Native Peoples and Archaeology (Indigenous Archaeology)

Author's personal copy 1660 NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY George P Nicholas, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada ã 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Glossary Aboriginal people in Canada Recognized in Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35, respectively, as Indians, Métis, and Inuit. Indigenous archaeology An expression of archaeological theory and practice in which the discipline interacts with indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities. Indigenous peoples Refers to so-called Fourth World and/or formerly disempowered, disenfranchised, or colonized peoples. Depending upon region, this term may be synonymous with Aboriginal, First Nations, First Peoples, and Native, amongst others. Introduction Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory and practice in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeology seeks to (1) make archaeology more representative of, responsible to, and relevant for Indigenous communities; (2) redress real and perceived inequalities in the practice of archaeology; and (3) inform and broaden the understanding and interpretation of the archaeological record through the incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories, and science. It is an approach to archaeology defined as much by the practice of non-Indigenous researchers working with Indigenous peoples, as by initiatives led by Indigenous archaeologists and communities themselves. Indigenous archaeology is conducted by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous practitioners, one of many points of similarity it has with feminist archaeology (in which there are male practitioners) – what matters is not the identity of the practitioner but rather achieving the goal of decolonizing the discipline and otherwise questioning the knowledge we obtain through archaeology. Some initiatives exclusively involve members of one or more Indigenous communities. In addition, the field of study is not limited to tribal lands or sites, but to the entire archaeological record worldwide. Thus, Indigenous archaeological studies have included a Secwepemc First Nation archaeologist working on Secwepemc sites in British Columbia, Canada; an archaeologist of European descent working with an Aboriginal community in Australia; a Ghanan archaeologist conducting ethnoarchaeological research in Ethiopia; and a Native American (Ojibwe) excavating at Çatälhöyk in Turkey. In its broadest sense, Indigenous archaeology may be defined as any one (or more) of the following: (1) the active participation or consultation of Indigenous peoples in archaeology (Figures 1 and 2); (2) a political statement concerned with issues of Aboriginal self-government, sovereignty, land rights, identity, and heritage; (3) a postcolonial enterprise designed to decolonize the discipline; (4) a manifestation of Indigenous epistemologies; (5) the basis for alternative models of cultural heritage management or stewardship; (6) the product of choices and actions made by individual archaeologists; (7) a means of empowerment and cultural revitalization or political resistance; and (8) an extension, evaluation, critique, or application of current archaeological theory. Not coincidently, the lack of precise parameters to this field contrasts with the preciseness of Western science and philosophy, and is more in line with the openness and lack of rigid categorization often found in Indigenous worldviews and ethnoclassification systems (i.e., where greater variation in classification of, e.g., gender roles, may not only accepted but expected). Such a nonabsolutist view is also found in feminist standpoint theory. Nomenclature The term ‘Indigenous archaeology’ and recognition of the concept are relatively recent developments. The earliest use of the term is in Dewhirst’s 1980 monograph, The Indigenous Archaeology of Yuquot, but this referred to the Aboriginal (vs. European) component of the archaeological site. However, essential aspects of the still-unnamed concept appear in print at least a decade earlier. David Denton’s 1985 statement that ‘‘The development of native archaeologies requires an ongoing dialogue between traditional scientific archaeology and various native perspectives on the past’’ (emphasis added) is one of several that recognized the need for broadening the scope of archaeology. It was not until the late 1990s that the term was used with some consistency in its modern connotations. The first published definition of Indigenous archaeology is by Nicholas and Andrews (1997) who used it in reference to ‘‘archaeology with, for, and by Indigenous peoples’’. Thereafter, the term appears with increasingly frequency, becoming widespread in 2000 with the publication of Joe Watkins’ volume, Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY 1661 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Although Watkins did not define the term, his review of the historical development of Indian-archaeologist relations in North America (particularly as related to CRM and