboriginal, ethics, Indigeneity, Fourth World, colonialism
Abstract
Archaeology has been linked to colonialist attitudes and scientic
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 denitions that govern their
relationships with those populations. The specic name by which
Indigenous groups are known varies from country to country, as local governments are involved in determining the appropriateness of
particular denitions 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 denitions, 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 specic name by which it
identies, a particular name by which these
people are recognized in particular countries
or regions, these indigenous people are generally lumped into a category that identies
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 denition of Indigenous in relation
430
Watkins
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 dened, 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 signicant.
Other anthropologists have examined the
issue of what is meant by the term Indigenous. Beteilles 1998 article The Idea of Indigenous People debated the utility of the
concept, and comments by Childs & Delgado
(1999) further rened 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
431
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
AR254-AN34-22
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
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
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 nal 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
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
AR254-AN34-22
434
Watkins
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
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 scientic information from the nd
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 personthats
kind of an endorsement of scientic study
(Brooke 1999).
The framework for the study of the adult
male called Kwaday Dan Tsnchi, meaning
long-ago person found in Tutchone, was announced in September 1999. The Canadian
government and tribal groups set up a scientic advisory panel to evaluate research proposals for scientic 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 ofcer 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 Youre doing the right thing,
and the other one-third saying We dont
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 Im 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
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
perspectives on archaeology have been positively inuenced 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 groups
perspectives.
AR254-AN34-22
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 conict 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 Oaxacas 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
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
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 Chungara,
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 Archae Indigenous Commuology and the Ollague
nity, one of whose main objectives was to
improve working relationships between the
Leandro Bravo V. Museum, the Indigenous
community (self-identied as Quechua) and
researchers. Another paper in the same issue
by Jofre Poblete (2003, pp. 327335) used an
ethnoarchaeological approach that incorporated ethnographic information into archaeological interpretation. Bravo Gonzalez (2003,
pp. 287293) 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. Romeros
paper on his work in northern Chile (2003,
pp. 337346) argues that there has been little interaction between scientic 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
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
AR254-AN34-22
Scandinavia
The Sami are an Indigenous people who live
in four separate countriesFinland, 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 shing and supplemented by agriculture; the emergence of
an inland-Sami culture where agriculture was
supplemented by hunting, shing, 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 sacricial places,
with a great number of these sacricial 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
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.
439
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
Watkins
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.
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 worlds major archaeological and anthropological
associations recognize the responsibilities to the Indigenous peoples whom they study
or with whom they work.
441
AR254-AN34-22
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
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 archaeologyarchaeology done by and for Indigenous peopleis 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 rst archaeologists I can remember whose writings inuenced 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. Todays authors are more
aware of the inuence 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.
11630
Aird M. 2002. Developments in the repatriation of human remains and other cultural items in
Queensland. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 30311
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 15:4143
Archer J. 1991. Ambiguity in political ideology: Aboriginality as nationalism. See Thiele 1991,
pp. 16170
Asch M, Samson C. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:26162
Asian Development Bank. 2004. Denition 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, Avendano
indigenous community (region of Antofagasta, Chile). Chungara (Arica) 35:27585
Bannerjee SB. 2004. Comment on Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Curr. Anthropol. 45:22425
Bannister K. 2004. Comment on Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Curr. Anthropol. 45:22526
Beattie O, Apland B, Blake EW, Cosgrove JA, Gaunt S, et al. 2000. The Kwaday Dan Tsnchi
discovery from a glacier in British Columbia. Can. J. Archaeol. 24:12947
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. 16166
Beteille A. 1998. The idea of indigenous people. Curr. Anthropol. 39:18791
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 70:44044
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 78:41418
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. 43:34243
Brush S. 2004. Comment on Indigenous people incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as
property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Curr. Anthropol. 45:22627
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. 15155
Castaneda
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. 40:21112
Cocom J. 2002. Privilege and ethics in archaeology: the experience as ction. 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. 97115. Los Angeles: Getty Res. Inst.
Cohen E. 2003. Multiculturalism, Latin Americans, and Indigeneity in Australia. Aust. J.
Anthropol. 14:3952
www.annualreviews.org Through Wary Eyes
443
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
AR254-AN34-22
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. 45:21124
Greer S, Harrison R, McIntyre-Tamwoy S. 2002. Community-based archaeology in Australia.
World Archaeol. 34:26587
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. 45:34344
Hammil J, Cruz R. 1994. Statement of American Indians against desecration before the World
Archaeological Congress. See Layton 1994, pp. 3245
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. Desdele Mene: 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. 45:22829
Heinen D. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:262
Hubbs D. 2002. Cultural heritage: conict, 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. 13166
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. 13542
Jemison GP. 1997. Who owns the past? See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 5763
Jones DG, Harris R. 1998. Archaeological human remains. Curr. Anthropol. 39:25364
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. 23:40323
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.
