Kaohi: Our Iwi Na Kupuna are being desecrated as we speak by Anthropologist Hal Hammet!

Replies

Kaohi Mendiola-Kaniaupio February 5, 2012 at 11:58am

Mahalo Andrea,

I had a beautiful morning with you standing in front of Kawaiahao Church. Horns beeping, everyone stopping by to say that I support you and the fact that 'iwi' is being dugged up is Hewa. Hewa to our ancestors and their families for this devastation being done to them. It is ugly and down right nasty!!!!

Mahalo
Kaohi Mendiola-Kaniaupio February 4, 2012 at 7:08pm

A Wealth Of History - Bayview Cemetery
By June Allen

April 13, 2002
Saturday - 6:20 pm

There are longtime Ketchikan residents as well as newcomers who have never visited Bayview Cemetery. There it is right at the south edge of the city, a silent and serene expanse on a lower slope of Deer Mountain with a sweeping view of Tongass Narrows and the islands beyond. On a spring day it blooms with flowers and glows green in the morning light - even if it's raining. Birds soar overhead and one of the island's small deer or two may be seen munching contentedly on clover even in the presence of visitors.

Even if you've never been there before and may never visit it again, do go up on May 27, Memorial Day, to see the graves of veterans decorated with American flags. In the center of the cemetery is a flagpole where brief annual ceremonies honor those who served their country. If you've never attended one of the ceremonies before, you'll be startled by the vast number of flags. But on any day you can stroll along the narrow paved paths or tromp through the grass for closeup looks at gravestones. It's worth the effort. But do wear good sturdy shoes, because the rain-soaked ground can be lumpy and uneven.

Closest to the flagpole are the graves of some of the founders and many of the city's pioneers. First-mayor Mike Martin, who arrived about 1887 and died in 1916, lies under a sturdy block topped by a cross just beyond the flagpole, right at the edge of the pavement. You'll notice that Martin's first name, Michael, is misspelled, an error that may have happened because of penmanship in the ordering of the stone or because the carver made a mistake. That was not uncommon. But because the gravestones had to be ordered, shipped up by boat and - if there was a misspelling - returned for correction in the same long drawn-out way, mistakes may have just been tolerated.

Nearby are the stones or plaques of people who came to Ketchikan at the turn of the 20th century when the city was little more than a cluster of wooden buildings and shacks hugging the shoreline and where businesses perched on piling driven into tideland and clomping horses pulled dray carts of freight or coal over plank streets. Then as now stairways accessed hillside homes.

Since the first burial at Bayview Cemetery on Dec. 7, 1911, some 5,000 names have been registered in the cemetery's records. In the 91 years since, regardless of race or religion, no one has ever been denied burial in Bayview Cemetery. And you can sense a faint outline of the history of the community in the headstones not only of the veterans of several wars but of the victims of the 1918 flu epidemic, and the graves of the Aleuts who didn't survive the unfamiliar forest environment of the Ward Cove internment camp during the early years of World War II.

Bayview wasn't the town's first burial ground. There is one grave at Bayview that dates back to 1910. That was a man named John Thomas who was buried in 1910 in the graveyard on the north end of Pennock Island but whose casket was later exhumed and reburied at Bayview in September of 1912. The other names on the two dozen or so graves able to be identified at that historic old Pennock graveyard seem to indicate it was the final resting place of members of the Kyan family. The earliest readable Kyan marker is from January 1895.

At the beginning of Ketchikan, in those 20 or so years before Bayview Cemetery was opened, the bodies of the deceased were generally transported south by steamship to next of kin. But there were the occasional deaths of those with no family, a few who were buried in unmarked graves in the north Pennock graveyard. From jotted notes in records of that period it appeared that those deaths were caused by mine or logging accidents, drowning and, in some cases, alcoholism - not unusual in a frontier town.

When New England Fish Co. came to Ketchikan, about 1908, the wooden street that is today's Stedman had to be extended to allow foot traffic and local purchases access to the new cold storage. That also opened up access to the gentle hillside above it - which became Bayview Cemetery. In the early days, the Catholic Church, the Pioneers of Alaska, the Masons and other fraternal organizations and the American Legion after its founding in 1919 took on the responsibility for various cemetery sections. Members arranged for burials, dug the graves, kept their sections neat and trimmed

Each organization also kept handwritten records. With records being kept in more than one place, it is no surprise that there are errors or omissions created in such a manner. Today, in carefully documented city records, there are some plots that have known burials but no information on the occupant. There are other occupied plots without dates. The present city records in a couple of instances show one person buried in two different plots, based on that old information. It is not easy to change city records with good reason, the city clerk requires solid, documented information to do so. So some errors too old to correct will probably always be with us.

A former cemetery sexton told of an incident or two in which a plot supposed to be empty turned out to have an occupant after all. It shouldn't be surprising because this is an oldcemetery, almost a century old, the only one for Ketchikan, and still in regular use.

But we can forgive those folk from the early days and be grateful that they kept any record at all! And they, too, were the ones who organized the funeral processions through town for their friends, the marching brass band tootling a comrade to his final rest, the toasts raised to a friend and the genuine mourning at a passing.

