Between Colonial and Indigenous Archaeologies: Legal and Extra-legal Ownership of the Archaeological Past in North America

For over a century and a half, archaeologists have fought to protect the archaeological record from impacts caused by looting, antiquities trafficking, development, and other threats to the preservation of, in effect, the raw material of the archaeological enterprise. But as post-colonial sensibilities slowly permeate North American society, descendant communities have challenged the basis for both archaeologists to assert an exclusive stewardship of the archaeological record, and the state's authority to endow this exclusivity to archaeologists. This paper reviews the historical context from which archaeologists have obtained in legislation a privileged trust from the state to manage and protect the archaeological record in North America, and the challenges First Nations have made to being excluded from their ancestor's past. While the changing balance in the politics of archaeology in North America is undermining archaeologists' exclusivity, it also offers opportunities for archaeology to become more inclusive and relevant in society. Resume. Depuis plus de cent cinquante ans, les archeologues se sont battus pour proteger le temoignage archeologique du pillage, du trafic d'antiquites et de toutes autres sortes de menaces a la preservation de ce qui est, de fait, le materiel de base de la recherche archeologique. Mais, alors que les sensibilites post-coloniales infiltrent peu a peu la societe nord-americaine, les bases qui permettaient aux archeologues de revendiquer l'intendance exclusive des documents archeologiques ainsi que l'autorite de l'Etat qui octroyait aux archeologues cette exclusivite, sont serieusement mises en question par les communautes descendantes. Cette communication passe en revue le contexte historique a partir duquel les archeologues ont obtenu par legislation de l'Etat l'exclusivite dans la gestion et la protection le temoignage archeologique en Amerique du Nord, et la facon dont les Premieres Nations ont ete evincees de l'acces au passe de leurs ancetres. Les changements de rapports de force dans la politique de l'archeologie en Amerique du Nord tendent a diminuer l'exclusivite des archeologues, mais ils permettent aussi a cette science de s'integrer plus globalement et significativement dans la societe.

[1]  Delgam Uukw,et al.  Delgamuukw : the Supreme Court of Canada decision on aboriginal title , 1998 .

[2]  J. Watkins.  Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice , 2000 .

[3]  B. Spurling,et al.  The Other Face of Janus: Research in the Service of Archaeological Resource Management , 1984 .

[4]  Rosemary J. Coombe.  The Properties of Culture and the Politics of Possessing Identity: Native Claims in the Cultural Appropriation Controversy , 1993, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence.

[5]  T. Ferguson.  Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology , 1996 .

[6]  V. Morell.  Who owns the past? , 1995, Science.

[7]  K. Coates,et al.  The Marshall Decision and Native Rights , 2000 .

[8]  K. Kintigh,et al.  Ethics and the Reburial Controversy , 1990, American Antiquity.

[9]  S. J. Anaya,et al.  Indigenous Peoples in International Law , 1996 .

[10]  I. Lilley.  Native title and the transformation of archaeology in the postcolonial world , 2000 .

[11]  Devon A. Mihesuah.  American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences , 1996 .

[12]  M. Aldenderfer,et al.  Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists , 2000 .

[13]  Linda Smith,et al.  Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples , 2000 .

[14]  M. Collins.  Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA.:Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA. , 2004 .

[15]  Working Together: A Survey of Tribal Perspectives on NAGPRA: Repatriation and Study of Human Remains.: A Survey of Tribal Perspectives on NAGPRA : Repatriation and Study of Human Remains. , 2003 .

[16]  B. Reviews.  The Pleasure of the Crown: Anthropology, Law and First Nations by Dara Culhane , 1998 .

[17]  Sarah K. Harding.  Justifying Repatriation of Native American Cultural Property , 1997 .

[18]  C. Higginbotham.  Native Americans Versus Archaeologists: The Legal Issues , 1982 .

[19]  C. Bell.  Repatriation of cultural property and Aboriginal rights: A survey of contemporary legal issues , 1992 .

[20]  Vine Deloria.  Indians, Archaeologists, and the Future , 1992, American Antiquity.

[21]  K. Mcneil.  Common law aboriginal title , 1989 .

[22]  D. J. Mulvaney.  Past regained, future lost: the Kow Swamp Pleistocene burials , 1991, Antiquity.

[23]  A. Wylie.  Rethinking the Quincentennial: Consequences for Past and Present Indians, Archaeologist, and the Future , 1992 .

[24]  B. Trigger,et al.  Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian , 1980, American Antiquity.

[25]  G. Nicholas.  The past and future of Indigenous archaeology: Global challenges, North American perspectives, Australian prospects1 , 2001 .

[26]  H. Price,et al.  Disputing the Dead: U.S. Law on Aboriginal Remains and Grave Goods , 1991 .

[27]  F. S. Cohen.  Original Indian Title , 1947 .

[28]  R. Downey.  Riddle of the bones : politics, science, race, and the story of Kennewick Man , 2000 .

[29]  Wilcomb E. Washburn,et al.  Native views of history , 1996 .

[30]  The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: The Death Knell for Scientific Study? , 1999 .

[31]  G. Nicholas.  At a crossroads : archaeology and first peoples in Canada , 1997 .

[32]  Michael F. Brown.  Can Culture Be Copyrighted?1 , 1998, Current Anthropology.

[33]  J. Rose,et al.  NAGPRA IS FOREVER: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons , 1996 .

[34]  Robert A. Fairbanks.  Native American Sovereignty and Treaty Rights: Are They Historical Illusions? , 1995 .

[35]  R. W. Johnson,et al.  Fifth Amendment Takings Implications of the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act , 1992 .

[36]  D. Thomas.  Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, And The Battle For Native American Identity , 2000 .

[37]  Rebecca A. Tsosie.  Indigenous Rights and Archaeology , 1997 .

[38]  Robin Skeates,et al.  Debating the Archaeological Heritage , 2000 .

[39]  Laurajane Smith.  A history of Aboriginal heritage legislation in south-eastern Australia , 2000 .

[40]  A. Klesert,et al.  A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy , 1993, American Antiquity.

[41]  Roland J. Fletcher.  Archaeology, Annales , and ethnohistory: Time perspectivism, Annales , and the potential of archaeology , 1992 .

[42]  B. Voss,et al.  The archaeology of colonialism : intimate encounters and sexual effects , 2011 .

[43]  D. Burley,et al.  A never ending story: historical developments in Canadian archaeology and the quest for federal heritage legislation , 1994 .

[44]  Patrick Macklem,et al.  Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Sovereignty: An Essay on R. v. Sparrow , 1969 .

[45]  David Lowenthal,et al.  The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History: Select Bibliography and Citation Index , 1998 .

[46]  Felipe Criado Boado,et al.  Problems, functions and conditions of archaeological knowledge , 2001 .

[47]  Leonard I. Rotman.  Parallel Paths: Fiduciary Doctrine and the Crown-Native Relationship in Canada , 1996 .

[48]  J. Chatters.  The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from Kennewick, Washington , 2000, American Antiquity.

[49]  Rf Langford,et al.  Our Heritage - Your Playground , 1983 .

[50]  Galileos or Grave Robbers? Science, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the First Amendment , 1998 .

[51]  N. Swidler,et al.  Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground , 1997 .

[52]  Dean B. Suagee.  American Indian Religious Freedom and Cultural Resources Management: Protecting Mother Earth's Caretakers , 1982 .

[53]  L. Rosen.  The Excavation of American Indian Burial Sites: A Problem in Law and Professional Responsibility , 1980 .