Home > 2001 Workshops

Descendant Communities and Professional Practice

Prepared for the Society for American Archaeology/ National Science Foundation Workshop
"Renewing the Undergraduate Archaeology Curriculum" Bloomington, IN
November 8-11, 2001

Joe Watkins

Introduction

The initial letter of requesting participation in the grant project outline several tasks the Advisors were to do, among them to provide an 8-10 page discussion on the role of several factors in the topic each Advisor was assigned. In this regard, I have undertaken to examine the role that the concepts of stewardship, diverse pasts, social relevance, ethics and values, written and oral communication, fundamental archaeological skills, and real world problem solving would have in the development of a course relating to descendant communities and professional practice.

Additionally, three other items were requested: two short case studies to be used in demonstrating the utility including descendant communities to the practice of archaeology; two classroom activities to help archaeologists understand the diversity of descendant communities in all area; and a reading list to be used by the course developers in their course development.

Discussion of the Topic

Although not easily recognized or politically active, descendant communities are everywhere across the world. In most major American cities one can find a "Little Italy" or a "Chinatown", a Jewish ghetto or an Hispanic barrio, but descendant communities need not be a racially or nationally distinctive mixture. All that is necessary is the idea of a common beginning-- a common denominator -- that acts to unite a group of people together in ways beyond mere convenience. College alumni are excellent examples of unrelated individuals who share a common heritage (college) and who interact (although infrequently) for specific purposes. The professional archaeologist who undertakes research among such groups must be able to integrate diverse interests into a meaningful research program.

Stewardship

It is imperative that archaeologists do not believe that they are the only stewards of the past, or that others do not share either their level of concern or their level of commitment toward the past. Archaeologists run the risk of alienating those whose cultures they study if they perceive themselves to be the only guardians of the cultural record. Larry Zimmerman noted:

"Indeed, by what right do archaeologists claim such stewardship when there
are others who might, and in fact do, make valid stewardship claims?
(Zimmerman 1995:65).We must guard against becoming self-appointed
stewards of the past and realize that the communities with which we work
have their own concepts about their history."

Diverse Pasts

Appropriate research in archaeology will help elucidate the diversity of culture through the past. As part of the diversity in that past, archaeologists should focus as much on the diversity of interests as they focus on the diversity of culture. The past is not a book waiting for the archaeologist to read; more appropriately, it is a book written in many languages in many alphabets, and archaeologists are but one of the many authors interpreting the script. When Ruthann Knudson wrote "We all have a right to our past, and our past is the worldwide record of the human experience" (1991:3), she was writing from "... the Western Judeo-Christian value system." Such a statement begs a question: Do those who do not prescribe to the Western Judeo-Christian value system have a right to the past? Do archaeologists have a "right" to everyone's past, or only to the pasts of their culture? Who has the right to determine access to those pasts? Philosophy aside, each cultural group brings with it in its discussion and interpretation of the past cultural baggage as well as cultural insights that filter its view of the past. Archaeology must realize that it, too, is a cultural group whose members perhaps do not share consanguinity but consciousness. The past that interests us may be different than the past that interests descendant groups, and we must work to develop programs that integrate our views of the past with the descendants of the groups that produced the cultural deposits we study.

Social Relevance

In order for archaeology to continue to prosper, it is important that practitioners of the craft continue to make strides toward increasing its social relevance. Most people view archaeology through the eyes of the camera -- Indiana Jones or Laura Croft -- as relic hunters or tomb raiders. However, such views are not only inaccurate representations of the discipline today, they perpetuate the false impression that archaeologists are interested only in the more spectacular material associated with graves and tombs or interested in obtaining sacred objects of unknowing power for the benefit of their own personal reputations or that of the museum that employs them. But how does archaeology make itself socially relevant to descendant communities? Archaeologists should focus on ways that archaeological programs can meet the needs of the descendant community as well as the academic community. The program developed at Village of the Rapids (Case Study #1 below) provided the Wahpeton Dakota community with a more humanistic understanding of the culture that existed at that location a century earlier. In other circumstances, a more applied archaeology -- one aimed at providing specific answers to specific questions of use to the descendant community -- might be more beneficial to everyone involved. Such research is not without its political implications -- tribes have notably made use of archaeological research in land rights issues -- but archaeology has never been an apolitical process and archaeologists must not delude themselves into thinking it so.

