1

Katie Guidry

Professor Gallivan

Anthropology 150W

19 April 2006

Achieving Social Justice: the Ethics of Archaeology

Beginning shortly after contact with the colonists, the history of Indigenous people around the world reveals a story full of inequality and injustice. Often Natives were forced to watch their past undergo excavations against their will. However, recent research efforts in Alaska and Virginia are beginning to change this. The process of excavating these sites is also changing how archaeological research is approached. Researchers involved in Alaska and Virginia are hoping to start a trend of more Indian involvement in future excavations. By having more involvement of Native tribes, these researchers are striving to achieve social justice and allow the Indians to take part in writing their own history. Unless social justice and more native involvement are achieved as seen in Virginia and Alaska, the world will never be able to fully embrace Aboriginal history and its impact on the development of America.

As a child, one is only briefly taught about the Native Americans. Textbooks really only cover the basics: Powhatan, Pocahontas, Sacajawea, and the first encounters with the colonists. “Since colonial contact, the history and prehistory of Indigenous peoples has been written about in a predominantly colonial and paternalistic manner” (Isaacson and Ford 2005: 359). Also sadly, Virginia Indians are not mentioned beyond Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 and the creation of the Treaty of Middle Plantation. There are also very few museums and representations that give justice to the Indians’ account of their history. The PamunkeyIndianMuseum and Jamestown Settlement’s “PowhatanVillage” are the only exceptions to this in Virginia (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 2). Elsewhere, there are few exceptions as well, many of which did not open until recently. For example, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage “opened in 1999 as a ‘gathering place’ for all Alaskan Native groups” and “functions as a site of cultural exchange, celebration, and education” (Clifford 2004: 15). Also, it was not until 2001 that the NationalMuseum of Australia, which was established in 1980, was opened (May et al. 2005: 121-122). Beyond these exceptions one must rely on accounts from settlers such as John Smith and texts written by other “white men” to gain knowledge of Native history.

However, it is extremely important to recognize their history and it is even more important that Aboriginals are given a voice in their history. Researchers are hoping to achieve this,for example, through the excavation of Werowocomoco, a site in the Tidewater region of Virginia that is believed to be the center of Powhatan society. However, first one must acknowledge that “Native history in the region is marked by a series of ruptures separating these communities from their lands, their identities, and their historical narratives” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 3). The Indians lost much of their land beginning in the seventeenth century as relations between them and the colonists turned hostile. Their right to travel was also reduced. However, in 1649 the General Assembly passed laws that attempted to ease tensions but “in practice they only furthered ruptures between Native communities, traditional places, and political sovereignty” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 9-10). The killing of Indians for reasons other than trespassing on colonial controlled land was outlawed. However, they were forced to wear badges in order to enter any colonial settlement. “In the span of a single generation the once powerful Powhatan people had become almost powerless in their own homeland” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 10).

Nevertheless, the Native American tragedy did not stop in the eighteenth century. Over time, as the black/white racial conflict grew, Native Americans found it “increasingly difficult to fit themselves into Virginia’s ever narrowing definition of ‘Indian’” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 10). With the passage of the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, Indians were forced to be classified as “colored persons” and attended colored persons’ schools. Many Native Americans born during this time had “colored” written on their birth certificates, rather than “Indian” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 11). They no longer had their identity as Native Americans, which caused much resentment toward archaeology and other research years later. If they could not have their true identity, then their history would never be truthfully told.

Inequality and injustice was also seen in Australia. Kunbarlanja, Australia is the center of an extremely important debate over the possession of human remains. In 1948, an expedition took place in Kunbarlanja and surrounding areas with aims “to observe the everyday life of Indigenous people of Arnhem Land, to determine where they originally came from, to learn how they coped with their own environment, and to collect specimens of their material culture” (May et al. 2005: 114). Unfortunately, these were only the official aims of the expedition and many researchers involved had their own aims in mind at the time. During the expedition, a few hundred pieces of human remains were found in rock crevices. The bones were usually disarticulated and fragmented (May et al. 2005: 117-120). The skeletal material was taken to the AustralianMuseum following the expedition. From there, they were sent to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. for further research, with the plan that they would eventually be returned to the AustralianMuseum. However, there is “no evidence of any specific or extensive research being undertaken by the staff at the Smithsonian Institution…and none of the material was ever returned to the AustralianMuseum as promised” (May et al. 2005: 121). It is unfortunate that the skeletal material was never returned to its ancestral land in Australia and recently there has been a movement pushing for the return of the human remains.

