Coming to terms with the living: some aspects of repatriation for the archaeologist.

Coming to terms with the living: some aspects of repatriation for the archaeologist. This volume reports the outcome of a request (made in 1987 to theNational Museum of Natural History, a branch of the SmithsonianInstitution Smithsonian Institution,research and education center, at Washington, D.C.; founded 1846 under terms of the will of James Smithson of London, who in 1829 bequeathed his fortune to the United States to create an establishment for the "increase and diffusion of ) by the Larsen Bay Tribal Council This page is about the administrations of Native American tribes and Canadian First Nations peoples. For details about Tribal Council on CBS's Survivor, please see Tribal Council (Survivor)A Tribal Council . That request concernedthe return to the people of Larsen Bay of all human remains andassociated cultural materials which had been removed by Arles Hrdlickafrom the cemetery at the Uyak site on Kodiak Island Kodiak Island(kō`dēăk'), 5,363 sq mi (13,890 sq km), c.100 mi (160 km) long and 10–60 mi (16–96 km) wide, off S Alaska, separated from the Alaska Peninsula by Shelikof Strait. (Alaska) in the1930s. In common with many repatriation RepatriationThe process of converting a foreign currency into the currency of one's own country.Notes:If you are American, converting British Pounds back to U.S. dollars is an example of repatriation. requests during the 1980s, thefocus was squarely on human remains which had been stored at the Museumsince their excavation. There was also a question-mark over whether theexcavator ex��ca��va��torn.An instrument, such as a sharp spoon or curette, used in scraping out pathological tissue.excavator (eks´k had gained the consent of the Larsen Bay community for theexhumations, particularly for those burials from the 19th and 20thcenturies. The outcome of the case, after five years of action, was therepatriation and re-interment of the human remains and associated gravegoods In archaeology and anthropology grave goods are the items buried along with the body.They are usually personal possessions, supplies to smooth the deceased's journey into the afterlife or offerings to the gods. Grave goods are a type of votive deposit. . Another outcome was structural change at the SmithsonianInstitution and the implementation of a thoughtful repatriation policy.Although Reckoning with the dead should be read as a multi-authoredreflection on the role of the Smithsonian Institution in a matter whichcould best be described as a public-relations disaster, there is muchmore to it than that. Given the constraints of US Federal repatriationlegislation, particularly as they pertain to pertain toverb relate to, concern, refer to, regard, be part of, belong to, apply to, bear on, befit, be relevant to, be appropriate to, appertain to tests of culturalaffiliation, the volume also contains a number of very useful analysesof the human remains and their archaeological and ethnohistoricalcontext. These stand as a real contribution to the prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to ofmaritime Alaska. Connected with this is a sense of the theoreticalproblems which arise from the need to comply with legislation by linkingrace, language, and culture together. On more than one occasion theauthors speak of the irony of attempting to do something which manyanthropologists would find positively dangerous, if not impossible. Butthe end of empowering indigenous people with respect to controllingcultural heritage is thought to be worth enough to justify the meansemployed.We also have some useful (though highly critical) discussions of thelife, personality, and work of Ales Hrdlicka. In these we are told thatnotwithstanding Hrdlicka's great service to the development ofphysical anthropology in North America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. , he was arrogant, a racist, andsloppy in his field methods. Although it might be argued that these seemunnecessarily harsh and one-dimensional judgements, it would appear thatboth the Larsen Bay people and a number of authors in this volume regardhim as the villain of the piece. Others are content to use him as anexemplar ex��em��plar?n.1. One that is worthy of imitation; a model. See Synonyms at ideal.2. One that is typical or representative; an example.3. An ideal that serves as a pattern; an archetype.4. of 'behaviour to be avoided when dealing with indigenouspeoples'. Notwithstanding his arrogance and his 'driven'character, perhaps Hrdlicka (like the Smithsonian) has also fallenvictim of that axiom of modern management mentioned in the volume:'perception is reality'.Overarching these specific concerns are a number of papers(particularly those by Ortner, Bray & Grant, Sockbeson, Goldstein,McGuire, and Hill) which highlight the very significant ethical andintellectual questions raised by the matter of repatriation(particularly of cultural properties rather than of