Ethics and Values

Archaeology has ethical relationships with descendant communities beyond just those of the general population. The Code of Ethics of the Society for American Archaeology ask the archaeologist to make every good faith effort to establish "... a working relationship that can be beneficial to the discipline and to all parties involved" (Principle No. 2 in Lynott and Wylie 1995:23) and to "... reach out to the public to ... explain and promote the use of methods and techniques of archaeology in understanding human behavior and culture" (Principle No. 4 in Lynott and Wylie 1995:23). The Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association draws attention to ethical considerations by noting that anthropologists have a responsibility to the people and animals with whom they work and whose lives they study, and that their studies may positively or negatively impact those people. The Code of Ethics of the Register of Professional Archaeologists exhorts archaeologists to "(B)e sensitive to, and respect the legitimate concerns of, groups whose culture histories are the subjects of archaeological investigations" (RPA Internet site at http://www.rpanet.org/ ; last accessed 9/27/01). Thus, then, is the foundation for the ethical treatment of descendant communities. Beyond that, however, it is incumbent upon the archaeologist to understand that the value system in place within a descendant community might vary from that of the culture of which the archaeologist is a part. For example, archaeological excavations at an Amish town would require the use of hand tools rather than technological advanced tools; research in some countries might preclude men and women from working together without culturally appropriate chaperones; some cultures also have specific requirements for each of the sexes. It is important for the professional archaeologist to understand the descendant community that might be impacted by the project prior to entering the field so that problems might be identified and recognized before they crop up in the field. The professional archaeologist will learn not only to rely on the codes of ethics within the discipline of archaeology, but also on those written and unwritten codes that might be in place within the community where the research is to take place. To ignore local customs is to run the risk of antagonizing the very community whose culture history is being studied.

Written and Oral Communication

Involving descendant communities in archaeology requires a level of written and oral communication uncommon in archaeology as it stands today. Scientific terminology must be translated into words easily understand and into concepts easily grasped. Brian Fagan represents an author whose works make archaeology available to the general public through his use of the story-telling/narrative method of presenting archaeology, and his works are often used in general and introductory archaeology classes. Rather than denigrating someone who writes in this manner if we are to reach the layperson, we must also receive training in making our research available in such a manner. Creative writing is a skill which should be encouraged rather than discouraged. To make the past come alive to those whose ancestors created it requires a sense of the dramatic that few archaeologists have. Jane Auel's fictional accounts of the human condition in Europe during the transition between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal groups has far outsold any textbook describing the same time period, and is far more enjoyable to read than those same textbooks. Such a talent to popularize would benefit a professional archaeologist greatly. Oral communication skills are necessary for the archaeology who wishes to take the results of the field work to the community. It is important that the local community be made aware of the fieldwork results throughout the process, and archaeologists need to become more comfortable presenting their results in open meetings, school auditoriums, and local community group luncheons. Again, these presentations should include striking visual aids in order to make the event as unforgettable as possible so that the community can see how archaeology has impacted the locality.

