Glad you wrote this. I hope it spurs some action. I think you hit on something that is plaguing modern tribal consultation. As you said, the feds have fought long and hard to develop relationships with the tribes. They are determined to maintain these relationships, especially in the wake of recent issues (i.e. DAPL). In order to do this, I think some agencies avoid disagreements at almost any cost. Or, even worse, delays decisions and determinations. They keep everyone in limbo, including the tribes. Consultation requires room for disagreement. For serious, upsetting discussions. Otherwise consultation becomes attrition. Like the dweeb who suddenly finds himself dating the star cheerleader; he’ll do anything to keep her happy, until eventually no one is happy.
If non-indigenous peoples excavate and remove items on a continent that does not belong to them in the first place yet still inhabit, NAGPRA does not and cannot go far enough, no matter non- indigenous systems of what is or isn’t valuable, including arrows and coprolites. Ideally any excavations done now and artifacts acquired in the past should be a domestic matter within the tribes when we choose to, which as you know isn’t done and if it is remains controversial, not one in the name of “discovery” by settlers and their institutions. As it stands, anything you have learned about us through archaeology you could have learned from us personally had your ancestors chosen a different path that didn’t impede your curiosity. This isn’t about speculative history or re-litigation- this is about what justice demands from a people and nation who have grown so strong on the blood and resources of my own, then come from that state of strength and privilege and investigate the people they’ve exterminated. We are all humans but archaeology is not a part of a common good. As fascinated as you may be by north america, it simply isn’t yours to plunder. You are free to do so on your own ancestral lands, however. We as indigenous people will respect your right to do so and consider it your own business. As for here, no amount or manner of moral delusion , no scientific sensibilities you concoct will ever give you or any other settler archaeologist the right. Sovereignty is about nation to nation with mutual respect. Why would you want to take more than you already have?
Thanks for weighing in. I obviously disagree with alot of this, but not all. I'll articulate. First, your points are really getting at an issue well beyond the scope of this piece, of whether or not North American archaeology should exist at all. It sounds like we both agree that NAGPRA doesn't support these specific actions though, because as you note, it doesn't go 'far enough'. So if you want to outlaw doing archaeology in North America, then you'd need to pursue that through some other means. Since most archaeology is done in the service of historic preservation, it's safe to say that that action would result in rampant destruction of the heritage you are invested in protecting, but maybe you'd prefer it destroyed than in the hands of archaeologists? Or alternatively, Indigenous groups concerned about these issue should probably put together their own archaeology firms to conduct the work themselves. I love that idea, and am happy to see alot of groups moving in that direction. But just stopping the practice altogether seems pretty irresponsible.
To the point about only excavating the remains of one's own ancestors. It's an argument I've heard before, but I can't ever see myself coming around to such a a deeply conservative, ethnonationalist sentiment. As we've seen repeatedly, forcing the world into unchanging geographies bound to genetics can have ugly results. It's also fraught with ambiguity, since we know how much people move through time. As an example, if I wanted to study my own bloodline 10,000 years ago, I guess I'd have to go to Iraq or Syria? And then be accused once again of 'settling' another country? Just a completely unrealistic premise for any living people.
I have no doubt early explorers and ethnographers could have learned more about North America's Indigenous people had their respective nations not been at war. But the idea that there's nothing novel to learn from the archaeological record of the deep past is just wrong. All living people have some idea about their own past extending back generations, ideas that gets foggier the further back you get. They also have a good idea of their personal experience in their society. But what if you want to understand bigger questions? Like how many people lived east of the Mississippi River or how people responded to changing climate patterns over several hundred years? Those things are imperceptible to everyone in the world without the aid of systematic observation shared over large areas, and they're often of great use to improving people's lives. Archaeology is good at parsing those things out, and I don't think any amount of learning we lost out on would ever replace it.
I could go on, but just know that I think archaeology is good for the world and I will always defend it. On top of that, archaeologists (including myself) are some of the most staunch advocates for Indigenous issues that exist, and it makes me sad that modern politics have complicated that relationship. It sounds like you hold some pretty extreme views, so I don't expect to convince you otherwise, but know that I'm always willing to listen.