to reburial and repatriation issues) contextualized key aspects of the concept. The term has now gained wide recognition, despite the fact that it still resists formal or consistent definition. The ‘indigenous’ part of Indigenous archaeology most often relates to the involvement of so-called Fourth World and/or formerly disempowered, or disenfranchised, or colonized peoples in the process of doing archaeology (Figure 3). Maybury-Lewis’ definition of ‘Indigenous peoples’ as those who are ‘‘marginal or dominated by the states that claim jurisdiction over Figure 1 Randi Hillard, Nuxalk First Nation, examining 3000year-old shell midden at an ancestral Secwepemc archaeological site in Kamloops, British Columbia, 2002 (G. Nicholas, Photo). them’’ (2002: 7) generally coincides with how the term is constituted in the present archaeological context. There are, however, indigenes who are not disenfranchised or disempowered; in many parts of Africa, for example, they are the government. Likewise, while archaeology in China has always been ‘indigenous’, that falls outside of the realm of ‘Indigenous archaeology’. In Australia, ‘indigenous archaeology’ most often refers to the archaeology of the pre-contact period. Indigenous archaeology generally refers to projects and developments associated with or initiated by Aboriginal peoples in the United States, Canada, and Australia, but may include others (e.g., African Americans). However, expressions of Indigenous archaeology also appear widely elsewhere, including in parts of Africa (e.g., South Africa, Kenya), New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, northern Europe, Siberia, and Central and South America. This has created discussion around the questions of ‘‘who is ‘indigenous’?’’ and why some individuals do not consider themselves as such. In Central America, for example, only a small percentage of the native-born population currently self-identifies as ‘indigenous’. This clearly reflects important political and social issues regarding identity and self-representation. Aspects of Indigenous archaeology may overlap with or be synonymous with ‘native archaeology’, ‘internalist archaeology’, ‘anthropological archaeoogy’, ‘collaborative archaeology’, ‘covenantal archaeology’, ‘vernacular archaeology’, ‘community archaeology’, ‘stakeholder archaeology’, ‘participatory action research’, ‘ethnocritical archaeology’, ‘reciprocal archaeology’, and ‘ethical archaeology’. Figure 2 Hopi tribal member LaVern Siweumptewa interpreting a petroglyph map depicting clan migrations at the site of Wupatki in northern Arizona, with Micah Loma’omvaya, Bradley Balenquah, and Mark Elson looking on. Photograph by T. J. Ferguson, July 29, 1998. Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy 1662 NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY Figure 3 Sharon Doucet, Ehattesaht/Nuu-chah-nulth Nation, British Columbia, represents one of a growing number of Native Americans who see archaeology as a vital bridge between past and present (G. Nicholas, Photo). 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)), Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY 1663 Australia (Mabo v Queensland (1992)), Canada (Delgamuukw 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-beextinct 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 Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy 1664 NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY 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). Theoretical Foundations In general practice, Indigenous archaeology employs all of the basic elements of archaeological theory, namely those associated with culture historical, processual, and postprocessual approaches. At the same time, its character has been influenced by the Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY 1665 broadening discourse in anthropology and, somewhat later, archaeology that began to take shape in the late 1970s. It is thus a logical step in the historical development of archaeological thought and practice. This is especially evident in the shift in emphasis from the etic, empirical, and problem-oriented aspects of cultural historical and processual archaeology to the more emic, reflexive, and agency-oriented aspects of postprocessualism. Nonetheless, individuals in many Indigenous communities believe that they do not need archaeology to tell them what they already know about the past through other means. Critics have suggested that Indigenous archaeology represents a highly subjective, ‘anything-goes’ approach. Some explanations by Indigenous peoples of Figure 4 Lunch break during a trip to relocate a dugong hunting magic site inside the scrub in northern Cape York. Pictured are Kaio Ropeuarn, Mickeri Peter, Andrew Peter, Meun (Shorty) Lifu and Christo Lifu. (Photo Susan McIntyre - Tamwoy). how things were in the past are, in fact, embedded in religious belief and thus do fall outside the realm of Western notions of science and history. However, as defined here, Indigenous archaeology is a relatively coherent body of method and theory contextualized by the needs, values, and critiques of Indigenous