Fundamental Archaeological Skills

The preparation of the archaeologist as technical excavator might be less important to the descendant community than to the scientific community, but an archaeologist who cannot explain the relationships between cultural artifacts, deposits, or provenience will not be able to comprehend the richness of the information inherent within those relationships. Fundamental archaeological skills are necessary: training in the intricacies of field survey methodology and techniques are indispensable, for no archaeological program involving descendant communities can proceed without archaeological sites. But training need not be overly strict to be useful. In Texas, for example, a state agency dictates field survey methodology to the detriment of alternative methodologies. Such a dictated approach produces field surveys that can be statistically compared, but fails to take into account topographic or geographic differences that would normally influence field survey methodology. So, too, must training be adaptable. The basic skills of archaeological excavation -- mapping, maintaining accurate levels, maintaining accurate and adequate field records -- should be presented as part of the technical expertise archaeologists should attain. More importantly, however, is the skillful presentation of the project after the data have been collected and collated into the archaeological report.

Real World Problem Solving

Real world problem solving is fundamental in working with descendant communities. Archaeology must be able to demonstrate its utility to those whose cultures it studies or it runs the risk of being perceived as nonessential and esoteric. Descendant communities often struggle to maintain a sense of identity in an ever-melting pot of humanity, and archaeology can help them re-establish cultural ties to an area, or rediscover items of their past cultural inventory that have been culturally forgotten.

Two short case studies

Case Study #1
Janet Spector's relationship with the Wahpeton Dakota, as depicted in "Reflections on Inyan Ceyaka Atonwan (Village at the Rapids) illustrates a program involving a descendant community in the archaeological process. Spector notes that her academic training had conveyed four messages to her:

1. Artifacts are more important than people.
2. Native people do not participate in archaeology as students, teachers, excavators, or authors.
3. There is very little, if any, connection between contemporary Indian people and the archaeological materials -- prehistoric or historic -- we study.
4. Contemporary Native Americans are interested in archaeological sites and site materials for "political" reasons, not because of cultural, spiritual, or historical ties.

Spector's involvement with the Wahpeton began late in the four year program with the involvement of two descendants of a prominent leader of the village under study -- Dr. Chris Cavender and Ms. Carolynn Schommer -- involvement based on a relationship of kinship rather than an interest in archaeology, per se. Spector and Cavender planned the 1986 summer field school and tried to recruit Native American students into the program. In spite of their presentations, slide shows, and discussion of the program, no Native American students enrolled. Spector cites one person's views: "She could see how archaeology could recover unrecorded traces of her own history respectfully and with desecration, but still, she was not willing to risk alienation from her community by participating in a dig" (Spector 2001:206-207). Through the publication of What this Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village (Spector 1993), Spector discussed not only the archaeological, cultural, and historical setting of the site, but also humanistic aspects such as the people associated with the site and the history of the relationships between Dakota and non-Dakota people including fur traders, military men, missionaries and archaeologists. Consultation with native people occurred throughout the process, but the book was published for "anthropology and women's studies graduate and undergraduate students; secondary school teachers; the general public interested in archaeology and Dakota history and culture; and professional colleagues dedicated to doing archaeology differently." (Spector 2001:210).

Case Study #2
This case study is taken primarily from the discussion on Principle 2 -- "Accountability: Responsibilities of Archaeologists to Other Interest Groups" by Joe Watkins, Lynne Goldstein, Karen Vitelli, and Leigh Jenkins (Lynott and Wylie 1995:35-36). The case study was provided for the volume by Lynne Goldstein, and this contribution is primarily hers, although I have edited it for additional brevity. The reader is encouraged to contact Dr. Goldstein for additional information regarding the project under discussion. The project involved the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee excavations of the historic Russian American cemetery at Fort Ross Historic Park, Sonoma County, California. Although the cemetery was not immediately threatened, the fact that its actual location was unknown posed problems for archaeological site interpretation as well as for appropriate treatment from two branches of the Russian Orthodox Church. Project personnel were able to get permission to excavate from the state parks department, county coroner's office, Native American Heritage Commission, local Pomo and Miwok tribes, Native Alaska groups, and two branches of the church over the course of eighteen months, and each group was invited to visit the site and participate in or direct any reburial ceremonies. Public lectures and popular articles, as well as annual written reports formed a part of the information dissemination program. While it was not technically the responsibility of the archaeologist to rebury the remains or to be concerned with cemetery reconstruction, the day-to-day working relationships in the project placed the archaeologist at the forefront. In spite of reorganization of the California parks system, the archaeologist, because of her constancy, was able to maintain the relationships necessary to make this project a success. The cemetery project represented "... a successful cooperation between a diverse set of individuals and institutions whose common denominator was an interest in the archaeology of the cemetery, regardless of other separate agendas" (Lynott and Wylie 1995: 36).