human remains), andby the mechanics of establishing cultural affiliation between living andpast populations. In this short essay I want to focus on some of theissues raised by this group of papers, and reflect on the sharp contrastbetween the joy expressed by authors who represent the indigenous cause(Pullar, Sockbeson, and Hill) and the real sense of pain and loss whichcreeps into the very fine paper by Ortner. Although there can be nodoubt that there will be more battles fought over the repatriation ofthe physical remains of human beings, my interest here is in consideringthe implications of the repatriation of cultural properties, and ofincreasing indigenous control over the activities of archaeologistsworking with indigenous peoples. These matters are also raised byGoldstein and McGuire, but most forcefully by Hill when he speaks of the'rights of native peoples to manifest their own spiritualdestiny'.It is significant that both groups express a sense of hope that thebasis of a new relationship between the Smithsonian and the indigenouspeoples of North America has been forged in the battle over the LarsenBay remains. Given the sensitivity with which the authors have discussedthe issues raised by Larsen Bay it would seem that their hope isjustified, particularly with reference to the return of human remains tothe communities from which they were taken.Perhaps it is inevitable that stories about the repatriation ofskeletal remains and cultural properties from scientific institutionsshould be about right and wrong, winners and losers, the newly empoweredand the recently disempowered. These are stories where the motives ofindividuals and institutions are thrown into high relief, where theaction is simple and straightforward, and where the moral implicationsof the outcome are clear and well understood. These are stories with ahigh moral tone, where the ethical shortcomings of one's colleaguesare rehearsed in such a way as to put as much distance between the waythey are perceived and the way one wishes to be perceived. They aregenerally accounts of failure, retribution and (just possibly) ofredemption, if the appropriate lessons are learned. The story of theLarsen Bay repatriation has all the hallmarks of one of these simplemorality tales, save for a sense of moral and ethical discomfort andconfusion which pervades the volume. It is this sense of disquiet, andthe fact that a number of contributors make reference to the fact thatthe morality of the events leading up to the repatriation is complex andmurky, that makes this volume a very significant contribution toarchaeology.Although some contributors (notably those who have little sympathyfor the white organization at the centre of the controversy) manage tofind the confidence to speak easily of right and wrong, the majorityrecognize four central truths about the morality and politics of therepatriation of human remains and cultural properties from theperspective of the practising archaeologist and museum curator. Thesetruths are neither simple nor always particularly edifying, but they aretruths about the world in which the archaeology of indigenous peoples isbeing practised.First, although it is important to develop some guiding principles,the fact remains that each case is unique and cannot be solved byapplying a standard formula of resolution. Nonetheless governments andtheir agents prefer to proceed as if this were not the case. Connectedwith this is the fact that negotiated solutions to particular cases willmost clearly reflect the political and cultural dynamics of thesocieties concerned, and that these will act further to diversify andregionalize re��gion��al��ize?tr.v. re��gion��al��ized, re��gion��al��iz��ing, re��gion��al��iz��esTo divide into regions, especially for administrative purposes.re the practice of archaeology. Trigger, among others, hascommented on the significance of regional traditions within archaeology,and it seems clear enough that archaeologists (particularly those in the'settler societies' of North America, Australia, New Zealand New Zealand(zē`lənd), island country (2005 est. pop. 4,035,000), 104,454 sq mi (270,534 sq km), in the S Pacific Ocean, over 1,000 mi (1,600 km) SE of Australia. The capital is Wellington; the largest city and leading port is Auckland. and South Africa South Africa,Afrikaans Suid-Afrika, officially Republic of South Africa, republic (2005 est. pop. 44,344,000), 471,442 sq mi (1,221,037 sq km), S Africa. ) will have to develop solutions which make culturalsense in their own environments first, before pondering the implicationsfor the practice of archaeology elsewhere.Second, that governments (certainly in the USA and Australia) areunwilling to pay much attention to the interests of science at a timewhen those same governments are seeking national reconciliation withindigenous peoples. In this political environment indigenous rights arebeing enhanced in areas (such as the law, education, and culturalinstitutions} which