Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States

Introduction

Introduction jordan e. kerber T he involvement of indigenous peoples in archaeology is on the rise, despite a stormy political past and, sometimes, present. Case studies are increasingly reported in the Americas, Australia, and elsewhere (see Davidson et al. ; Harrison and Williamson ; Smith and Wobst ). In North America, as argued by Watkins (:), American Indians and First Nations of Canada have frequently opposed archaeologists over who should control research designs and research questions, the interpretation of the indigenous past, and the representation of past cultures in the present. Before  in the United States, Native mistrust and scorn of archaeologists and archaeology were both deep and rampant, largely due to the excavation of Native American skeletal remains and burial objects, and the retention and display of these materials in museums (see Biolsi and Zimmerman ; Bray ; Fine-Dare ; Mihesuah ). During these years, “as a rule, American Indians tend[ed] to equate archaeologists with pot hunters, grave looters, or even worse, animals who feast off of the dead” (Watkins a:). While this perception may still continue among some, Native Americans are increasingly collaborating with archaeologists and even doing archaeology themselves on (and off) tribal lands (see Stapp and Burney 2002), xx largely as a result of two seminal pieces of federal legislation: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (nagpra) of 1990 and the 1992 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (nhpa) of 1966. Both laws represent a sea change in the way archaeology in this country is practiced today. Not only have these statutes begun to improve the often contentious relationship between archaeologists and many Native communities, but they have also broadened the role of Native Americans in archaeology. In her review of Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice, Mills (2003:473) states that “the relationship between American Indians and the discipline of archaeology is at an important turning point.” The present volume examines that turning point in the northeastern United States, now that nagpra and the nhpa amendments have been operating for more than 10 years. Indeed, this is an opportune time to observe the state(s) of Native American involvement in and relationship to archaeology across the region, and to address the obstacles that remain. Both nagpra (Public Law 101-601) and the 1992 amendments to the nhpa (Public Law 102-575) put into place formal consultation procedures between Native Americans and archaeologists, as mandated by the legislation . Briefly, nagpra pertains to the protection of Native American burials on land belonging to federally recognized tribes and to the federal government. This statute also established a framework for the returning of Native American skeletal remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony kept in federally funded museums (see Adams 2001; American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation 1996; Fine-Dare 2002; McKeown 1995; http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra).1 American Indian individuals and federally recognized tribes may receive these materials, upon request, if they can demonstrate cultural affiliation to such items. The 1992 amendments to the nhpa authorized federally recognized tribes to take on more responsibility for the preservation of significant historic properties on their land and to create tribal historic preservation offices/officers (thpos) (http://www.achp.gov/thpo.html). Further, for development projects on land owned by such tribes or by the federal government , or for projects involving federal funding or permits, archaeoloIntroduction xxi gists may be required to consult with thpos and other Native Americans in advance of such undertakings. As stated by Watkins (2003:276): “Consultation (defined in the federal regulations that govern the nhpa as ‘the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and where feasible seeking agreement with them regarding matters’ arising in the compliance process [King 1998:94, cited in Watkins]) is required at various stages in the historic-preservation compliance process.” Thus, for more than 10 years, in one way or another, nagpra and the nhpa have brought Native Americans face-to-face with archaeologists and have produced active dialogues. This interaction in and of itself does not ensure positive results, but it has often led to the building of mutual respect and trust. In this book, collaborative archaeology refers to the practice of archaeologists and members of Native communities working closely together to understand the history and to protect the artifactual and human remains of these communities. Although such an approach usually involves consultation...