Ketchikan's Bayview Cemetery can be considered unique. A glance at the rock-cut that backs Tatsuda's parking lot and a look up at the depth of soil supporting the vegetation growing on it gives you an idea of how shallow this island's topsoil is! The soil at the cemetery is deeper than that, but not a lot. So soil has to be hauled in to provide depth. When available plots are nearly filled, new sections are opened by precision dynamite blasting. Rock is hauled out and soil moved in.

In one instance, a graveyard expansion project discovered a sizable expanse of sand, maybe an ancient creek bed or something. This sand was dug out, hauled to the city's ballfield by City Park. Then the rainy-day muddy soil of the infield and outfield was hauled back to the cemetery. Now that's recycling at its best!

I don't know when the city took over the cemetery. I never asked because it never seemed important to me. I'm glad the city keeps records now and provides a caretaker to dig graves, mow the grass and keep an eye on things that need to be done. But actually, it's the people of the town who are, and should be, responsible for keeping intact and functioning the community's regard and respect for its only cemetery. Various organizations and individuals donate bulbs and bedding plants and flowering shrubs. A family sometimes donates an ornamental tree. There are those who keep an eye on the flower beds in need of weeding.

Because that's the spirit of Ketchikan!
Kaohi Mendiola-Kaniaupio February 4, 2012 at 7:02pm

By RUSSELL STIGALL

JUNEAU EMPIRE

The Organized Village of Kasaan is now the manager of its traditional sacred sites. Sealaska Corporation, Sealaska Heritage Institute and Kasaan agreed to this in a memorandum of understanding at a signing ceremony on Wednesday.

Though local the tribal government will eventually take over management of its sites, Sealaska will retain ownership. This has raised questions by other villages, such as the Organized Village of Kake who recently expressed concern in a letter to Rep. Don Young – Alaska that signing an understanding with Sealaska would not necessarily put the organizations on equal footing.

Sacred sites are one classification of sites requested by Sealaska in current land acquisition legislation, future sites is another. However, Rosita Worl, President of the Sealaska Heritage Institute said sacred sites are much more than a legislative designation.

“I am a child of the Sockeye Clan and I’m a child of this land. Land is the most sacred thing to us,” Worl said. “It is the basis of our being it is the basis of our culture. I know that Sealaska is entrusting the Kasaan people their rightful title and access for management of this land, Worl said.

She went on to say that Sealaska plans to protect not just known sacred sites but the “Shamanistic sites that we know are out there but we know our ancestors did not want to put on a map because they were fearful because people would come and desecrate those lands. So now we know we have to identify those sites to protect them.”

They “will also include cultural objects found on Sealaska land, which includes a canoe that was found in Kasaan.”

These historical, sacred sites are Native Alaskan graves, Worl said.

“According to our spiritual beliefs, we believe that the spirits remain with the body,” Worl said. “So we can’t deconsecrate certain areas.”

While cremation was the normal burial practice, shamans were interred at the sites, Worl said.

“We believe that the spirits of our shamans remain with their human remains and only the clan of that shaman can go there. So there are strict protocols about the care and the use of those sites,” Worl said.

Sen. Albert Kookesh, Sealaska Board Director said this was the first of many agreements between Sealaska and southeast villages regarding sacred sites. Sealaska took some of the land it could select as part of the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act and designated them sacred sites, Kookesh said.

“We wanted to go in and protect gravesites, we want to go in and protect shamanistic sites,” Kookesh said. “We’ve seen ourselves people trespassing on those lands, people not taking care of them or respecting them for what they were. People not respecting where our grandfathers and grandmothers are buried. People not respecting villages we once lived in.”

So, Kookesh said, the only choice the corporation and Native Alaskans had was to select those sites and “protect them ourselves.”

“We are the only train left at the station,” Kookesh said. “Nobody else has an entitlement in southeast Alaska, among the native community, where they can get title to the sites and protect them.”

Kookesh said that once Sealaska got title to the sacred lands to protect them the corporation wanted an arrangement with those villages closest to the sites.

“Sealaska will not manage those lands,” Kookesh said. “They know better than we how those land should be protected, they know better than we how those lands should be treated with respect - we trust these people, they are our people. They will treat those lands better than anybody including the Forest Service,” he said.

Richard Peterson, president of the organized village of Kasaan, signed the memorandum for his tribe.

“This signifies the fact that as one of the smallest tribes, our biggest corporation looks to us as equals. They recognize that we are there and that we can care for our lands and for our ancestral homes.”

Peterson said that in addition to its historical significance the sacred land is used today by the tribe.

“We still utilize these areas. We are still our own people. We live our lives as traditional people. We still gather the foods, the medicines, the resources that we need to continue on and survive as Haida, as Tlingit, as Tsimshian,” Peterson said.

Peterson said the agreement is an argument against those who may want to divide tribes and corporations.

“We are the same people we look across the table at ourselves. We are not looking at strangers. And this is a living embodiment of that,” Peterson said.

The Organized Village of Kasaan is a federally recognized tribal government that was established in 1938.

However, not all tribes see Sealaska as a good partner.

