Campa 6
April 15, 2016
“A Human Element”
Daniela Campa, FIDN: A13487904, , grad. 2019
Fordham College at Rose Hill, Chemistry
New World Archaeology, ANTH 3111 section R01
Professor Kathryn Krasinski,
Spring Semester
It is all too easy for a scientist to forget that science is only a part of the study of our origins. There is another essential component, a human element.
For much of my life, my father and I have been at odds about one thing: religion. He is a devout Catholic, and I am only a believer of the quantifiable. As both a doctor and a religious follower, he is constantly faced with the challenge of rectifying the disparity between science and faith. Often I have attempted to prove to him that logic demands the acceptance of one or the other, and not both. I recall an instance in which we debated the validity of the story of Adam and Eve—the Christian origin story of humanity. After several minutes of heated discussion, he was visibly upset by my coldly scientific approach rather than convinced by it. I suppose I faced a sort of moral dilemma in that moment—how to ethically find the common ground between two seemingly opposite belief systems.
Creation stories such as that of Adam and Eve are not unique to Christianity. These stories, and oral traditions in general, define many different faiths and peoples (Basso 1996, Evan 2006). As a scientist I have been largely skeptical of their validity in the past; however, learning about New World Archaeology has drastically altered my perspective concerning oral tradition. Throughout history, Native American oral traditions and perspectives have been disregarded and purposefully silenced (Anyon et al. 1997). The more I learned about this struggle, the more I began to question the ethics of my detached scientific thought process and of past archaeological methods overall. How can we (members of the archaeological community) begin righting the wrongs that earlier archaeologists have inflicted upon Native Americans? Through the examination of multiple texts concerning ethics and oral tradition, I am compelled to conclude that we, as both scientists and humans, have an ethical obligation to incorporate the Native American perspective into New World Archaeology: the study of early humans and their descendant communities in the New World.
To start, analyzing what it means to be “ethical” demands that one first examines the nature of ethics. While ethics are indeed subjective, a universal truth exists that can be directly applied to New World Archaeology: that fairness and respect are pillars of western society’s modern ethics. The obstacles Native Americans have faced in their struggle for inclusion are a result of the abandonment of these ethical principles in both the scientific and human aspects of archaeology (Van Pelt et al. 1997).
To elaborate, the abandonment of scientific ethics concerns the dismissal of valuable, if not essential, information provided by Native Americans (Anyon et al. 1997). The scientific truth is that the archaeological record proves Native American oral tradition to be a valid source of historical knowledge when interpreted in the correct context (Anyon et al. 1997, Echo-Hawk 2000). For instance, the stories of the Arikara people and the Apache and Navajo people show the role oral tradition plays in creating a framework for historical events. The Arikara origin story describes humanity’s difficult journey from a dark underworld to the blue hills, where the people ultimately split into different tribes. When superimposed with the archaeological record, this origin story can be interpreted as the Arikara people’s account of their initial migration from Pleistocene Beringia down into what is now the United States—a characteristic of many North American origin stories (Echo-Hawk 2000). Further illustrating the validity of oral traditions, my New World Archaeology professor explained Apache and Navajo origin stories that tell of a migration to the American southwest. Mount Churchill’s eruption about a thousand years ago provides a likely explanation as to when and why these people were pushed further south. The Western Apache speak of their ancestors’ wandering to an unfamiliar place and their struggle to adapt to it, indicating a memory of a southern migration that matches this narrative (Basso 1996). Such interpretations demonstrate that many Native American origin stories are in fact rooted in historical truth, contrary to what scientific purists believe. This is not to say that these stories are to be interpreted literally; a literal interpretation would only be the second of two extremes (Thomas 2001). Instead, oral tradition should be regarded as a layering of cultural events upon which archaeologists can begin reconstructing the chronology of the past (Anyon et al. 1997).
Oral traditions serve not only to corroborate the story of the evidence, but also to fill in the gaps left by science. Perhaps the most striking example of this is Sheme Pete’s contribution to New World Archaeology, and what his story reveals about the relevance of cultural geography. Sheme Pete, knowing his people’s land well through his travels and exploration, was a Dena’ina informant who supplied most of the known Dena’ina place names (Kari and Fall 2003). Since little is known about the Dena’ina people other than what is passed on through their oral tradition, Sheme Pete’s input is invaluable (Boraas and Peter 2008). In part due to his participation, archaeologists determined that Native American naming patterns form a cultural map. By understanding the names of places in any Native American ancestral land, archaeologists can draw critical conclusions about movement patterns, as well as the significance and purpose of certain sites to local tribes. Without the unique perspective of Sheme Pete and other Native American sources, cultural geography and the wealth of potential information it provides would remain a missing piece of the archaeological record. How does this relate to archaeology as a science? A scientist has a responsibility to respect the evidence. However if one chooses to ignore the obvious merit of the Native American perspective, and moreover, draws conclusions without taking this perspective into account, he or she is defying the most basic ethics of science. Excluding evidence simply because it does not seem correct is not respecting the evidence, and it cannot be classified as true science.
