Search

Indians have a humorous story for just about every difficult situation in life. About ten years ago, when the reburial issue seemed insoluble, when Indians felt almost completely powerless in the face of the archaeological establishment and there was intense anger and frustration among both Indians and archaeologists, a story surfaced at one of the meetings held between the groups.In the story, several holy people from different tribes got together to discuss the “bone lickers”-those bizarre creatures, the archaeologists and physical anthropologists who study Indian bones. One of the undercurrents of the meeting was an often expressed fear that when the holy people themselves died, archaeologists would be especially interested in studying their bones. After some discussion about burial practices that might keep the bones from falling into the hands of the “arks,” most of the participants were at a loss as to what to do. Cremation was not the answer; for some it was a kind of spiritual suicide. No one believed hiding the bones would work either, because the ”arks,” after all, were pretty crafty about finding bones. In the end, with some resignation, the holy people concluded that, if nothing else, they at least could “get in the last word.” They all agreed that instead of being buried in the usual way, they would be buried face down, and they would have signs put on their rear ends reading, ”Archaeologist! Kiss my ass!”

The scrutiny of racism as a cultural practice is well established in scholarship and in American public discourse. The underlying problem of race itself is also a common topic in academic writings and is a matter of ever-increasing consensus in anthropology and biology. But the significance of race as an inherently flawed interpretation of human biological diversity has yet to register in many realms of scholarship and in the public mind. In this essay, the authors seek to encourage the expansion of the public discussion of race beyond racism and toward the broader problem of race itself. They explicitly scrutinize how the ideology and practice of racialism affects American archaeology and the people it studies and contend that even though many archaeologists say that they accept the long-held anthropological view that race is biologically unsupportable, they still embrace racialism in their methods and thinking which has the typical result of confounding archaeological analysis related to issues of race. Taken from discussions on race by members of a Yahoo group, the Closet Chickens, that deserve wide public attention, the authors present pieces of the ensuing Closet Chicken discussion on race and American archaeology and examine key terms used in the discussions. (Contains 15 notes.)

Gonzalez-Ruibal et al. raise challenging issues that seem frightening in their implications. In both their specificity and their wider theoretical contexts, I had previously given these issues little thought, and [...]

Evidence of substantial malnutrition caused Gregg and Zimmerman (1986) and Zimmerman and Bradley (1986) to suggest that the fourteenth century, Initial Coalescent tradition Crow Creek massacre resulted from internecine warfare over decreased food supplies, population increase, and access to horticultural lands along the Missouri River. A computer simulation suggests that such a scenario is feasible but related to population thresholds and arable land types rather than a simple function of population growth. Inferences drawn from this simulation lead to speculation that dispersed settlement patterns of Extended Coalescent were a reaction to Initial Coalescent warfare.

The First Intercongress of the World Archaeological Congress focused on archaeological ethics and the treatment of the dead. The Intercongress developed from an intense concern by both archaeologists and indigenous peoples to work toward resolution of the reburial issues. The meeting ended in the adoption of the Vermillion Accord, a six-clause document that may provide a foundation of mutual respect so that compromises can be formed. The Accord challenges archaeologists and anthropologists to change their views of human remains as an area of study. Interpretation of the document suggests how attitudes and methods must change if scholars are to comply with the principles of the Accord.

Archaeologists must collaborate with the indigenous peoples who are affected by their work, rather than insisting on their own version of the past as the only legitimate one. For example, many Native Americans challenge the authority of archaeologists when the archaeological version of the past conflicts with their traditions. Archaeology must understand that the past is fluid, always being constructed based on present ideas. By giving up desire for exclusive control over the past, archaeologists may develop better working relationships with native peoples and thus retain access to sites and artifacts for research.