The Organized Village of Kake wrote to Congressman Don Young and asked that sacred lands be given directly to tribes.

“Our preference is, of course, for you to … transfer ownership of cemeteries and historical places previously conveyed to Sealaska … as well as sacred lands … directly to the affected Tribes,” according to Kake’s letter dated Sept. 29, 2011.

Buck Lindekugel, Grassroots Attorney with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council said he is concerned that under Sealaska ownership sacred lands could fall victim to real vulnerabilities of a corporation like bankruptcy.

“They could actually lose them,” Lindekugel said.

“Sealaska is a corporation,” Lindekugel said, and a corporation is not a tribe.” A tribe is a government that was set up to take care of the long-term interests of the community, Lindekugel said. “Corporations are about making money, while villages include money, but also include culture.”

SEACC doesn’t oppose native ownership of sacred sites, Lindekugel said. “We’re just not sure that Sealaska is the way to go.”

• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.

Rightful Title??

By rayuser | 12/15/11 - 11:04 am

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1977144592600.101054.1362...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Land is the most sacred thing to us,” Worl said. “It is the basis of our being it is the basis of our culture."

Why does Sealaska claim my Grandfathers land for sub mineral rights and refuses to transfer the title back to our family. Sealaska refuses to acknowledge signed sworn affidavits written by others that states that my grandfather owned the land since the 1920's. Sealaska and Huna Totem just acquired the land patents in the 1980's while my Grandfather and other tribal members have lived a traditional subsistence lifestyle on the land way before both corps. had the title or patents.

If land is so sacred and the basis of our culture, give the land patents back to the rightful heirs.

Ray Austin

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

SEACC looks to divide Native people

By JimmyJ | 12/15/11 - 11:40 am

The Tribes have no more protection of the land than the corporations. The land will not be "in trust" and therefore will be just like any other asset and can be lost to bankruptcy, just like a Native Corporation. Except, nearly every Alaska Native corporation in Alaska does not put their ANCSA land at risk and therefore the odds of losing ANCSA land are very remote. Furthermore, ANCs aren't just about making money, they contribute more to the culture than most tribes who scrape by providing minimal services. Buck Lindekugel knows all this but has no problem pitting Alaska Natives against each other.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

By Good | 12/15/11 - 11:59 am

Beware - the Sealaska bill strips / weakens federal protections at the request of Sealaska. How much do you trust current and future corporate officers ?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

and grabbing

By Jo MacNamara | 12/15/11 - 11:36 pm

Ya gotta love when Native corps fight with its local tribes. It speaks volumes.

This is nothing more than land grabbing under the disguise of culture, religion, etc., etc., etc.,

p.s., phrases like "our people" only serve to be divisive. I am tired of hearing "our people." If non-Natives uttered that phrase, we would be instantly branded as racists.

How about we ALL share the land equally, and we ALL have a vested interest in sharing and protecting not only Native cemeteries, but old growth forests, salmon streams and ALL of the Tongass?

Let's keep the Tongass in everyone's hands; not just the hands of disreputable for-profit corporations like Sealaska. as the article said, if Sealaska is entrusted with these lands, they could lose them to bankruptcy.

"Tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends."
Kaohi Mendiola-Kaniaupio February 4, 2012 at 6:48pm