While this pragmatic reasoning is certainly important, the concepts of fairness and respect as they relate to human dignity are even more so. If the oral tradition does not fit with the known history or the evidence, dignity emerges as the priority. But what happens when dignity, and thus, human ethics, is ignored? In the past, archaeologists have neglected to include Native Americans in the pursuit of history and have consequently broken their trust, presenting a substantial obstacle for the cooperative future of New World Archaeology. The case arguably causing the most damage to Native American-archaeologist relations is that of the Kennewick Man. After his skeleton was found floating in the water, archaeologists immediately created conflict by claiming that Kennewick Man did not concern local Native Americans—the first in a long list of unethical actions, including performing destructive testing on the skeleton against the will of the tribes. Despite years of legal battles and ample evidence supporting his Native American origin, Kennewick Man was never repatriated (AAA 2010, Coleman and Dysart 2005). Only the passage of time and a fresh approach to archaeology can heal the resulting wound.
This approach is simple: when considering New World Archaeology one must understand that the history does not belong to outside observers. Instead, it belongs to the people who are a part of that history: the descendant communities. Therefore, the most ethical way to begin the healing process is to more widely implement a newer methodology: community archaeology. Community archaeology gives the local community at least partial control of a project, thus allowing them to actively participate (Marshall 2002). Community Archaeology also applies the two pillars of ethics, as providing Native peoples with a say in their own history demonstrates a restoration of fairness and respect for their cultural heritage. This methodology fosters collaboration, and finds the common ground: a shared desire to rediscover the past. It is science, but science with a human element.
In examining the connection between ethics and the Native American perspective in New World Archaeology, I have also learned something about myself. I suppose that the message I communicated to my father by challenging his faith is that I did not have respect for that part of his identity. This is a painful truth to accept, but it is through accepting my ethical failure that I can finally begin to search for an approach that allows our viewpoints to coexist. I know that one exists; after all, he faces a similar internal conflict and prevails in reconciling the two halves of himself.
I have since reflected on what my father’s faith really means. It means that he is human, striving like me and like every other human to explain where we come from, who we are, and why we are here. The other day, I sat in my parents’ kitchen internalizing the implications of this when my father walked into the room. “I’m going to church; I’ll be back in an hour,” he said to me.
“Wait, Dad!” I called. “I’m...I’m coming with you.”
AAA.
2010 A Tale of Two Skeletons. Science 330:171-172.
Anyon, R., T.J. Ferguson, L. Jackson, L. Lane and P. Vicenti.
1997 Native American Tradition and Archaeology: Issues of Structure, Relevance, and
Respect. In Native American and Archaeologists Stepping Stones to Common Ground,
edited by N. Swidler, K.E. Dongoske, R. Anyon and A.S. Downer, pp.77-87,
Altamira, Walnut Creek
Basso, K.H.
1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 8-22.
Boraas, A. and D. Peter.
2008 The Role of Beggesh and Beggesha in Precontact Dena’ina Culture. Alaska
Journal of Anthropology 6(1/2):211-225.
Coleman, C.L. and E.V. Dysart.
2005 Framing of Kennewick Man against the Backdrop of a Scientific and Cultural
Controversy. Science Communication 27(1):3-26.
Echo-Hawk, R. C.
2000 Ancient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Traditions and the
Archaeological Record in Deep Time. American Antiquity, 65(2), 267–290.
http://doi.org/10.2307/2694059
Evan, A.
2006 Raven. In Dena’ina Sukdu’a: Traditional Stories of the Tanaina Athabascans,
compiled by J.M. Tenenbaum, pp. 111-131. Alaska Native Language Center,
Fairbanks.
Kari, J. and J. A. Fall. Shem Pete principal contributor.
2003 ‘I am Shem Pete.’ In Shem Pete’s Alaska: The territory of the Upper Cook Inlet
Dena’ina, pp. 1-9, Alaska Native Language Center, Fairbanks.
Marshall, Y.
2002 What is Community Archaeology? World Archaeology 34(2):211-219.
Thomas, D.H.
2001 Skull Wars. Is Real History Embedded in Oral Tradition? pp 91-101. Basic
Books, NY.
Van Pelt, J., M.S. Burney, and T. Bailor.
1997 Protecting Cultural Resources on the Umatilila Indian Reservation. In Native
American and Archaeologists Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by N.
Swidler, K.E. Dongoske, R. Anyon and A.S. Downer, pp.167-171, Altamira, Walnut
Creek.