peoples. For example, it may operate as an extension of traditional archaeological methods conducted with, for, or by communities in CRM surveys; a pursuit of land claims; or supplementing or validating traditional histories. Much of Indigenous archaeology is strongly oriented to identifying and hopefully addressing the limitations and biases of Western science, as well as the significant power imbalances faced by minority communities. It attempts to make archaeology more relevant, more responsible, and more representative through a strongly postcolonial orientation that runs parallel to, or intersects with Marxist theory, cultural relativism, feminist theory, and other explicitly Indigenous constructs. In turn, decolonization theory developed, in part, to address some of the key issues raised by Indigenous archaeology. Depending upon its context, Indigenous archaeology may include any of the following theoretical elements in designing and implementing research practices: . Indigenous epistemology – local explanations of worldview (how things came to be); . interpretive archaeological theory – reflexivity, multivocality; recognition of relative and situated nature of knowledge; . Marxist theory – exposing power relations, inequalities, motive, and means for social change; theoretically informed action; Figure 5 Dr Innocent Pikirayi supervising University of Pretoria 1st-year students on Bantu-speakers’ farming settlement excavation. Mmakau, Ga-Rankua, South Africa, 2005 (Photo courtesy of Sven Ouzman). Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy 1666 NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY Figure 6 Students in Simon Fraser University’s Indigenous Archaeology Field School, 2004. Excavation of middle Holocene site on Kamloops Indian Reserve, Kamloops, British Columbia (G. Nicholas, Photo). . critical archaeology – recognition of class-based nature of science and history, exposing the means by which knowledge is produced and its emancipatory potential; and . feminist theory – demarginalization, reconceptualization, re-examination of categories, concepts, standpoints and perspectives; considering other viewpoints or ways of knowing. Indigenous Methodologies The principal goals of Indigenous archaeology are to broaden the scope of archaeology and to transform its practice. It seeks to do so primarily through its applications in a number of overlapping spheres in which Aboriginal peoples have a vested interest, especially heritage preservation, education, community history and traditional knowledge, cultural revitalization, and repatriation of knowledge and objects of cultural patrimony. However Indigenous archaeology has a dual and sometimes contradictory nature since it utilizes (indeed adds to) the spectrum of methods employed in archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and related fields, but also challenges them by developing alternative approaches to interpreting past lifeways. The resultant tension between competing Indigenous and Western ideologies has proved to be a productive area of new ideas. The methodologies of Indigenous archaeology emphasize ethical and culturally appropriate behavior at all stages of research, a shift in the frame of reference (i.e., the postcolonial strategy of ‘de-centering’), reflexive approaches, research ethics, a recognition of the subjectivity of scientific objectivity, a concern with benefit sharing and community participation, and flexibility as to how and when community members will involve themselves. Research projects are designed with community needs and values in mind, which are often prioritized over the recovery of scientific data (which can lead to conflict with government permitting agencies). Archaeologists working with, and especially for, Indigenous peoples may thus be requested to serve as consultants, cultural brokers, facilitators, advocates, policy analysts, needs assessors, or expert witnesses. Given the different ways in which Indigenous peoples construct the world, it is no surprise that the heritage concerns of communities often go well beyond the scope of archaeology. Research methods are informed by local (internalist) values, coupled with the recognition that not all elements of past lives are reflected in material culture. The four-field approach to anthropology therefore has great relevance since it provides access to and a framework for understanding all aspects of a society, including emic and etic perspectives. Oral histories often have a central role in Indigenous archaeology, for example, especially when different (i.e., customary) definitions of significance are identified, or when linked to archaeology through the congruence of methods and data, as promoted by Indigenous scholars. Eliminating the standard division between ‘historic’ and ‘prehistoric’ periods also removes an unnecessary separation of contemporary Aboriginal peoples from their past. The nature of research is also influenced by local worldviews, which can have significant implications for appropriate CRM strategies, for example, the absence of the familiar Western dichotomies of past/present and