THE NATIVE AMERICAN AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Allen G. Pastron
University of California
at Berkeley
During the past two decades, social and cultural
anthropologists and their work have become the center of an
ever increasing moral controversy. Anthropologists have,
during this period, found their profession challenged throughout
the world on political, ethical and moral grounds, and have
often found themselves to be the focus of concerted and bitter
resentment in many non-Western countries. Today, all of us are
familiar with the problems facing the social scientist
attempting to obtain a visa which would allow him to work in
many African, Asian and Latin American countries.
Throughout much of this period, archaeologists have
largely been able to feel detached from this controversy.
Many archaeologists have assumed that prehistory is a politically
neutral discipline which harms nobody and can only lead to the
increase of any people's knowledge of themselves, and must
therefore be considered by everyone as a positive asset.
Unfortunately, during the past several years, events, especially
in North America, have made it clear that this assumption has
not been borne out, and that archaeology has been subject to
much the same criticism as social and cultural anthropology.
Native Americans have become increasingly antagonistic
towards archaeology and within recent years prehistory has
25
become one of the central themes of Native American protests
and demonstrations.  The level of conflict has now escalated
far beyond the plane of verbal debate. Museum exhibits have
been disturbed. Such a situation developed at a demonstration
conducted by a Native American group at the Southwest Museum
in Los Angeles on January 12, 1971 (Akwesasne Notes  Oct./Nov.
1971). Archaeological excavations have been disrupted and,
on occasion, notes and equipment have been destroved and
individuals threatened with force (Akwesasne Notes  Oct./Nov.
1971). It is clear that Native Americans feel genuine
indignation toward archaeological fieldwork, and it also seems
that many prehistorians underestimate the degree or
misunderstand the source of this resentment. The remainder
of this paper will be devoted to exploring the sources of
conflict between archaeologists and Native Americans and to
proposing a number of ideas that might basically improve
relations between the two groups in the future.
The one central focus of resentment by Native Americans
toward archaealogy and the major source of conflict between
the two groups is the excavation of burials. This resentment,
although of topical interest today is by no means new. As
early as 1665, Indians and settlers in New England were at odds
due to the violation of Indian graves by Europeans. In Rhode
Island, "when a Dutch trader robbed the grave of a
Narrogansett Indian, the brother of the deceased presented
26
himself to Roger Williams with fourscore armed men to demarnd
compensation and to threaten open war" (Simmons 1970). In short,
in many aboriginal Native American cultures "graves were
inviolate and anvone found meddling with a burial could expect
retribution from the kinsmen of the deceased' (Simmons 1970).
Aside from the manv other problems with the white man during
the nineteenth century, Native Americans livi-ng on the Great
Plains were incensed by the fact that settlers and soldiers
defiled burial scaffolds wherever and whenever they encountered
them (Linderman 1962). A number of well known and articulate
native spokesmen of the nineteenth century (among them Black
Hawk and Chief Joseph) expressed their dislike of their white
neighbors because of the violation of the Fraves of their
ancestors by the settlers (Akwesasne Nlotes  June 1971).
With this background, it is easy to understand the
resentment felt by contemporary Native Americans toward the
excavation of burials. The modern wave of demonstrations and
protests can be seen as an old and ongoing cultural attitude
toward the dead, if viewed in the context of the preceding
examples.  However, with the recent upsurge of Pan Indiaan
consciousness, many Indians feel a sense of affinity with all
other Native Americans, not merely those with whom a tribal
connection can be demonstrated. The feelings of outrage by
a twentiethz century Navajo over the looting of the grave of
a thirteenth century Costanoan is legitimrjate and understandable.
27
At this point, one might ask himself what any of the
previous examples have to do with archaeology. Archaeologists
do not loot graves, or rob sites, or defile any people's
culture. We do work in the name of science for the benefit of
all. Unfortunately, as true as we believe all of these
precepts to be, many Native Americans do not make the same
distinctions we do. There is often no clear cut line between
our work and the digging of what we call pot hunters. To manv
Native Americans who do not view prehistory through the eye
of an extensive universitv experience, grave digging is c-rave
digging and semantic differences and irivoluted exp)lanations
are meanigl ess.  And if, indeed, Indians do not make the
categorical distinctions that arch1aeologists would like them
to, we must shoulder much of the responsibility for this
misunderstanding.
Technical archaeological publi cations mean little to
most non-professionals, red or white, and we cannot expect
non-archaeologists to be able or willing to digest our
detailed and often confusing nomenclature and sequences and
find them relevant.  It seems that we have avoided publishing
material that can be readily understood by the layman, and,
at least in part, this avoidance has helped create the nuandry
of misunderstanding and confusion that now plagues us. It is
not enough to state thlat INative Americans do not understand
what we do or why we do it.  If we, in the future, want any
28
assistance from Native Americans, we must present ourselves
in a way that makes them feel that prehistory is of benefit
to their cultural interests as well as to our own scientific
aims.
At this juncture, a few concrete examples might well
illustrate Native American complaints. Recently in western
Iowa a highway construction crew unearthed an unmarked
cemetery containing twenty five graves. Upon discovery,
an archaeological team was called in before construction
resumed. Shortly thereafter, all but one of the twenty five
dead were reburied in a cemetery in the town of Glenwood,
Iowa. In the one grave, that of a young girl, a few artifacts
and trinkets were found and it was concluded that her remains
were those of an Indian. Her bones were scheduled to go on
"display" in a local museum. As one Indian woman commented
about the above incident, "If I did that to a white man's
grave, I'd be arrested" (Warpath June 1971).
A number of Native American cemeteries have been excavated
and turned into profitable tourist attractions. One such in
St. Ignace, Michigan (Akwesasne Notes 1971) has a billboard
which advertises "Exposed to View - 52 skeletons in a single
grave - Ceremonial Fire site - many interesting artifacts.