have been seen as being most oppressive of thoserights and cultural freedoms. On the face of it this is an entirelyappropriate course of action, a form of positive discrimination to speedup necessary structural change. However, when governments act like thisand change is imposed by the State rather than (perhaps mere slowly)growing out of profound changes occurring within society, significantand largely unnecessary losses of other freedoms can occur. One exampleof this stems from the quite widespread belief that 'doingscience' and 'upholding the traditions of indigenouspeoples' need always be mutually antithetical an��ti��thet��i��cal? also an��ti��thet��icadj.1. Of, relating to, or marked by antithesis.2. Being in diametrical opposition. See Synonyms at opposite. , and that whitescientific institutions must reassess their relationship with indigenouspeoples before they become part of the solution rather than part of theproblem.In this account archaeologists (because they are a very obviousremnant of colonialism) are in serious trouble if they do notreformulate Verb 1. reformulate - formulate or develop again, of an improved theory or hypothesisredevelopformulate, explicate, develop - elaborate, as of theories and hypotheses; "Could you develop the ideas in your thesis" their practice along guidelines set up to meet the interestsof the descendants of the people who created the archaeology they study.It is on this basis that governments absolve ab��solve?tr.v. ab��solved, ab��solv��ing, ab��solves1. To pronounce clear of guilt or blame.2. To relieve of a requirement or obligation.3. a. To grant a remission of sin to. themselves of the need tomake judgements between the interests of the two groups when they are inopen competition. It should be stressed that on no account is suchconflict inevitable. There are many cases where the interests ofarchaeologists and indigenous peoples coincide. There are also caseswhere no coincidence of interest exists but where research can stillproceed because of mutual trust and respect. But there are also caseswhere the need to control access to cultural heritage extends rightacross the gamut of archaeological activity from problem generation andresearch design through interpretation and publication. In these casesthe need to comply with government directives can have the effect ofstifling research because it is an imposed solution.It should be remembered that this pressure to reformulate does notjust stem from governments or from groups of indigenous peopleexercising their power by controlling access to sites and landscapes.Some of the pressure clearly comes from within archaeology itself as aconsequence of the inescapable fact that contemporary indigenoussocieties have survived colonialism. As a result the role of thearchaeologist has begun to shift from a colonial discourse of'writing the archaeology of societies' in a way which wasinstructive for European colonists, to a post-colonial discourse aboutwriting the histories of living societies as an end in itself. Thisshift will have major long-term consequences.Third, that this same environment supports the politics of indigenousheritage - the product of dynamics which might have little to do withthe traditional concerns of white heritage politics, such asconservation and the promotion of widespread access to the heritage of'nations'.Fourth, that we are all at the beginning of a long process wherebyarchaeologists have to learn to live with the fact that they have beendisempowered and that the rules which governed the relationships betweenarchaeology and society, and between archaeologists themselves, nolonger operate. A number of authors (particularly Ortner, Goldstein, andMcGuire) clearly recognize that the matter of repatriation is simply thehighly emotive tip of a much bigger cluster of issues raised by doingarchaeology among indigenous peoples. Here we leave the ethicallystraightforward matter of repatriating human remains and move to thepractice of archaeology itself.Perhaps the most significant of these issues is the sense ofarchaeology (to be acceptable to such peoples in the current politicalclimate) having to leave the safety of 'scientificobjectivity' and travel to a disciplinary space wherearchaeological knowledge is de-colonized and the distinction betweenproducers and consumers of that knowledge is broken down. To thepractising archaeologists this fact alone can be unsettling un��set��tle?v. un��set��tled, un��set��tling, un��set��tlesv.tr.1. To displace from a settled condition; disrupt.2. To make uneasy; disturb.v.intr. enough, butto make matters more difficult, everyone agrees that we will betravelling in retro incognita in��cog��ni��ta?adv. & adj.With one's identity disguised or concealed. Used of a woman.n.A woman or girl whose identity is disguised or concealed. . There are no maps or traveller'stales to guide us. The act of seeking reconciliation betweenarchaeologists and indigenous peoples sets up a process of