real/supernatural realms, plus time being viewed as nonlinear, mean that ancestral spirits are part of the contemporary landscape. The scale of investigation may vary substantially, from landscape-centered to artifact-focused, from tangible to intangible cultural heritage. Concerns arise over biases or limitations associated with traditional survey and site sampling methods, as well as with the adequacy of site significance evaluations and predictive models (especially when the latter are seen or believed to contradict community knowledge of traditional or precontact land-use practices). Field methods include standard data observational and collection strategies from archaeology, such as site survey, testing, and excavation techniques. In general, however, there is less reliance on empirical approaches and more standing given to nonempirical sources, including oral histories, folklore, traditional knowledge, and religious beliefs. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological methods include walking the land to identify traditional cultural properties, and use of focus groups, interviewing, and participant observation (all with informed consent), which may be used to Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY 1667 discuss customary law or to identify local concerns about, or perceptions of what constitutes heritage sites. At the request of the community, projects may be designed to use non-destructive, non-invasive field methods either entirely or to the degree possible. Artifacts and other materials may be reburied on site after analysis. Other methods of note include the occasional use of non-Cartesian site grids to locate circular subsurface test units; the use of toponomic information to direct fieldwork; alternative classification systems; and alternative curation methods (e.g., smudging artifacts). Customary or hybrid ceremonial activities are sometimes conducted prior to, during, or at the close of fieldwork, and may include storytelling, drumming, singing, and offerings by elders or community members to honor the ancestors, as well as smudging and ocher face paint to cleanse or protect crew members. Care is taken to use appropriate terminology, recognize the problematic nature of some terms by archaeologists (e.g., ‘prehistory’) and to show respect, especially to elders, the traditional custodians of Indigenous knowledge. There have been major changes in the manner that human remains are treated, both in response to federal legislation and community consultation (Figure 7). Although there have been well-publicized examples of Native Americans employing NAGPRA to repatriate and rebury human remains without scientific study, there are as many cases where tribes have allowed or even requested such study, including aDNA testing and radiocarbon dating. Some Indigenous archaeologists work in this realm, or as mediators between archaeologists and communities. Figure 7 Carrie Dan, Kamloops Indian Band, British Columbia, Canada, preparing birchbark baskets to hold human remains prior to reburial. Ms. Dan has a degree in Archaeology and has been involved in several studies of human skeletal remains. She has also served as an intermediary between Aboriginal communities, tribal governments, and archaeological consulting firms. The broad operating framework of Indigenous archaeology is defined by a series of incentives that range from federal legislation to local community needs and initiatives, filtered through the continuing discourse between (and within) the Aboriginal and archaeological communities. Foremost are meeting the needs of the community, in terms of capacity building or resolving conflicts between developers. Much of the efforts of Indigenous archaeology deal with enabling communities to manage their own cultural heritage or to evaluate the work done by others on their territory. In Australia, North America, and elsewhere, the Indigenous people employed full or part time in archaeology today numbers at least in the hundreds, facilitated in many cases by new opportunities for academic, field-school, or work experience-based training. In some countries, however, Indigenous minorities are suppressed and part of the suppression involves distancing them from their archaeological heritage. Contemporary tribal politics affecting archaeology include drafting heritage policies and the development of tribal permitting systems, research protocols, and guidelines. Involvement in archaeology by descendant communities can also be viewed as expressions of both resistance and cultural sovereignty. Increasingly, consultation with communities is a requirement of federal, state, or provincial legislation. Indigenous communities and organizations in some countries are creating their own archaeology or cultural heritage departments, as well as consulting companies. These mechanisms help provide access to and at least some control over the process and products of archaeology on tribal lands, as well as offer an alternative to the type of stewardship model endorsed by the Society for American Archaeology and other organizations. The introduction and integration of new