Fortunately, recent research has begun to give Natives a voice. The 1970s sparked change with Errett Callahan’s assistance of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginiain their museum exhibits. Callahan would become a predecessor for collaboration efforts. Jeffery Hantman’s efforts to collaborate with the Monocans of Virginia also gave researchers a model on how to approach future archaeological research (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 14-15). The American Indian Movement organized in the 1970s to “stop or impede excavation of archaeological sites, protested the display of American Indian human remains and sensitive material in museums an other exhibits, and addressed the desire for the repatriation of human remains and artifacts” (Watkins 2003: 130).

Natives worldwidethen continued to push for justice and respect throughout the 1980s. In the United States, Virginia officially recognized eight Native American tribes while activists successfully attained “protection and repatriation of human remains” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 15). In 1989, the National Museum of the American Indian Act was passed requiring the Smithsonian Institution and other federally funded museums to go through their collections of human remains and other significant artifacts, and identity which Native American tribe they belonged to and return the artifacts to the tribes (Watkins 2003: 134). Australia also saw a Native movement of its own in the late 1980s and early 1990s when “inquiries by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in racist violence (1989-1991) and forced removal of Aboriginal Children (1995-1997), as well as a Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody (1987-1991)…brought Aboriginal deaths and the ‘Stolen Generation’ to the political forefront” (Isaacson and Ford 355). Also in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed to protect burial sites from unauthorized excavations and return human remains to Indian tribes. Before 1990, a few states had already passed similar laws and the NAGPRA helped further protection of human remains. This act, however, did come as a surprise to researchers and in some ways furthered the divide between the Natives and researchers (Lynott 2003: 23). Natives, however,were finally starting to receive justice for their history.

It is becoming more and more apparent that social justice needs to be achieved in order for Natives to have a voice in their history and their future. One of the most important issues is over the possession of human remains. Even with the passage of NAGPRA, Native Americans have felt that it has “failed to prevent continuing desecration of American Indian human remains through further scientific study, to protect human remains on private land, to protect ‘culturally unidentifiable human remains,’ and to address the needs of non-federally recognized American Indian tribes” (Watkins 2003: 135). The repatriation of human remains is a very sensitive subject for many Aboriginal people. In fact, the Indigenous people of Kubarlanja, Australia are still fighting for the return of their ancestors’ remains from Washington, D.C. where they have been held for fifty-four years (May et al. 2005: 111). It is important that these people and others like them can voice their opinion on such matters.

It is also important that Natives gain back their identity by partaking in writing their own history. Unfortunately, many Natives suggest that archaeological research is just another part of colonial exploitation. Indigenous people want to see more regulation of research that will benefit them, not just the researchers (Smith and Wobst 2005: 392). To start, it is vital that relationships between archaeologists and other researchers, and Aboriginals are achieved. To do this, researchers must seek permission from tribal elders and other leaders of Indigenous tribes in order to excavate sites. It is also equally important that researchers continue to consult with the tribal leaders throughout the whole process of the excavation (Isaacson and Ford 2005: 356). Further legislation can also help bring archaeologists and Natives together. “As Indigenous people gain greater recognition of cultural and intellectual property rights and greater control over their cultural heritage, they are having a say about the people with whom they work” (Isaacson and Ford 2005: 357).

“Archaeologists have an obligation to facilitate the agenda of Indigenous groups with regard to their past” (Smith and Wobst 2005: 394). As archaeologists work closer with Natives, they can help further cross-cultural communication, lobby government bodies, develop cultural tourism enterprises, and develop educational programs. Archaeologists can be a force of power for both Indigenous people and themselves (Isaacson and Ford 2005: 362-364). They can also help Natives “validate their ancestor tracks for court cases that prevent damage to their sacred sites” (Smith and Wobst 2005: 394). However, it is important for archaeologists to remember first and foremost that they are not just given trust; they must earn it from the Natives. This trust will help further relationships between Aboriginals and researchers (Isaacson and Ford 2005: 361). Now researchers must continue to further social justice for Indigenous people of the world.

Today, the excavation of Werowocomoco in Virginia and the research in Alaska have become the leading causes for the push for social justice. Research in Alaska was some of the first to move toward the achievement of social justice. The push for justice began in the 1960s with the formation of the Alaska Federation of Natives and then the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. However, before these steps were taken, Native American history in Alaska was full of turmoil. Beginning with the arrival of the Russians and the United States colonization in 1867 through the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Alaska’s history was plagued with devastation (Clifford 2004: 6-7). Throughout this time, the Natives lost much of their identity. However, things began to change in 1984 when the Kodiak Area Native Association partnered with archaeologist Richard Jordan. This was one of the first times that American Indians were involved in researching their past. Then during the 1990s the KANA, which was formed on the basis of collaboration, pushed its efforts to further relationships with Native Americans and researchers by creating the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository (Clifford 2004: 9-10).

