History

The first stage in the development of Indigenous archaeology can be traced through the work of anthropologists and archaeologists who worked closely with Aboriginal communities in the late nineteenth and early-to-mid twentieth centuries. In North America, they included Harlan Smith, Jesse Fewkes, Frank Cushing, Alanson Skinner, and Arthur C. Parker (himself Seneca Tribe); in Australia, Norman Tindale and Donald Thompson; in Saharan Africa, Jean-Paul Boeuf. During this seminal period of historical particularism, collaborative investigations were encouraged (if only indirectly) in the voracious pace of the ethnographic, linguistic, archaeological, and biological fieldwork of Franz Boas and his colleagues and students. The emphasis was on assembling large volumes of data to understand the unique character and history of each culture, and on original fieldwork, emic analysis, subjective data, and a relativistic approach. Early archaeologists and anthropologists thus often worked closely with Aboriginal community members (such as George Hunt and Paul Silook in North America; Charlie Lamjerroc and Charlie Mangga in Australia - although many are unnamed), relying on them to aid in locating or interpreting artifacts and sites, and for translations and other liaison services. In return, these community members not only benefited in terms of financial compensation and status, but also had a direct, often lasting influence on local archaeological practice. Another significant development that encouraged collaboration was archaeologists’ use of the direct historical approach to interpret archaeological sites by reference to nearby Historic Aboriginal communities (see Anthropological Archaeology).

For the most part, however, the involvement of Indigenous peoples in archaeology conducted on their traditional lands was generally limited to service as guides and crew members, or often merely unwitting bystanders. Indigenous communities usually benefited little from these interactions. These communities also had little meaningful input into the design of research projects, or involvement in decisions that directly affected their cultural heritage; in fact, the blatant quest to excavate human remains for display or study was often a violation of social mores and religious beliefs. As a result, archaeology was increasingly viewed as harmful and disturbing to many, and of little relevance or value. Although there were numerous exceptions, the primary beneficiaries of archaeology have long been archaeologists themselves and the institutions they serve, or, in the case of CRM projects, commercial interests, and the broader public.

During the latter part of the twentieth century, major changes took place in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the dominant society. By the 1960s, the increasing move toward Aboriginal cultural revitalization and politicization, coupled with a rapidly approaching postcolonial, postmodern world order, and changing public attitudes in the wake of the Vietnam War and other events, contributed to the emergence of Indigenous archaeology in North America. Comparable situations emerged elsewhere, including the outstation movement in Australia, and the independence of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) in Africa.

In the Americas, Africa, Australia, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, demands for tribal recognition, national sovereignty, and/or acceptance of ethnic identity and values were often as much inspired by cultural heritage issues as they were by calls for social justice and restitution. In the United States, for example, Vine Deloria, Jr., clearly articulated aspects of Native American dissatisfaction, including the legitimacy and practice of anthropology and archaeology and the callous treatment of ancient human remains. The emergence of the American Indian Movement in the early 1970s not only brought such concerns to national attention, but also launched actions to stop the desecration of ancestral remains and places of cultural significance. Increasing political clout and support from a sympathetic (albeit wary) public resulted in federal legislation as the American Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975) and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978). Significant federal legislation or rulings on Indigenous rights were passed in New Zealand (Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975)),

Australia (Mabo v Queensland (1992)), Canada (Del-gamuukw v Regina (1997)), and elsewhere.

Within the context of these above events, two broad, interrelated themes have contributed to the grassroots development of Indigenous archaeology: (1) the treatment of the dead (and sacred objects and places); (2) cultural heritage and legislative concerns about the ownership of cultural and intellectual property.

Treatment of the Dead

Indigenous objections to the collection, study, and display of human remains by archaeologists and others have had a significant effect on the practice and politics of archaeology and in some countries led to the passage of legislation to protect their religious practices and heritage. Long-standing concerns regarding both excavated and fortuitous finds relate foremost to the belief in the sanctity of human burials, and also to other factors including disrespectful or inappropriate handling, display, and curation.

During the late nineteenth century, institutions worldwide assembled major collections of nonEuropean skeletal remains to aid the study of human biological and cultural evolution, or to establish racial classification systems. In addition, some scholars felt it necessary to establish a record of the soon-to-be-extinct Indigenous peoples of various lands. Human remains were obtained not only from archaeological sites, but also by raiding Aboriginal cemeteries or collecting corpses on battlefields or from morgues; specimens were purchased and sent to museums around the world. Thus, over the past several centuries, the remains of tens of thousands of ancestral Aboriginal people were sent throughout colonial alliances worldwide, and accumulated in museums and other repositories where they often went unstudied or were simply forgotten about. In the United States, this included Ishi’s brain; in South African, Sarah Baartmann’s remains.

Indigenous peoples long demanded that such practices cease, citing the desecration of their ancestors and sacred sites, as well as the double standard of ‘scientific’ inquiry - Aboriginal human remains brought to laboratories to study, while those of European descent quickly reburied. In the 1970s, the American Indian Movement and others took direct action against archaeologists investigating human remains, but with little lasting effect. Reburial and repatriation issues subsequently rose to national and international prominence in the 1990s in response to the highly publicized looting of the Slack Farm site in Kentucky (1988) and similar events; to charges that archaeology was scientific colonialism; and to changing attitudes toward Aboriginal rights. The adoption of the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains by the World Archaeological Congress in 1989, and the passage of the National Museum of the American Indian Act (1989) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) in the United States, and the South African Resources Act (1999) directly addressed Indigenous concerns about the treatment of their dead, and for the first time placed moral values above scientific ones.