large-scale resource management strategies by federal agencies has developed in direct response to concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. In North America, these initiatives include ‘traditional cultural properties’ (under Section 106, NHPA), and ‘Aboriginal cultural properties’ (Parks Canada), which are similar to some Indigenous stewardship programs that integrate cultural and natural resources. Community-based protocols identifying who has rights to use and publish data and photographs are beginning to address long-standing concerns about cultural and intellectual property. Access to research results by the community, in appropriate formats (from public talks to DVDs, and from lay-oriented, jargon-free publications to technical reports), is important. There is growing use of film, digital recordings, and webbased media to record or present Aboriginal interpretations of cultural landscapes or other aspects of their culture, such as the Nganampa Anwernekenhe film Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy 1668 NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY series made by Indigenous Australians for both their own needs and public television. Tribal and public museums are also developing new ways to effectively present Indigenous and ‘scientific’ interpretations of the past, but also working to prevent the loss of intellectual property (e.g., the Hoodia biopiracy case in southern Africa). In sum, Indigenous archaeology requires developing respect and trust through meaningful community interaction, consultation, negotiation, and collaboration; culturally appropriate behavior; a relatively informal, personal approach, and a long-term commitment to the community. Reactions to Indigenous Archaeology Reactions to Indigenous archaeology were initially mixed. Some expressed dismay that federal reburial and repatriation legislation, plus the inclusion of Aboriginal people and values in archaeology, would be the end of some types of archaeological investigations and encourage hyper-relativism. There were also concerns about the credibility of Indigenous people doing archaeology, especially where their research could be used in CRM or land claims. Today, however, Indigenous archaeology has become widely recognized worldwide and part of the vocabulary of archaeology. One indicator of its recognition is its appearance as a topic in introductory archaeology textbooks. Students are growing up in a world where Indigenous archaeology is part of the archaeological landscape that they encounter, no different in some respects from other aspects of archaeological theory and practice. At the same time, mainstream archaeology’s reaction to Indigenous archaeology is similar to its reaction to feminist archaeology. There are striking parallels between the two in terms of their developmental history, the critiques they offered, the body of new methods and theory that each developed, and their persistent marginal status within the discipline, rather than as approaches that are broadly transformative. Throughout the world, Indigenous people’s increasingly sophisticated critique of archaeological practice, coupled with the development of Indigenous archaeology, has contributed significantly to the development of new ethical standards and codes by professional organizations, including the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists, the Australian Archaeological Association, and the Canadian Archaeological Association, the Society for American Archaeology, and the World Archaeological Congress. The World Archaeological Congress’ code of ethics is framed around the obligations archaeologists have to Indigenous peoples; WAC also actively promotes and financially supports Indigenous participation in all of its meetings. Indigenous archaeology has a relatively limited presence within the Society for American Archaeology. However, the society does support Aboriginal archaeologists through the Arthur C. Parker scholarship for Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, and has published the working together section of the SAA Archaeological Record. Other organizations have provided important venues for exploring Indigenous issues in archaeology, including the Chacmool Archaeology conference, which hosted Indigenous Peoples and Archaeology in 1999, and Decolonizing Archaeology in 2006. Finally, Indigenous concerns regarding education have contributed to the creation of Native Studies and Indigenous Archaeology programs in universities and other academic setting. There are also communitybased initiatives, a growing number of which offer credentials and training in archaeology. Conclusions Significant challenges remain to achieving the premise and promises of Indigenous archaeology. The scope of archaeology has clearly broadened through many ‘working together’ projects. However, very few ‘collaborations’ with Indigenous groups actually include true power sharing and negotiation regarding the process and products of archaeology. This is a major hurdle since the idea that the giving up of control frightens many archaeologists, but may lead to greater enrichment