Modern camp grounds - showers - electricity available -
clean rest rooms - dumping station." The blatant lack of
respect in such an advertisement requires no comment.
29
Many Native Americans feel that displays in anthropological
museums are put together tastelessly and often offensivelv.
Many artifacts which are displayed as art or ethnographic
material are of religious significance to various Native
American groups, who feel that such objects should not be placed
on public exhibition and of course, the hundreds, and often
thousands of Indian skeletons which fill the basements and
store rooms of many anthropological museums are an affront to
nearly all Native Americans.
In short, much of archaeological work, and of course,
pot hunting (which, as mentioned before, is considered by some
Native Americans to be part and parcel of archaeology) is
considered to be a form of ethnocide by a great many American
Indians.  Indians feel that their past cultures are treated
with a distinct lack of respect by archaeolog;ists, just as
many feel that their present culture is treated with disrespect
by social anthropologists. The following, therefore, is a
list of proposals to be considered by American archaeologists
in their future work.
1. Archaeologists should ask the permission of Native
Americans to dig whenever this is possible.. Obviously this
is a necessry first step if the site an archaeologist wishes
to excavate is on reservation land. However, even if the site
is on non-reservation property, prehistorians should consult
with local Native American groups before excavation begins,
30
explaining their aims and expectations and in turn asking what
knowledge or other benefits Native Americans can hope to gain
from such a venture. If, in any given area, there is a
Native American community that feels an affinity with either
a particular site or a general region, such a group should
certainly be consulted. Such a procedure would allow Native
Americans to participate in the process of prehistory, as well
as open a channel of communication which would hopefully
serve to mediate conflicts and difficulties at an early stage.
2. The recruitment of qualified Native American
archaeologists should be given a high priority by the profession.
As with the recruitment of other third world people within the
discipline, training of Native American archaeologists would
introduce a degree of relevance about archaeology among
Indians and provide a connecting link between the scholar and
the object of study. I realize that at the present time such
recruitment is perhaps easier said than done, but efforts in
this direction should be made whenever an opportunity presents
itself.
3. American archaeologists might adapt a policy of
refraining from the excavation of recent or historic sites
except when such sites are in imminent danger of destruction.
In such a case, archaeologists could confer with Native
Aericans, explaining the danger to the site, and attempt
to acquire their aid and cooperation. In this regard, the
31
term 'recent' must be defined slightly other than strictly
chronologically. There are sites of several hundred years
antiquity which may have great significance to certain
Native American groups. In cases such as these, archaeologists
should consider the site a recent one, and attempt to
refrain from excavating it.
4. Archaeologists and museum curators chould establish
a procedure whereby Native Americans are directly consulted
about museum exhibits that pertain to Native American culture.
Such a procedure would greatly reduce the possibility of a
display which is found to be objectionable by Native Americans.
Many well meaning curators have exhibited material inadvertently
which is judged improper by Indians. The above procedure
cannot help but increase communication and understanding
between the two groups.
5. Archaeologists should explore the idea of returning
ethnographic or archaeological specimens of particular
religious or cultural value to various Native American groups.
With todayis techniques of artifact reproduction, there is
often no need to keep every piece of cultural material
provided that it has been properly recorded and the relevant
scientific data noted.
6. In this regard, it might be proper to mention the
possibility of archaeological and Native American cooperation
in the areas of the reburial of skeletal material excavated,
32
after a reasonable period of scholarly study. There is nothing
more offensive to Native Americans than the vast numbers of
skulls and bones on shelves in museum basements. The
re-interment of skeletal material excavated by archaeologists
,might go a long way toward the improvement of Native American
attitudes toward prehistory.
7. As alluded to above, archaeologists should take it
upon themselves to publish a certain amount of popular
literature pertaining to their work, written in non-technical
English, which pertains specifically to the cultural traditions
of ancient Native Americans rather than to any particular
theory of current interest to the Drehistorian. How else can
we expect to encourage the interest and cooperation of the
general public, particularly Native Americans, if our
publications are unreadable, totally irrelevant and alienated
from the mainstream of most peoples' lives?
8. Finally, a group of prehistorians might find it useful
to band together and compile a questionnaire to be sent to
Native American organizations throughout the country, seeking
the views and opinions held by Indians about archaeology,
and inquiring how archaeology might be employed to serve their
interests. Such a procedure would open the channels for the
inclusion of the Native American into archaeology as a
participant rather than a specimen.
33
The preceding has been a brief attempt to articulate some
of the difficulties currently existing between archaeologists
and Native Americans, and to propose a number of ideas which
might improve the situation. It is clear that any number of
practical difficulties and obstacles can be found with all of
the preceding proposals, and it should be made clear that none
have been offered as end products or final solutions, but as
preliminary ideas for thought and consideration.
In closing, let me state that Native Americans feel that
they are totally disenfranchised from the process of the
discovery of their own past, a past, which as we all well
know, has been made distinctly unpleasant by the ancestors of
those who now excavate their bones. Archaeologists must now
take stock, and then deal with Native Americans, both past and
present, and take steps to make our science more relevant to
those whose past we seek to reconstruct.
References cited:
Akwesasne Notes
1971  Vol. 3, No. 8, October/November 1971.
1971  Vol. 3, No. 9, December 1971.
Linderman, Frank
1962  PeyCops - Chief of the Crows.       University of
Nebraska Press. Lincoln.
Simmons, William
1970  Catontowwit's House: An Indian Burial Ground on the
Island of Cononicut, Narragansett Bay. Brown
University Press.
Warpath    Vol. 2, No. 1, Summer 1971.
34