Nation to nation with mutual respect. Our opinion on the matter of our own sites on this, our own land, is final. We who stand up and speak are the result of genocide, one in which you’ve benefitted from, one that locks the door you’re banging on. We are not equals in this, don’t ever mistake that. You don’t live in Iraq or Syria, so drop the false equivalency. It’s a racist and lazy argument that is completely dismissive of the issue. This is about culture, not ethnicity by the way. Ethnocentrism is of your own cultural baggage, not our way of thinking. In the mean time, you have not nearly begun to deserve access to our archaeological record. Until our wishes are respected yours are simply appropriation. Theft. Period.
Great article, but I am left with a couple of questions: Why was it in poor taste to display "Mummy Joe" to the public? And why do most archaeologists support the repatriation of Mummy Joe to a Native American tribe?
I'm summarizing opinions here, so take that with a grain of salt. Alot of North American tribes have taboos against interacting with dead bodies, so putting them on display is considered fairly disrespectful. I think most archaologists at this point acknowledge that there's little to be gained academically by putting human remains on public display beyond the general 'shock value' that comes with seeing a dead body, so there's no use in disrespecting some of those taboos for no reason. As for the repatriation, the short answer is because it's required under the law (NAGPRA) to repatriate. Beyond that, there's a ton of opinions about what is and isn't the right thing to do in any given case. And it gets increasingly complicated the further back in time you go to accurately assign affiliation. In this case in particular, Mummy Joe is a pretty recent burial, so I think it's safe to assume that his descendants are at least still a recognized modern group of people, which provides the potential to clear up the affiliation issue. Also, there's a general sense of "he's been through enough" and admittedly, I think the fact he's covered in soft tissues humanizes the remains in a way that bones don't, which makes it a lot easier for archaeologists to support getting him back into the ground asap.
Glad you wrote this. I hope it spurs some action. I think you hit on something that is plaguing modern tribal consultation. As you said, the feds have fought long and hard to develop relationships with the tribes. They are determined to maintain these relationships, especially in the wake of recent issues (i.e. DAPL). In order to do this, I think some agencies avoid disagreements at almost any cost. Or, even worse, delays decisions and determinations. They keep everyone in limbo, including the tribes. Consultation requires room for disagreement. For serious, upsetting discussions. Otherwise consultation becomes attrition. Like the dweeb who suddenly finds himself dating the star cheerleader; he’ll do anything to keep her happy, until eventually no one is happy.
Well said!
If non-indigenous peoples excavate and remove items on a continent that does not belong to them in the first place yet still inhabit, NAGPRA does not and cannot go far enough, no matter non- indigenous systems of what is or isn’t valuable, including arrows and coprolites. Ideally any excavations done now and artifacts acquired in the past should be a domestic matter within the tribes when we choose to, which as you know isn’t done and if it is remains controversial, not one in the name of “discovery” by settlers and their institutions. As it stands, anything you have learned about us through archaeology you could have learned from us personally had your ancestors chosen a different path that didn’t impede your curiosity. This isn’t about speculative history or re-litigation- this is about what justice demands from a people and nation who have grown so strong on the blood and resources of my own, then come from that state of strength and privilege and investigate the people they’ve exterminated. We are all humans but archaeology is not a part of a common good. As fascinated as you may be by north america, it simply isn’t yours to plunder. You are free to do so on your own ancestral lands, however. We as indigenous people will respect your right to do so and consider it your own business. As for here, no amount or manner of moral delusion , no scientific sensibilities you concoct will ever give you or any other settler archaeologist the right. Sovereignty is about nation to nation with mutual respect. Why would you want to take more than you already have?
