Module 30: Narrative in the Archaeology of Native North America: Native Voices I

Readings: Staeck, “Echoing the Past”;
Dongoske, et al., “Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Affiliation”

Native communities demand that their oral histories be taken seriously, that their historical value be recognized by Euro-Americans, and that the authority of Native Americans in matters of their own history be recognized. One response to this has been to present archaeological narratives and Native American narratives of the past as two separate versions of the past, letting the readers decide which version of the past they favor. For example, the Cahokia Visitors’ Center follows this strategy. But this is not very satisfying to either Native Americans or archaeologists, since it keeps them apart when it appears that there is potential for some mutually enriching collaboration. The four readings we will discuss today (McDonald, et al., Echo-Hawk, Staeck, and Dongoske et al.) represent different efforts to create collaboration between native oral history and archaeological research.

First let me ask you to vote for your favorites. [Have different class members explain why they favored one over another. My class preferred McDonald et al. almost unanimously, because it is very clear and affirms the truth-value of oral history.]

McDonald et al.: Yes, it’s very well written, and the archaeological results are very clear-cut. And the archaeologists come out looking like good guys because they've supported the truth of oral history. But this article always makes me worry, what if the archaeologists had found evidence that supported the army’s version of history? Does that make them into bad guys? It seems to me that archaeologists should not get into the business of arbitrating the truth or falsity of historical “facts.” Do you agree? Or do you think that establishing truth is one of the functions that archaeology can serve? [Discuss.]

Echo-Hawk: Interesting because it addresses the Native community as much as it addresses archaeologists. Native Americans should recognize that archaeology can augment their understanding of their own historical narratives, and archaeologists should recognize that oral histories could aid in their interpretation of the archaeological record. Echo-Hawk compares traditional accounts of the origins of Pawnee earth lodges and shows how seeming contradictions between these accounts can be reconciled using archaeological data. This clarification of oral history is potentially a very useful service for archaeology to perform for native communities. What conclusions does Echo-Hawk reach that could be tested with archaeological data? Earth lodges with circular floor plans developed to the east of the Pawnee area and diffused to the west. Archaeology shows square and circular earth lodges, thereby reconciling the different Pawnee narratives: the two earth lodge types form a continuous archaeological legacy with certain features common to both. Ceremonial forms involving animal impersonations are the basis for interpreting animal remains.

Staeck: Not a clearly written article, but one with a really important insight, similar to Echo-Hawk’s. Staeck advises that we focus on the social milieu against which the narrative events are described. Different social structures provide background in traditions featuring different types of supernaturals. He interprets these different types of narratives as representing different phases of prehistory. Potentially, Staeck’s idea is very useful because it gets archaeologists out of the business of establishing the truth or falsity of oral histories, and like Echo-Hawk, show how archaeology can be used to clarify and enrich oral histories.

Dognoske et al: A Difficult argument to follow if you don’t know that Anasazi, Mogollon, and Hohokam are different regional traditions in Southwestern U.S. prehistory. Dognoske et al. find no parallel between archaeological “cultures” defined by pottery types and tribal groups in the southwest today, because as oral histories describe, individual lineages and medicine societies migrated throughout Arizona and New Mexico, affiliating with the Anasazi, Mogollon, and Hohokam. This analysis is very exciting for archaeologists because it uses native history to question long-accepted archaeological concepts such as the existence of self-contained, regionally discrete, long-lived archaeological “cultures.” It uses native concepts and knowledge to provide a new critical light on some unquestioned assumptions in archaeology. This is a wonderful example of the benefits of collaboration between native people and archaeologists. Still, the conclusions reached by Dognoske et al. suggest that the present-day Hopi may have a claim on skeletal material and cultural objects excavated in areas that are far away from the current Hopi tribal territory. This may be disturbing to other contemporary peoples, for example, the O’Odham people who have been regarded as the descendants of the ancient Hohokam. This last observation demonstrates that discussions of oral history these days do not take place in a political vacuum. Especially since NAGPRA legislation allows oral history to be used as evidence in claiming human remains and cultural objects, one of the motives for undertaking studies that combine archaeology and oral history is to establish links between current groups and archaeological remains. NAGPRA issues lie behind the papers by Echo-Hawk, Staeck and Dognoske et al.

So, artifacts supplement written or oral history by:

•Lending immediacy to accounts, allowing people to actually visualize what was involved in history or prehistory.

•Guiding us in knowing what to look for in accounts, and then sometimes helping us to interpret them.

•Allowing us to verify oral and written accounts.

•Supplementing the accounts, sometime turning up new information.

•Permitting us to define the applicability of the accounts: are they typical? Of what time and what place?