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1996. 25:63–79 NATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY FERGUSON
Copyright © 1996 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
NATIVE AMERICANS AND THE
PRACTICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
T. J. Ferguson
5000 W. Placita de los Vientos, Tucson, Arizona 85745
KEY WORDS: American Indians, theory, ethics, repatriation, cultural resources management
ABSTRACT
Archaeologists are in the midst of restructuring their relationship with Native
Americans. The legal, political, social, and intellectual ramifications of this process are reviewed to examine the fundamental changes occurring in the way archaeology is conducted in the Americas. Much of the impetus for this change resulted from the criticism of archaeology by Native Americans, which led to passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990
(NAGPRA). NAGPRA has indelibly changed how archaeologists will work in
the United States. The issues raised by Native Americans about why and how archaeological research is conducted, however, go beyond NAGPRA to the paradigmatic basis of archaeology. Archaeologists will have new opportunities
available to them if they work in partnership with Native Americans in studying
the rich archaeological record in the Americas.
INTRODUCTION
Archaeologists and Native Americans are in the midst of restructuring their
relationship in ways that are exciting to some archaeologists, frustrating to
others. Regardless of how archaeologists feel about the process, fundamental
changes are occurring in the way archaeology is conducted in the Americas.
Much of the impetus for this change resulted from the criticism of archaeology by Native Americans, which, coupled with political activism, led to the
passage of Public Law 101-601, the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). There is no doubt that NAGPRA has
indelibly changed how archaeologists will work in the United States. The issues raised by Native Americans about why and how archaeological researchis conducted, however, go beyond NAGPRA to the paradigmatic basis of archaeology. This review explores the new opportunities available to archaeologists if they work in partnership with Native Americans in studying the rich
archaeological record of the Americas.
The term Native American refers to the indigenous populations of Canada,
the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America, including a variety of Indians, Eskimos, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. Native
Americans do not constitute a single, monolithic cultural or ethnic group.
There are more than 550 recognized tribes in the United States alone, with additional Indian groups not formally recognized by the US government. Each
group or tribe of Native Americans in North and South America has unique
cultural characteristics. The great variation in cultures should be kept in mind
when generalizations are made about Native Americans. Native Americans
have a wide range of opinions, approaches, and solutions to the issues concerning archaeology.
Americanist archaeology is closely tied to Native Americans because
many, perhaps most, archaeologists investigate an archaeological record
formed by the ancestors of contemporary Native Americans. A random survey
of almost 550 archaeologists in the United States indicated that 38% of them
had conducted research on lands belonging to Native Americans (151). Even
more archaeologists have investigated archaeological sites on public or private lands ancestral to Native Americans.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
RELATED TO NATIVE AMERICANS
The practice of archaeology occurs in a social context, and interpretations of
the archaeological record have been and continue to be used for political purposes whether or not archaeologists recognize this (37). Early archaeology in
the Americas was essentially a colonialist endeavor, part of an intellectual development that occurred in many places where native populations were replaced or dominated by European colonists. Native peoples were denigrated
by a colonialist belief that native societies lacked the initiative and capacity
for development. The interpretation of the archaeological record was inextricably linked to the political and cultural processes entailed in taking land from
Native Americans for incorporation into expanding nation states (18, 53, 81,
87, 131, 135, 145). This history is reviewed in a series of publications by Trigger (131–136) and McGuire (86, 87).
The concepts of unilinear evolution in nineteenth-century archaeological
theory characterized Indian societies as static cultures at a relatively primitive
stage of development compared with European civilizations (59, 102, 135).
Native Americans were dehumanized and objectified when the remains of
NATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY 64their ancestors were collected for craniology, which was undertaken to prove
that Native Americans were racially inferior and naturally doomed to extinction (87, 90, 112, 137). These ideas were incorporated into the “Vanishing
Red Man” theory that influenced government policy as a scientific justification for the relocation of Indian tribes, establishment of reservations, and other
acts that some Native Americans now characterize as genocide.
As scholars became more familiar with the archaeological record in the
twentieth century, the cultural development of native peoples was recognized,
as was the historical continuity between ancient and contemporary Native
Americans (131, 135, 145). Archaeologists concentrated on the development
of chronological techniques and temporal sequences, and interest in reconstructing prehistoric lifeways waned. Consequently, archaeology became less
integrated with ethnology, and this weakened the social and intellectual interaction between archaeologists and Native Americans. Americanist archaeologists who worked in Central and South America allied themselves with the
ruling elites and state bureaucracies in the countries where they worked rather
than with indigenous peoples. This supported the status quo of social inequalities in the host countries (102).
The processual archaeology that developed in the 1960s and 1970s focused
explanations of change in Native American societies on internal sociocultural
developments and ecological variables. This was positive because Native
American cultures were considered as creative as European cultures (132).
However, the nomothetic goals of this paradigm denied the validity of studying the specific development of Native American peoples as an important end
in itself. This affected how Native Americans viewed archaeology, because
archaeological findings were presented in universal terms that had no relevance to specific tribal peoples. Archaeologists gave little thought to the feelings of native peoples about the excavation of the graves of their ancestors and
how their past was represented in archaeological interpretations. These developments were significant because they coincided with Native Americans increasingly asserting control over their cultural affairs (134).
The history of archaeological research in the United States and other countries in relation to Native Americans has been largely characterized by ineffective communication and a lack of mutual respect (53, 90). There have been
a few notable exceptions, of course, in particular archaeologists who have testified for Native Americans in land claims (52).
The development of cultural resources management (CRM) since the
1970s has greatly increased the amount of knowledge about Native American
archaeological sites threatened by development (11, 42, 74, 109). CRM
has commodified knowledge about the past by removing archaeology from
the realm of universities into the commercial arena of contracts and private
consulting companies. As Spriggs (121) observed in Hawaii, Native Ameri-
65 FERGUSONcans often act on the knowledge amassed in CRM, which moves archaeology
more clearly into the political domain. This trend exists wherever Native
Americans perceive archaeological sites as an essential part of their heritage
needing protection.
FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL REGULATION OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE UNITED
STATES
It is incumbent upon all archaeologists to read and understand the laws regulating archaeology in the jurisdictions where they work. The legal regulation
of archaeology is highly developed in the United States, where archaeological
