Anthropological research as a whole has helped extensively in producing massive collections for museums to help answer questions of our past. The implications on how they were acquired and their interpretations, however, have raised concern over the recent years.
Contemporary research standards and ethical codes require researchers to seek the consent of those they study and inform them of the benefits and risks due to their research. Many agencies and universities that fund research have set parameters such as institutional review boards to assure that this procedure happens. Unfortunately, even with all these ethical parameters in place, informed consent can be real problematic in descendant communities. There may be those within traditional communities who cannot read the documentation, or may not completely understand the implications of archaeological research \cite{zimmerman2005}.
Misinterpretations of archaeological contexts are also extremely problematic and can cause lasting harm to their descendants. An example of this is the Crow Creek site that contained the remains of nearly 500 victims from the fourteenth century. The remains belonged to a culture known to be ancestral to the Arikara nation. They were located on federal property within the Crow Creek Reservation, inhabited by the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota Sioux, who were the traditional enemies of the Arikara. When news of the discovery was made public, the Sioux immediately claimed responsibility towards the massacre. As osteological evidence began to show signs of mutilation, including scalping, the Dakota Sioux backed away from their claim in perpetuating the attack. As scientists, archaeologists tend to view context from an etic perspective and forget the implications behind their assessments. In the case of the Crow Creek massacre, the discovery of the mutilations and scalping resurfaced social stereotypes of Indigenous peoples as savages. Another example can be found in the state of Iowa, where an osteologist reported to a statewide newspaper that he found evidence of syphilis on the remains of a prehistoric burial mound. Since syphilis is a difficult disease to assess visually, it can be easily misdiagnosed from other diseases. Unfortunately, his announcement caused quite a stir and left a damaging impression on the female Indigenous population \cite{zimmerman2005}.
Repatriation has been a contentious issue amongst archaeologists and Indigenous peoples over the years. We can see this development within the popular case of the Kennewick Man. The Kennewick Man was discovered on July 28th 1996 by two young men who accidentally stepped on a skull while trying to sneak into a boat race event in Kennewick, Washington. The skull was taken by a coroner and analyzed by an archaeological consultant by the name of James Chatters. After retrieving the rest of the remains from the site, Chatters decided to submit a hand bone for radiocarbon dating without the consultation of the federal or tribal authorities. When the date came back as 8,700 BP, the federal agency took possession of the remains and invoked the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The agency determined that the remains pertained to five tribes and approved its repatriation. This did not bode well with the scientists. They immediately mounted a large professional and public relations campaign to halt the repatriation process. When these efforts failed, eight of the most prominent professionals sued the agency in federal court for the right to study the remains before they were repatriated. These actions are a great example of the divide between the scientific community and the Indigenous community. The scientists believed that NAGPRA had failed since the remains were never confirmed ‘scientifically’ as Indigenous. They also felt that they were stripped of important findings that would help piece together details of the New World. The Indigenous peoples’ views differed; NAGPRA helped them to have access in reclaiming the remains and to prevent the further study and desecration of the bones \cite{longenecker2005} .
Currently, great strides are being made to improve relations between archaeologists and Indigenous communities. Since the late 1980s, the involvement of Indigenous communities within archaeology has increased steadily and significantly. We now see archaeologists actively working with Indigenous populations in the pursuit of land claims or to challenge land developments. There has also been an increase in the pursuit of post-secondary education, enabling Indigenous students to contribute towards archaeological research
(Nicholas 2006). This inclusion of an Indigenous perspective not only helps to
decolonize archaeology but promotes a truly
holistic approach within the field.
References Cited
Carlson, Catherine. “Letters from the Field: Reflections on the Nineteenth-Century Archaeology of Harlan I. Smith in the Southern Interior of British Columbia, Canada.” In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith, and Hans Wobst 125-158. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Erickson, Paul A., and Liam D. Murphy. A History of Anthropological Theory, Third Edition. Ontario: Broadview Press, 2008.
Hamilton, Michelle. “Iroquoian Archaeology, the Public, and Native Communities in Victorian Ontario.” In Historicizing Canadian Anthropology, edited by Julia Harrison and Regna Darnell 65-74. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006.
Hancock, Robert. “Toward a Historiography of Canadian Anthropology.” In Historicizing Canadian Anthropology, edited by Julia Harrison and Regna Darnell, 30-40. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006.
Harris, Heather. “Indigenous worldviews and Ways of Knowing as Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Archaeological Research.” In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith and Hans Wobst 30-37. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Hodgetts, Lisa. “The Rediscovery of HMS Investigator: Archaeology, Sovereignty and the Colonial Legacy in Canada’s Arctic.” Journal of Social Archaeology 13, no.1 (2012): 80-100.
Nicholas, George. “Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia.” American Indian Quarterly 30, no.3 (2006): 350-380.
Nurse, Andrew. “Marius Barbeau and the Metholody of Salvage Ethnography in Canada, 1911-51.” In Historicizing Canadian Anthropology, edited by Julia Harrison and Regna Darnell, 52-64. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006.
Stapp, Darby, and Julia Longenecker. “Reclaiming the Ancient One: Addressing the Conflicts Between American Indians and Archaeologists Over Protection of Cultural Places.” In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, edited by Claire smith, and Hans Wobst 160-173. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Zimmerman, Larry. “First be Humble: Working with Indigenous Peoples and Other Descendant communities” In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith, and Hans Wobst 284-296. New York: Routledge, 2005.