Two activities/assignments to enhance classroom participation

Assignment #1 -- Descendant Communities in the City

Make a list of some of the descendant communities in the area. Choose one group and discuss:

1. origin of the group

• i. geographical
• ii. social
• iii. religious

2. history of the group into the area

3. social structure (if any) retained from their original culture including

• i. religious or other social organizations
• ii. governmental/social leadership
• iii. formal/informal leadership structure
• iv. language

4. what continues to bind the group together in this area?

• i. religion
• ii. economy
• iii. other

5. If you were to conduct a project of any sort on this group, how would you convey your results to them?


Assignment #2 -- Descendant Communities in your family
Determine the different cultures represented by your own family.

1. What cultures are represented by your grandparents on both your mother's and father's sides of your family? These might not only be different ethnic cultures -- geographical cultures are often as distinct as ethnic cultures (i.e., southern culture as opposed to "Yankee" culture; southern California culture as opposed to east coast culture).

2. How might each of these cultures manifest themselves within an archaeological record? Are there specific "artifacts" that would define those cultures? What are they and why do you think they would represent those cultures?

Key Articles

Blakey, Michael
1990 "American nationality and ethnicity in the depicted past." In The
Politics of the Past. P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal, eds, pp. 38-48.
Routledge Press, pb. 1994.

Bray, Tamara
2001 "American Archaeologists and Native Americans: A Relationship Under Construction." In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation, T. Bray, ed., pp. 1-8. Garland Publishing, New York.

Harrington, Spencer P.M.
1993 "Bones & Bureaucrats: New York's Great Cemetery Imbroglio". Archaeology March/April, pp. 28-38.

Lowenthal, David
1990 "Conclusion: archaeologists and others". In The Politics of the Past. P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal, eds, pp. 302-314. Routledge Press, pb. 1994.

Mihesuah, Devon A.
2000 "American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation". In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, D.A. Mihesuah, ed, Chapter 5, pp. 95-105. University of Nebraska Press.

Nicholas, George P.
1997 "Education and Empowerment: Archaeology With, For, and By the Shuswap Nation." In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, G.P. Nicholas and T.D. Andrews, eds., pp. 85-104. Publication No. 24, Archaeology Press, Department of Archaeology, Simon Frasier University, Burnaby, B.C.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai
2001 "Articulating an Indigenous Research Agenda". In Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Chapter 7, pp. 123-141. 3rd Impression. Palgrave Publishing, New York.

Spector, Janet D.
2001 "Reflections on Inyan Ceyaka Atonwan (Village at the Rapids): A nineteenth Century Wahpeton Dakota Summer Planting Village". In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation, T. Bray, ed., pp. 201-213. Garland Publishing, New York.

Watkins, Joe, K. Anne Pyburn, and Pam Cressey
2000" Community Relations: What the Practicing Archaeologist Needs to Know to Work Effectively with Local and/or Descendant Communities". In Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, Susan J. Bender and George Smith, eds., pp. 73-81. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

Zimmerman, Larry
1995 "Regaining Our Nerve: Ethics, Values, and the Transformation of Archaeology". In Ethics and American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, M.J. Lynott and A. Wylie, eds., pp. 64-67. Society for American Archaeology.

2001 "Usurping Native American Voice." In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation, T. Bray, ed., pp. 169-184. Garland Publishing, New York.

---

© 2003 MATRIX
Project Director: Anne Pyburn
Indiana University Bloomington