research on Federal lands, including Indian reservations, has been regulated
by Federal legislation since the passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (P. L.
59-209). The complex of laws that regulate archaeology and historic preservation in the United States are summarized elsewhere (53, 58, 74, 77, 78, 104,
125). Because these laws are periodically amended, archaeologists need to
follow new developments as they occur.
Of particular note is that the Archaeological Resources and Protection Act
of 1979 (P. L. 96-95) requires that the consent of Indian tribes be obtained
before the issuance of federal permits for the excavation or removal of archaeological materials from Indian lands. NAGPRA gives Native Americans
property rights in grave goods and cultural patrimony, as well as the right to
repatriate human remains from federal and Indian lands (90, 125, 137). Archaeological resources on private land, however, are still treated as private
property, which is vexing for Native Americans (10). Virtually all archaeological investigations conducted on federal or tribal lands in the United States
now require consultation with Native Americans (27, 74, 90). The review of
archaeological research designs by Native Americans gives them a new opportunity to communicate with archaeologists.
NAGPRA has fundamentally changed the way American archaeology is
practiced in the United States. The identification of cultural affiliation following NAGPRA is becoming a research question of legal import, forcing archaeologists to think about old classifications in new ways. Many Indian tribes and
Native American groups will not allow excavation or investigation of human
remains unless those remains are threatened, e.g. by land development. Some
archaeologists excavating sites for research not related to the mitigation of adverse impacts are now required to cease excavation of archaeological features
or units that expose human remains. The profession is adjusting to NAGPRA,
and new ways to collect and analyze archaeological data about human remains
and grave goods are being developed and institutionalized.
NATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY 66A majority of states have also adopted some form of repatriation or reburial
statute specifically relating to Native Americans or have adopted general laws
that protect graves and cemeteries (103, 140, 150). As Price (104) noted, the
practical impact of these state laws can’t be assessed until they have been implemented for a number of years. Some of the constitutional issues raised by
state laws may need to be decided by the US Supreme Court.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P. L. 74-292, NHPA), as
amended, is currently responsible for most of the research conducted on Native American archaeological sites in the United States. Many archaeologists
are employed by federal and state agencies as cultural resource managers to
administer the Act. Even more archaeologists work under contract to provide
the inventories of archaeological and historical sites required to implement the
NHPA, or to undertake data recovery programs to mitigate adverse impacts on
sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Amendments in
1992 to Section 101 of the NHPA require that Native American values be considered in the management of archaeological sites and historic properties.
They also establish that properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. These traditional cultural properties
include sacred sites, natural resource collection areas, and occasionally archaeological sites ancestral to contemporary Native Americans.
The management of traditional cultural properties as historic sites creates
new issues for archaeologists engaged in CRM, including the integration of
ethnographic and ethnohistoric data into archaeological reports, and negotiations with Native Americans about maintaining the confidentiality of findings
(7, 29, 41, 51, 101). The inability to mitigate adverse impacts to many traditional cultural properties, especially sacred sites, results in a management
quandary for many Native Americans and the archaeologists who work with
them.
The 1992 amendments to the NHPA allow tribes to implement tribal historic preservation programs and assume the management and compliance responsibilities exercised by State Historic Preservation Officers on their lands.
Many tribes concerned with sovereignty are currently working to do this and
are enacting tribal historic preservation legislation (10, 27, 40, 66, 73–75, 90).
Some tribes are proposing to manage cultural resources by preserving them as
they are and keeping archaeologists away (99). Other tribes are opting to establish their own tribal archaeology or historic preservation programs modeled after existing federal programs. In the United States, these developments
make it possible for Indian tribes to regulate archaeological research on their
land.
67 FERGUSONCHALLENGES TO THE PROFESSION AND
ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSES
In the 1960s and 1970s, Native Americans began to actively protest archaeological research, especially the excavation of burials. In the 1970s, the Society
for American Archaeology (SAA) recognized that the relationship between
archaeologists and Native Americans needed improvement (3, 70, 85, 120).
Native American concerns were deemed legitimate, and the SAA recommended that archaeologists communicate more effectively with Native
Americans and find ways to increase their participation in archaeological research. In the 1980s, Native American concerns in the United States and Canada were focused on repatriation. The contentious history and resolution of
the reburial issue is reviewed in numerous publications (4, 13, 14, 22, 30, 38,
46, 56, 57, 60, 67, 69, 74, 76, 86, 87, 90, 97, 103, 112, 113, 125, 127, 128,
137-138, 142, 152–155). The objections to repatriation raised by some archaeologists (92–94) have been made moot in the United States by the passage of
NAGPRA, although a number of issues remain to be worked out, including
exactly what under the law constitutes human remains (21).
Most archaeologists have come to respect Native American concerns about
the remains of their ancestors, even while working outside the United States.
McGuire & Villalpando (88) have demonstrated that archaeologists can effectively consult about reburial of human remains even when an international
border separates part of a contemporary group of Native Americans from their
ancestors in another country.
The reburial of human remains entails a loss of potential new data because
reanalysis is no longer possible (26, 140). However, NAGPRA has not halted
the excavation and analysis of human remains. Many Native American archaeological graves and cemeteries are still investigated when they are threatened by development (64, 108, 109, 122, 125). Reburial makes it incumbent
upon archaeologists to develop cumulative research designs oriented toward
the collection of new data rather than the reanalysis of curated human remains.
Even before the passage of NAGPRA, many archaeologists began to work
to ameliorate the problems Native Americans had with how archaeology was
conducted (1, 2, 9, 50, 61–63, 108, 120, 114, 146, 156). In 1990, the SAA responded to the challenges raised by Native Americans by establishing a task
force to advise the society on how to develop a better relationship with Native
Americans. This task force was made into a standing committee in 1995, and
the committee is now working to establish a liaison with Native American organizations, define the responsibilities of archaeologists to Native American
communities, develop the means for Native Americans and archaeologists to
cooperate in the protection of cultural resources, and prepare guidelines conNATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY 68cerning repatriation by Indian tribes and groups that are not federally recognized (117). Many state archaeological organizations have established similar
committees to work on improving relations with Native Americans at the local
level.
The SAA also identified Native American outreach and public education as
important professional activities to improve communication with Native
Americans. Many archaeologists in North and South America are now working to meet this challenge (6, 19, 20, 36–38, 47, 56, 68, 78, 89, 91, 124).
INCREASED PARTICIPATION OF NATIVE AMERICANS
IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
The participation of Native Americans in archaeological activities has dramatically increased in the past twenty years. Native Americans now regularly