Heritage projects then took place throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but it was not until the Looking Both Ways project that these projects acted as “sites of mobilization and pride, sources of intergenerational inspiration and education, ways to reconnect with the past and to say to others: ‘We exist,’ ‘We have deep roots here,’ ‘We are different’” (Clifford 2004: 8). Researchers in Alaska began to realize that it was becoming increasingly important to collaborate with the local tribes. In fact, the “project’s success depended on bringing together Native authorities, skilled professionals, and institutional sponsors” (Clifford 2004: 11). Then in 1999, an enormous move was made toward social justice when the AlaskaNativeHeritageCenter opened in Anchorage as a place for “cultural exchange, celebration, and education” (Clifford 2004: 15). An important aspect of this project was that every program was approved by the elders of key Native American tribes in the region. Communication between researchers and the Indigenous people, between the Indigenous people and the public, and among various Indigenous tribes is a key part of this project. For once, American Indians can tell their own story in their own way. “The AlaskaNativeHeritageCenter is not a museum focused on a collection but something more like a performance space, featuring face-to-face encounters. Everything is designed to facilitate conversations between different Natives and non-Natives” (Clifford 2004: 15). However, it is important to remember that projects like Looking Both Ways and the AlaskaNativeHeritageCenter do come with their difficulties. They required patience, but most importantly respect and equality. (Clifford 2004: 22). Both Alaskan Indians and researchers are hoping their recent efforts will change the way archaeological research is approached and that researchers will use them as guide in the future.

This is also true in the tidewater region of Virginia. According to researchers at Werowocomoco, from the beginning, they “sought to develop an exacting and long-term study of a Native village site built around close partnerships with descendant communities of Virginia Indians” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 16). The Werowocomoco Research Group was formed on the basis of creating a model for future archaeological research that includes Native input. One of the first things the Werowocomoco Research Group sought to do was to contact the Virginia Council of Indians and the eight Indian tribes recognized by the state before announcing the discovery to the media and the public (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 17). Meetings were then held in which the researchers continued to seek help from the Virginia Indians, and the Virginia Indian Advisory Board consisting of six of the tribes that are descendant from the Powhatan was created. This board meets regularly to receive updates from the researchers and to further advise them. “The advisory board has served as the critical linkage between the research team and the tribal communities” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 19). Probably their most important influence has been on the policy for the accidental discovery of human remains. Researchers have vowed to observe their requests, thus increasing social justice.

As work at Werowocomoco shows, it is becoming increasingly important to achieve social justice. Unfortunately not all recent research is achieving it. An important example that is creating much controversy is the King William Reservoir Project. In this situation because the site has to be excavated by law, the Indians were not some of the first people to be notified. There is also not a very close connection between the archaeologists and government working at the site and the Indians. From the beginning the Native communities have protested the project. They have been “fighting the destruction of environmental settings and sacred sites tied to the King William Reservoir Project” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 3) from the start. It is clear that more work needs to be done in order to achieve social justice.

“Ultimately, civic engagement involving archaeological research must extend beyond ‘public outreach’ toward descendant communities” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 21). This could not be truer. Even with the latest excavation at Werowocomoco, media attention is mostly given to Powhatan and the Pocahontas and John Smith story. Virginia Indians deserve the right to social justice seen as “equity, honesty, and tolerance across segments of a society” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 21). Teaching school children solely about Powhatan and Pocahontas is no longer acceptable. Virginia Indians have the right to more than a few sentences in textbooks. They are a part of a greater narrative and the researchers at Werowocomoco are hoping to show this. In fact, two members of the Pamunkey tribe, one being a member of the advisory board and the Pamunkey Tribal Council, have volunteered to help excavate the site. By having these Native American representatives, the public can be made more aware of the influence of Virginia Indians and the Indians themselves have a better understanding of archaeological procedures (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 20, 22). Finally, the research has opened up talks between Native Americans and archaeologists, and the researchers involved “hope that the Werowocomoco project will contribute to the creation of social capital that is bonding within the Virginia Indian community and bridging across the academic-Native divide” (Gallivan and Moretti-Langholtz 2006: 22-23).