16:2426
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 scientic knowledge on the Leech
Lake Reservation. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 11219
Kuper A. 2003. The return of the native (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 44:38995
Layton R, ed. 1994. Conict 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. 17178
www.annualreviews.org Through Wary Eyes
445
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. 45:22931
Lippert D. 1997. In front of the mirror: Native Americans and academic archaeology. See
Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 12027
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. 30214. London: Routledge
Lurie NO. 1988. Relations between Indians and anthropologists. In History of Indian-White
Relations, ed. WE Washburn, pp. 54856. 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. 12834
McAfee K. 2004. Comment on Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture
as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Curr. Anthropol. 45:23132
McGuire R. 1992. Archaeology and the rst Americans. Am. Anthropol. 94:81636
McGuire R. 1997. Why have archaeologists thought the real Indians were dead and what can
we do about it? See Biolsi & Zimmerman 1997, pp. 6391
Meltzer D. 1983. The antiquity of man and the development of American Archaeology. Advan.
Methods Theory 8:151
Meskell L. 2002. The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
31:279301
Mihesuah D. 1996. American Indians, anthropologists, pothunters and repatriation: ethical,
religious, and political differences. Am. Indian Q. 20:22937
Morse B. 1997. Comparative assessments of Indigenous Peoples in Australasia, Scandinavia,
and North America. Sover. Symp. 10th, pp. 30944. Oklahoma City: Okla. Bar Assoc.
Mulk I-M. 1997. Sacricial places and their meaning in Sami society. In Sacred Sites, Sacred
Places, ed. D Carmichael, J Hubert, B Reeves, A Schande, pp. 12131. London: UnwinHyman
Mulvaney J. 1991. Past regained, future lost: the Kow Swamp Pleistocene burials. Antiquity
65:1221
Murphy D, Beck W, Brown C, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. No mans 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. 15363. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol.
Nicholas GP. 1998. The SFU-Secwepemc Education Institute Archaeology Field School.
Midden 3:25
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. 118.
Vancouver, BC: Archaeol. Press
Nicholas GP, Bannister KP. 2004. Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property
rights issues in archaeology (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:32742
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.
AR254-AN34-22
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. 14185.
London: Routledge
Omura K. 2003. Comment on The return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 44:39596
Ouzman S. 2004. Comment on Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights
issues in archaeology. Curr. Anthropol. 45:34445
Pardoe C. 1992. Arches of radii, corridors of power: Reections on current archaeological
practice. In Power, Knowledge, and Aborigines, ed. B Attwood, B. Arnold, pp. 13241.
Melbourne: La Trobe Univ.
Plaice E. 2003. Comment on The return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 44:39697
Poblete D. 2003. A proposal for approaching the archaeological heritage of the Belen community (Region of Tarapaca, Chile). Chungara (Arica) 35:32735
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: fty years of clashing world views. See
Bray & Killion 1994, pp. 1525
Ramos AR. 2003. Comment on The return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 44:39798
Ratnagar S. 2004. Archaeology at the heart of a political confrontation: the case of Ayodhya
(with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:23949
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. 24:1134
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. 44:39899
Rodrguez U, Alfaro L. 2003. Archaeology, cultural heritage, and native populations: reections
from the Atacama Desert. Chungara (Arica) 35:295304
2003. Archaeology and Indigenous communities of northern Chile. Chungara (ArRomero A.
ica) 35:33746
Roughly A. 1991 Racism, Aboriginality, and textuality: toward a deconstructing discourse. See
Thiele 1991, pp. 20212
Sackett L. 1991 Promoting primitivism: conservationist depictions of Aboriginal Australians.
See Thiele 1991, pp. 23346
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. 45:26364
Schanche A. 2002. Saami skulls, anthropological race research and the repatriation question in
Norway. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 4759
Sellevold BJ. 2002. Skeletal remains of the Norwegian Saami. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 5962
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. 45:499515
Smith C, Burke H. 2003. In the spirit of the code. See Zimmerman et al. 2003, pp. 177200
Smith L. 2004. The repatriation of human remainsproblem or opportunity? Antiquity
78:40413
www.annualreviews.org Through Wary Eyes
447
ARI
25 August 2005
15:8
AR254-AN34-22
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. 4457
Zimmerman L. 2001. Usurping Native American voice. See Bray 2001, pp. 16984
Zimmerman L, Bruguier L. 1994. Indigenous peoples and the World Archaeological Congress
Code of Ethics. Public Archaeol. Rev. 2:58
Zimmerman L, Vitelli KD, Hollowell-Zimmer J, eds. 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira. 336 pp.
449
Contents
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents
Frontispiece
Sally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p xvi
Prefatory Chapter
Comparisons: Possible and Impossible
Sally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Archaeology, Ecological History, and Conservation
Frances M. Hayashida p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p43
Archaeology of the Body
Rosemary A. Joyce p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Looting and the Worlds Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate
Response
Neil Brodie and Colin Renfrew p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology
Joe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429
The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times
Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575
Biological Anthropology
Early Modern Humans
Erik Trinkaus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 207
Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations
William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
The Ecologies of Human Immune Function
Thomas W. McDade p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
vii
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Contents
viii
Contents
Contents
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Contents
ix
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Contents
Contents
Contents
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Contents
xi