participate in national and regional meetings, opening new avenues of dialog
with archaeologists (15, 35, 110, 116). Archaeologists who work for Indian
tribes have provided on-the-job training so Native Americans can be employed in professional positions (11, 50, 72), and many private archaeological
contractors regularly employ Native Americans in field and laboratory research. Northern Arizona University, through cooperative programs with the
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, is pioneering work-study programs where
tribal members can earn income and gain experience while pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees in anthropology and related fields (139).
Many tribes now operate historic preservation programs, including the Colville Confederate Tribes (54), the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (27), the Hopi Tribe (51), the Mashantucket Pequot (84), the Mohegan
Nation (49), the Navajo Nation (16, 42), and the Pueblo of Zuni (10–12, 50).
Several tribes also operate CRM firms to undertake contracted archaeological
research, including the Gila River Indian Community (109); a consortium of
the Klamath, Modoc, and Yaahooskin tribes (7); the Navajo Nation (72); and
the Pueblo of Zuni (11). In addition to providing needed archaeological services, these tribally based historic preservation programs and contract archaeology businesses provide substantial economic benefits to Indian tribes.
Many Native Americans have successfully collaborated with archaeologists to manage cultural resources or undertake archaeological research, including the Bannock-Shoshone (45), the Catawba (130), the Chugach (71),
the Dakota (119), the Kodiak Area Native Association (105) and other Native
corporations in Alaska (32, 115), the Narragansetts (84, 114), the Mashantucket Pequot and Gay Head Wampanoag (84), and the Northern Cheyenne
and Crow (33). Several tribes, including the Makah (55), the Blackfoot (23),
and the Cree (48), have worked with archaeologists to establish museums that
bring Native American heritage into sharper focus by situating it in the pres-
69 FERGUSONent. One group of Native Americans investigates archaeological sites using an
educational program similar to Earthwatch (5).
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY
AND PRACTICE
Criticism by Native Americans has caused archaeologists to examine the epistemological basis of their discipline (110). Scholars who recognize that archaeologists and Native Americans view the past in fundamentally different
ways call for the application of cultural relativism in archaeological research
(17, 153). Thomas (129) accomplished this in compiling studies of the consequences of European contact by applying a “cubist” perspective that incorporates multiple viewpoints of the past at the same time, drawing upon narrative
history, historical archaeology, Native American studies, historical demography, and ethnohistory.
Archaeologists have become more reflexive. Wylie (149) and Handsman
(61) have written about the political nature of archaeological studies of Native
Americans. Wilk (144) analyzed the dual nature of archaeological discourse
about the ancient Maya, which reflects political and philosophical debates in
contemporary society as it pursues knowledge about the past. Leone &
Preucel (82) applied critical theory to the dialog between archaeologists and
Native Americans concerning the reburial issue. In so doing, they moved beyond the specifics of the reburial debate to a greater understanding of the underlying issue, which is how opposing scientific and Native American worldviews can be reconciled through negotiation.
Postprocessual archaeologists concerned with the political implications of
research are working to develop a multitiered methodology that incorporates
the use of several paradigms. Duke (43) suggested that reconstructing past
events as well as processes allows Native Americans to use this knowledge in
tandem with their own oral traditions to create a past relevant to themselves.
However, postprocessual approaches create a “two-edged sword” in that they
call for a renewed interest in Native American religion, power, authority
structures, gender roles, and treatment of the dead at a time when many Native
Americans are unsure whether these are appropriate research topics.
Zimmerman (155) and Anyon (10) consider the relation between concepts
of time, politics, and archaeology in the construction of the past, noting that
while archaeologists use time as a linear framework to give meaning to their
observations, many Native Americans perceive time differently. For Native
Americans, the past can and does exist in the present, and it can therefore be
known through contemporary oral traditions, rituals, and spiritual activities
(39). Zimmerman (155) concluded that archaeologists don’t have to give up
NATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY 70their point of view but they do need to share with Native Americans the power
archaeology can bring to constructing the past.
With respect to multiple pasts, Trigger (136) noted that the archaeological
record constitutes evidence that was created independently of any archaeological interpretation. This independence constrains the subjectivity of archaeologists and facilitates the search for new data that can convince other people
that a particular interpretation is correct. Archaeological data thus continue to
play an important role in forcing people to revise their outmoded views about
Native Americans. More archaeologists consider the study of Native American cultures to be a valid goal in itself, and the move toward more holistic investigations entails a closer working relationship with contemporary native
peoples.
Archaeologists who recognize that many archaeological sites are also sacred places for Native Americans have addressed a number of issues, including who “owns” sacred sites, who has a right to study them, and how they
should be managed (28). Research and management of sacred sites is difficult
because many Native Americans think information about them should be kept
secret, and decisions about their protection entail political issues about the
power relations between dominant and indigenous cultures.
NATIVE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES ON
ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PAST
Archaeology has benefited from what Native Americans and the archaeologists who work for them have written about the discipline. While most archaeologists firmly believe that archaeology is a beneficial activity, some Native
Americans mistrust archaeology because of its historical association with the
desecration of graves and removal of cultural property. Some Native Americans also take exception to archaeological theories that conflict with traditional history, such as the Bering land bridge migration and the conventional
depiction of Native Americans primarily according to extinct lifeways, a convention that works to divorce contemporary people from their heritage (24,
36, 37).
Klesert & Holt (75), however, suggested that archaeologists may be overly
cautious about what Native Americans think about archaeology. In a survey of
64 Indian tribes, Klesert & Holt found that more than half of the respondents
considered archaeology to be beneficial because it helped to preserve Native
American culture. Although some Indians thought archaeology stimulated interference and trespass by outsiders, the political leaders of tribes did not consider archaeology to be an impediment to their people or culture. It may be, as
Reid (111) suggested, that many archaeologists think the rift between Native
Americans and their discipline is larger than it really is.
71 FERGUSONNevertheless, Deloria (35) noted that many Native Americans resent the attitude of some archaeologists who think they have a privileged view of the
past because it is scientific and therefore superior to the traditional views of
Native Americans. Many Native Americans have residual hard feelings that
stem from the arrogant attitudes of archaeologists expressed during discussion
of the reburial issue. Deloria suggested one way to improve the situation is for
archaeologists and Native Americans to cooperate in reworking and restating
the major findings of archaeology using plain language that eliminates cultural bias while accurately summarizing what is known.