The reaction of the archaeological community to reburial and repatriation varied widely. Some felt that political correctness had trumped science and reason, while others were sympathetic; the majority fell in between with a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude. Despite initial fears, legislated or voluntary concessions by archaeologists to Indigenous concerns have proved beneficial to the long-term relationship between these groups simply because the controversies obliged interaction and communication. Important lessons about collaboration were provided by the Smithsonian Institution’s repatriation of 1000 individuals to Larsen Bay, Alaska, in 1991, the return of War God fetishes to Zuni Pueblo in 1989, and by a number of major repatriations in Australia, including the return by the Australian National University of the Kow Swamp remains in 1990 and of Mungo Lady to Lake Mungo in 1992, and that by the Natural History Museum, London, of 17 Tasmanians to Australia.

The willingness of some archaeologists and major scientific organizations to work with descendant communities to rectify past inequities set the stage for later collaborations. Although the Kennewick Man (the ‘Ancient One’) case (1995-2005) in the United States demonstrated that significant differences remain, the number of Native communities allowing or requesting the scientific study of ancestral human remains is increasing. As the result of reburial and repatriation legislation, in many countries archaeologists are now required to consult with Indigenous governments and organizations, and to adhere to established protocols and permitting system for field and research projects in their territory, or for studying human remains. In many cases, this brought archaeologists into direct contact with Indigenous groups, whose views began to inform the research process.

Cultural Heritage Concerns

Cultural heritage and traditional lands are defining elements of Aboriginal ethos and worldview. As a result, the care of ancestral sites has figured prominently in both the origins of and goals of Indigenous archaeology. By the mid-1960s, the preservation of archaeological sites was increasingly a focus of attention of CRM and heritage legislation in North America and elsewhere (National Historic Preservation Act, US (1966); Australian Heritage Commission Act (1975)). Such legislation was aimed at broad public values, but did not specifically address the concerns or desires of the Indigenous minority whose ancestors created the vast majority of archaeological sites in formerly colonized countries, and who lacked the authority to make decisions about the preservation and management of their own heritage. While ‘consultation’ with members of descendant communities has now become a frequent, and sometimes required component of heritage management, it too often has remained only nominal with little true power sharing. In addition, many Aboriginal communities lack funds and personnel to devote to archaeologists’ requests for information and externally imposed timelines. However, Indigenous organizations in southern Africa, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere increasingly require research, media, and travel permits for archaeological and ethnographic work conducted there.

Although federal and state or provincial legislation has protected the material heritage of Indigenous peoples, two aspects have been especially problematic. The first is the concept of ‘significance’ and its application in evaluating the value of heritage sites, as required by specific legislation. Within most archaeological projects, scientific values have been given primacy, although historical, religious, and community values are also considered, as in Botswana. Such a priority often runs counter to non-Western perspectives that do not require ‘significant’ places, ancestral sites, or entire landscapes to possess material evidence of what happened there (or even to have been culturally modified at all). However, concerns about oral history and intangible heritage have been addressed by policies or legislation in South Africa, Canada, and elsewhere, and, more generally, by UNESCO. The second issue concerns the notion of ‘stewardship’ and the role of archaeologists and their professional organizations as stewards of the archaeological record on behalf of (or in the interest of) descendant communities, especially those who may not be able (or willing) to care for it ‘properly’. Indigenous and non-Indigenous critics have charged that stewardship has generally been a unilateral, paternalistic process, with archaeologists assuming control over the process and imposing a different value system on the past.

Indigenous peoples have gradually achieved greater and more meaningful control over tangible and intangible cultural heritage through various avenues over the past 30 years, although there have been regular setbacks when legislation is changed or legal precedents overturned. New or broadened legislation has ensured greater direct Aboriginal involvement, such as the requirement for First Nations in British Columbia to review archaeological permit applications (Heritage Conservation Act (1996), Canada), and offered new levels of protection (e. g., Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act (1989), Australia, and UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003)). In the United States, a 1992 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act allowed tribes to establish their own Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, enabling direct involvement in heritage preservation on tribal lands. Successful negotiations for Aboriginal management or co-management of tribal lands and heritage sites also occurred with more frequency (such as Uluru and Kakadu National Parks in Australia), albeit with some federally imposed limits.

Tribal involvement in archaeology was underway as early as the 1950s in many countries in Africa following independence. In the United States, it began in the 1970s with the Zuni Archaeology Program (in 1975) and the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department (in 1978) as the first major initiatives to address specific concerns of Indigenous peoples relating to CRM and also to provide training. During the 1980s and 1990s, state government agencies and Indigenous organizations began to establish programs to train community members (e. g., ‘Aboriginal rangers’ in Australia) to monitor CRM projects. College and university-level archaeology programs provided new opportunities for Indigenous people to gain access to important tools (Figures 4, 5 and 6).

Various museums worldwide have responded to Aboriginal concerns by considering and integrating alternate curation and management practices, shifting their roles from repositories of antiquities (or ‘captured heritage’) to holders of cultural treasures. The Museum of South Australia, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the National Museum of the American Indian, and others actively promote Indigenous perspectives in exhibits and education programs. In addition, the rise of community-based museums has provided new opportunities to explore and articulate local values in cultural heritage. In the United States, new sources of funding, including casinos, have enabled some groups to fully fund their own archaeology programs (e. g., Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center in Connecticut).