consultationand interaction which tells us that this unknown post-colonial landscapewill be created by us all, in a form as yet unknown. Equally important,it seems clear enough that this process, now that it is begun, has noend-point. Can archaeology survive in this new disciplinary environment,especially when we consider the impact such highly politicized discourseon disciplinary identity and the constitution of archaeologicalknowledge?Some aspects of archaeology and politicsIt is a commonplace that the disciplinary profile oflate-20th-century archaeology is dramatically different from 20 yearsago, let alone from last century. In the '60s and '70spractitioners could (and did) argue about whether archaeology was ascience, or about whether history provided a more conducivemethodological and epistemological e��pis��te��mol��o��gy?n.The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.[Greek epist home for practitioners fleeing fromthe hypothetico-deductive method or from Bayesian probability Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the probability calculus which holds that the concept of probability can be defined as the degree to which a person (or community) believes that a proposition is true. . While itis true to say that the spectre of politics was always present (in thosedays confined generally to cold-war or post-colonial rhetoric), it wasnever as pervasive as it is today.It is customary to see the rise of relativism and historicism his��tor��i��cism?n.1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value. (central features of what its promoters have called'postprocessual' archaeology) as being simply a more overtcontinuation of political discourse in archaeology, a transparentstatement of the dictum that all knowledge is a social and politicalconstruct. I think this interpretation is wrong. What we have instead issomething more than the acceptance that archaeological knowledge isproduced and consumed within a complex social and cultural web. It isalso more than an understanding that there can now be any number ofvarieties of archaeological knowledge (not just those that perpetuate aview that science provides the basis of a more rational and reliable wayof understanding the world), and that these varieties need share littleor no common epistemic ep��i��ste��mic?adj.Of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive.[From Greek epistm ground. What we now have is the view thatdisciplines are defined by their politics, and that archaeologicalknowledge is no more nor less than discourse about this politics.In the 1990s this viewpoint has gained much wider currency withinarchaeology not, it must be emphasized, as a result of logic or of thepersuasiveness of its advocates within our discipline, but because ithas permeated much of Western culture. The rising popularity of thismore extreme constructivist con��struc��tiv��ism?n.A movement in modern art originating in Moscow in 1920 and characterized by the use of industrial materials such as glass, sheet metal, and plastic to create nonrepresentational, often geometric objects. view of archaeological knowledge has led tosome fascinating disciplinary dynamics, the most obvious of which haveexpressed themselves in debates about the relationships betweenarchaeology and the seemingly endless array of social and politicalissues which concern late-20th-century society. As the decade hasunfolded, the range of archaeological discourse has broadened. Butagain, there is more to this than a simple case of minority politicsplaying out. Indeed the breadth of archaeological discourse raises thequestion of whether the discipline has become dismembered into lilts ofdiscourse defined not by the age or geograpbic location of thematerials, but by the interests they represent. In this account thepolitics of indigenous heritage are a case in point where practitioners,in order to accommodate the interests of the people whose archaeologythey study, transform their reading of the nature and purpose ofarchaeology and of archaeological knowledge.But this possibility of dismemberment dismemberment/dis��mem��ber��ment/ (dis-mem��ber-ment) amputation of a limb or a portion of it. dismembermentamputation of a limb or a portion of it. , which surely does not justapply to the practice of archaeology among indigenous peoples, raisesthe question of whether the loss of a single, straightforward,disciplinary identity is simply a natural development within ourdiscipline, and hence should not be resisted. In this reading, over thelast 30 years archaeology has become an immensely complex and variedundertaking which reflects the development of regional traditions, theexpansion of its time-scale, the growth of a wide range ofsub-disciplinary specializations and cross-disciplinary linkages, aswell as changes in interpretative and explanatory fashion. Thus weshould not necessarily lament the loss of a sense of community wheremost archaeologists shared most interests and most approaches.This