Some Native Americans who were initially antagonistic toward archaeology report they now realize that working with archaeologists provides an effective means to attain legal and managerial goals relating to cultural resources management (60, 155). Other Native Americans report that they had
little interest in archaeology until recently. The Inuit, for instance, gained an
interest in archaeology when they realized it had utility for Canadian land
claims, as well as an economic benefit related to tourism (8).
Many Native Americans in South America think archaeology is still used
for colonialist ends that alienate them from their past by appropriating their archaeological heritage to construct national identities (31, 65, 83). Condori
(31) added that the practice of renaming archaeological sites whose names
have long been preserved in oral traditions is offensive because it dispossess
Indians from their identity.
Condori (31) and Echo-Hawk (44) criticized the concept of “prehistory,”
noting that in popular usage this term implies that Native Americans have not
maintained a legitimate form of history in their oral traditions, or worse, that
Native Americans had no history at all until Europeans arrived in their land.
This devalues Native American concepts of their own history and is perceived
as an attempt by archaeologists to displace Native American historians as experts on the ancient past. In fact, Native American oral traditions provide a
historiographic basis for historical thought and interpretation. Condori (31)
thinks that the development of a Native American archaeology, using native
concepts of time and space, has the potential to help Native Americans understand their historical development and thus attain their goals.
Rappaport (107) noted that traditional Native American knowledge about
the past is sometimes embedded in a conceptual framework that is spatial
rather than temporal. This is the case with the Páez Indians of Colombia,
where historical knowledge is transmitted orally in fragments that allow listeners to construct a history based on their spatial knowledge of geographical
referents. There is thus not one history but multiple histories.
Naranjo (98) pointed out that much of Native American traditional knowledge is axiomatic rather than hypothetical. Truth is something that is known
within individuals and communities, not something external to a person as it is
NATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY 72for most archaeologists. Truth is thus multiversal rather than universal, and
one person’s truth does not invalidate another’s. In applying this perspective
to the ancestral migration of Santa Clara Pueblo, Naranjo concluded it is the
overall conceptual framework of movement that is the most important idea,
not the specific sites, dates, and places that preoccupy the attention of archaeologists.
Riding In (112) provided a harsh critique of the history of archaeology as
an imperialistic and racist endeavor, concluding that the reburial of Native
American human remains is a fundamental human right that must take legal,
moral, and ethical precedence over scientific research. While many archaeologists have come to agree with this basic position, Riding In extended the argument by suggesting that scholars should not use data obtained from “immoral”
forms of archaeological inquiry, and most disturbingly, that universities and
libraries should remove from circulation all works that contain references to
“immoral” archeological research.
ETHICS AND GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH
Ethics are the rules or standards of behavior that govern how a profession is
practiced. The American Anthropological Association, the Society for American Archaeology, the American Society for Conservation Archaeology, the
Society of Professional Archaeologists, the World Archaeological Congress,
and various state associations have all promulgated ethical codes or position
papers that relate to the conduct of archaeological research. These are reviewed in several publications (58, 76, 118, 143, 147, 148, 154). Although not
specifically directed toward archaeologists, Mihesuah (96) provided a set of
general guidelines useful for all scholars conducting research on Native
Americans. Every archaeologist should review these ethical codes and implement them in archaeological research.
Archaeologists should consider the financial gain they earn from their
work and share this with Native Americans as appropriate. The SAA dedicated the royalties from the three-volume Columbian Consequences series to a
Native American Scholarship Fund (129), and other archaeologists are beginning to donate all or part of the royalties from their works to the tribes they
study. An increasing number of Native Americans expect this sort of reciprocity (34).
Several archaeologists have observed that the current problems between
Native Americans and archaeologists are due to cultural conflicts stemming
from different systems of ethics (56, 57, 142). Recognizing that Native
Americans have valid ethical principles that archaeologists need to consider
does not mean that archaeologists should ignore their own system of ethics.
Archaeologists have an ethical responsibility to their profession as well as to
73 FERGUSONthe people they study, and they need to be willing and able to explain their positions and research in dialog with Native Americans.
THE FUTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Archaeologists and Native Americans are moving beyond the contentious
rhetoric of the 1970s and 1980s. Together, they are forging new partnerships
to change archaeology so it is more acceptable and relevant to the descendants
of the people who produced the archaeological record many archaeologists
study. People who espoused radical views on both sides of the repatriation issue have gravitated more toward a centrist position. This is good because in
the post-NAGPRA era archaeologists will pay a severe price for not doing a
better job of sharing their work with Native Americans (89).
Native Americans have diverse uses for archaeology. Some Native Americans find archaeology useful for learning about their past by using information
that is not preserved in documentary records (106, 114, 131, 149, 152). Other
Native Americans already know about their past through traditional means but
still find a use for archaeology in managing their heritage resources (74). By
establishing and building on cooperative relationships, archaeologists and Native Americans can be powerful allies in efforts to preserve archaeological resources from looting or development (30, 48, 100).
Archaeologists are realizing that the archaeological record has power in the
present because it is used to construct knowledge of the past (87). Archaeologists are beginning to use their discipline to address issues that Native Americans identify as important, which adds a humanistic dimension to their scientific research and yields new ways to think about the past (155). It is now
common for Native Americans to consult on archaeological and cultural resource management projects (17, 51, 126). Many archaeologists have committed themselves to developing long-term research projects with Native Americans, which creates a foundation for the mutual trust that is needed to make archaeological research work in a contemporary setting.
Universities are beginning to teach the ethics and broad anthropological
skills that archaeologists need to successfully interact with Native Americans
(87). Additional change is still needed in the profession. As Brumfiel (25)
noted, the didactic generalization entailed in public education and Native
American outreach is not as favorably judged by peers as theoretically oriented publications. The profession needs to develop ways to recognize and reward archaeologists who share the results of their work with Native Americans in meaningful ways.
Native Americans are stewards of the archaeological record because it is an
ancestral legacy (48). Archaeologists are stewards because they want to protect and use the archaeological record as a source of scientific data. If Native
NATIVE AMERICANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY 74Americans and archaeologists continue to develop a close working relationship, all parties will benefit from a joint stewardship of the archaeological record and the past it represents (56). Each archaeologist bears a personal and
professional responsibility to understand and act on the issues relating to Native Americans to transform archaeology into a discipline that is acceptable to
its multiple constituencies.
Kaohi Mendiola-Kaniaupio February 4, 2012 at 6:45pm