and sharing both in terms of what and how we know about the past and in terms of dealing with it in the present. Major issues regarding ownership of and access to cultural and intellectual property have yet to be seriously engaged. Indigenous peoples need more opportunities for education and training in archaeology. Mainstream archaeology needs to better understand how and why Indigenous peoples may view it as threatening to them. Indigenous archaeology grew out of efforts by marginalized peoples worldwide to challenge the imposition of archaeology on their lives and heritage. It has in a relatively short time developed into a distinct body of methods and theory designed to promote ethical and inclusive practices that will further democratize the discipline, and stimulate new ideas that will significantly increase the scope of archaeology as a socially relevant and still scientifically sound discipline. See also: Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Legislation; Cultural Resource Management; Engendered Archaeology; Ethical Issues and Responsibilities; Historic Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669 Author's personal copy NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS 1669 Preservation Laws; Illicit Antiquities; Marxist Archaeology; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Politics of Archaeology; Who Owns the Past?. Further Reading Atalay S (guest editor) (2006) Decolonizing Archaeology. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4): 269–503. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Studies (AIATSIS) (2000) Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies. Conkey M (2005) Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection?: feminist and indigenous archaeologies, 2005. Archaeologies 1.1: 9–59. Davidson I, Lovell-Jones C and Bancroft R (eds.) (1995) Archaeologists and Aborigines Working Together. Armidale: University of New England Press. Denton D (1985) Some Comments on Archaeology and Northern Communities. Heritage North ’85 Conference. Yellowknife, NWT. Dewhirst J (1980) The Indigenous Archaeology of Yuquot, A Nootkan Outside Village. Ottawa: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, History and Archaeology. Dongoske KE, Aldenderfer M and Doehner K (eds.) (2000) Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. Ferguson TJ (2003) Archaeological anthropology conducted by Indian tribes: Traditional cultural properties and cultural affiliation. In: Gillespie SD and Nichols D (eds.) Archaeology is Anthropology, Archaeological Papers of the American Nautical Archaeology Neanderthals Anthropological Association 13, pp. 137–144. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Fforde C (2004) Collecting the Dead: Archaeology and the Reburial Issue. London: Duckworth. Maybury-Lewis D (2002) Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Groups, and the State. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Mihesuah DA (ed.) (2000) Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Nicholas GP and Andrews TD (1997) Indigenous archaeology in the postmodern world. In: Nicholas GP and Andrews TD (eds.) At a crossroads: Archaeologists and First Peoples in Canada, pp. 1–18. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University. Nicholas G and Hollowell J (2007) Ethical challenges to a postcolonial archaeology: The legacy of scientific colonialism. In: Hamilakis Y and Duke P (eds) Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Peck T, Siegfried E and Oetelaar GA (eds.) (2003) Indigenous Peoples and Archaeology: Honouring the Past, Discussing the Present, Building for the Future. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Smith CL and Wobst HM (eds.) (2005) Decolonizing Archaeological Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books. Swidler N, Dongoske KE, Anyon R and Downer A (eds.) (1997) Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Trigger B (1980) Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45(4): 662–676. Watkins J (2000) Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Mountain View, CA: Altamira Press. See: Maritime Archaeology. See: Modern Humans, Emergence of. NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS Leah Minc, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA ã 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Glossary accuracy The closeness of a measurement to its true value. b-decay A form of ionizing radiation released by certain radioactive materials, consisting of high-energy electrons or positrons designated by the symbols b! and bþ, respectively. g-ray An energetic form of electromagnetic radiation equivalent to a high-speed photon produced by radioactive decay; denoted by the Greek letter g. half-life The length of time required for one-half of the initial activity of a radioisotope to decay; after one half-life, 50% of the original activity remains; after two half-lives, only 25% of the original activity remains. isotope Any of several different forms of an element with different atomic mass; isotopes of an element will have nuclei Encyclopedia of Archaeology (2008), vol. 3, pp. 1660-1669