consideration of dismemberment and diversity can also lead us toanother, more radical, view of community and disciplinary identity. Inthis account, the increasing diversity of approach which sprang frommore overt considerations of the nature of archaeological theory Archaeological theory covers the debates over the practice of archaeology and the interpretation of archaeological results. There is no single theory of archaeology, and even definitions are disputed. (beginning in the 1960s and accelerating over the next 25 years), whenlinked with a more critical historiography The term Critical Historiography is used by various scholars in recent decades to emphasize the ambiguous relationship between history writing and historiography. Traditionally, historiography was seen as the study of the history-of-history or as a very specialized form of history of the discipline, cansupport the extreme proposition that whatever sense of disciplinarycommunity had existed before the last two decades was either fake,coerced, or the result of false consciousness. One of the great virtuesof diversity and of conflicting views about the essentials ofarchaeological knowledge, is that they allow us sufficient theoreticalspace to reflect on our disciplinary inheritance, particularly on thenaturalness of questions and approaches, and the validity ofdisciplinary definition. Here is a loss of innocence indeed.While it is obvious that many of the consumers of archaeologicalknowledge are deeply sceptical about what we do, it is equally obviousthat not all practitioners think alike about many core issues within ourdiscipline. Some still describe themselves as scientists, others stillbelieve that knowledge should be universal and that it should be ourgoal to advance a collectively 'human' rather than racial,ethnic, or tribal understanding of the past. Still others continue tobelieve that archaeological knowledge is more than just discourse, thatit should be grounded in an open and honest coming-to-terms with thephenomena which help define our filed of endeavour. Although it is truethat some archaeologists seek to de-centre western science, as theexemplar of disciplinary practice, and to replace it with a welter ofindigenized epistemologies (which are held to answer more to the needsof those whose cultural heritage is being investigated), it is also truethat there need be no category difference between doing post-positivistscience and being critically self-reflective about practice.Discussion and debate of ideas is central to criticalself-reflection, be it in science or any other field of endeavour. Oneof the great dangers inherent in embarking on this journey towards anarchaeology which reconciles archaeologists and indigenous peoples isthe death of diversity and the closure of debate - usually for fear ofupsetting the sensibilities of indigenous peoples. At presentarchaeology presents a very diverse and volatile epistemologicallandscape wherein we have begun to reflect more seriously on ourintellectual inheritance. This is a very useful aid for criticalself-reflection - particularly about the value of what is vogue in whatpasses for archaeological theory.The can be no doubt that archaeologists need to communicate moreeffectively with indigenous peoples and to reflect more deeply about thediscipline's role in fashioning attitudes to indigenous peoples in'settler societies'. Equally important, however, is the needto closely question approaches to archaeology which are simply thelate-20th-century versions of orthodox or 'natural' ways ofmaking sense of the human past. For this reason we should resistattempts to enforce a premature closure of debate about our disciplinebecause it shows signs of fission fission,in physics: see nuclear energy and nucleus; see also atomic bomb. , and because no integrative paradigmwaits in the wings to help us stick it all back together again.Reckoning with the dead ends with a plea that archaeologists begin to'do the right thing' by indigenous peoples. What McGuire hasin mind is more than consultation or even association. Archaeology isbeing changed by the need for reconciliation with peoples whoseancestors have been our object of study. Archaeology is also beingchanged by a more thoroughgoing thor��ough��go��ing?adj.1. Very thorough; complete: thoroughgoing research.2. Unmitigated; unqualified: a thoroughgoing villain. re-evaluation of our intellectualinheritance, and a clearer understanding of the very great difficultiesof sustaining an archaeological perspective on humanity. AlthoughReckoning with the dead does lint lint - A Unix C language processor which carries out more thorough checks on the code than is usual with C compilers.Lint is named after the bits of fluff it supposedly picks from programs. pretend to contribute directly to theresolution of all of these great issues, its honesty and clarity of viewhas made a real contribution to our comprehension of the forces in playin the field of indigenous archaeology.