Thanks for weighing in. I obviously disagree with alot of this, but not all. I'll articulate. First, your points are really getting at an issue well beyond the scope of this piece, of whether or not North American archaeology should exist at all. It sounds like we both agree that NAGPRA doesn't support these specific actions though, because as you note, it doesn't go 'far enough'. So if you want to outlaw doing archaeology in North America, then you'd need to pursue that through some other means. Since most archaeology is done in the service of historic preservation, it's safe to say that that action would result in rampant destruction of the heritage you are invested in protecting, but maybe you'd prefer it destroyed than in the hands of archaeologists? Or alternatively, Indigenous groups concerned about these issue should probably put together their own archaeology firms to conduct the work themselves. I love that idea, and am happy to see alot of groups moving in that direction. But just stopping the practice altogether seems pretty irresponsible.
To the point about only excavating the remains of one's own ancestors. It's an argument I've heard before, but I can't ever see myself coming around to such a a deeply conservative, ethnonationalist sentiment. As we've seen repeatedly, forcing the world into unchanging geographies bound to genetics can have ugly results. It's also fraught with ambiguity, since we know how much people move through time. As an example, if I wanted to study my own bloodline 10,000 years ago, I guess I'd have to go to Iraq or Syria? And then be accused once again of 'settling' another country? Just a completely unrealistic premise for any living people.
I have no doubt early explorers and ethnographers could have learned more about North America's Indigenous people had their respective nations not been at war. But the idea that there's nothing novel to learn from the archaeological record of the deep past is just wrong. All living people have some idea about their own past extending back generations, ideas that gets foggier the further back you get. They also have a good idea of their personal experience in their society. But what if you want to understand bigger questions? Like how many people lived east of the Mississippi River or how people responded to changing climate patterns over several hundred years? Those things are imperceptible to everyone in the world without the aid of systematic observation shared over large areas, and they're often of great use to improving people's lives. Archaeology is good at parsing those things out, and I don't think any amount of learning we lost out on would ever replace it.
I could go on, but just know that I think archaeology is good for the world and I will always defend it. On top of that, archaeologists (including myself) are some of the most staunch advocates for Indigenous issues that exist, and it makes me sad that modern politics have complicated that relationship. It sounds like you hold some pretty extreme views, so I don't expect to convince you otherwise, but know that I'm always willing to listen.
Nation to nation with mutual respect. Our opinion on the matter of our own sites on this, our own land, is final. We who stand up and speak are the result of genocide, one in which you’ve benefitted from, one that locks the door you’re banging on. We are not equals in this, don’t ever mistake that. You don’t live in Iraq or Syria, so drop the false equivalency. It’s a racist and lazy argument that is completely dismissive of the issue. This is about culture, not ethnicity by the way. Ethnocentrism is of your own cultural baggage, not our way of thinking. In the mean time, you have not nearly begun to deserve access to our archaeological record. Until our wishes are respected yours are simply appropriation. Theft. Period.
Great article, but I am left with a couple of questions: Why was it in poor taste to display "Mummy Joe" to the public? And why do most archaeologists support the repatriation of Mummy Joe to a Native American tribe?
I'm summarizing opinions here, so take that with a grain of salt. Alot of North American tribes have taboos against interacting with dead bodies, so putting them on display is considered fairly disrespectful. I think most archaologists at this point acknowledge that there's little to be gained academically by putting human remains on public display beyond the general 'shock value' that comes with seeing a dead body, so there's no use in disrespecting some of those taboos for no reason. As for the repatriation, the short answer is because it's required under the law (NAGPRA) to repatriate. Beyond that, there's a ton of opinions about what is and isn't the right thing to do in any given case. And it gets increasingly complicated the further back in time you go to accurately assign affiliation. In this case in particular, Mummy Joe is a pretty recent burial, so I think it's safe to assume that his descendants are at least still a recognized modern group of people, which provides the potential to clear up the affiliation issue. Also, there's a general sense of "he's been through enough" and admittedly, I think the fact he's covered in soft tissues humanizes the remains in a way that bones don't, which makes it a lot easier for archaeologists to support getting him back into the ground asap.
Thanks for your reply. Mummies definitely raise complicated issues.