Tohono O'odham: border wall disturbs ancestral graves

Submitted by WW4 Report on Thu, 06/21/2007 - 03:48.
A petition from O'odham Voice Against the Wall, posted to journalist Brenda Norrell's Censored, blog, June 15:

We Demand the Return of Human Remains Unearthed During a Recent Desecration of a Sacred Burial Ground
On May 17th and May 21st of 2007 the remains of at least three humans were unearthed during the construction of a border zone "Vehicle Barrier" wall.

These remains were found buried near the International Border, inside of Tohono O'odham Nation lands in Arizona. The unearthed people are the direct ancestors of five families living in the Ali Jegk community of the Tohono O’odham Nation.

The remains are currently in the possession of the tribal government's cultural authority – an institution that has a non-O’odham director. Initially, when the remains were unearthed during construction of the "Vehicle Barrier," the tribal government authorities stopped the construction to investigate the findings.

Unfortunately, they failed to protect the remains from desecration as is required of them under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA).

According to O'odham witnesses that were employed by the Department of Homeland Security as monitors, three non-O'odham workers removed the remains from the burial site. The remains were then bagged, boxed and removed from the location.

According to the National Guard commander, the three non-O'odham workers that removed the remains were archaeologists hired by the Tohono O'odham Nation. In direct violation of NAGPRA, the three hired archaeologists and their cultural director failed to report the finding to the tribal government until two days had passed.

In another direct violation of NAGPRA laws, the remains were removed from Tohono O'odham lands and taken outside of the Nation's jurisdiction to be stored in Ajo, Arizona. However, the remains were subsequently returned back to tribal custody. The remains are now in the possession of the Tohono O’odham Nation tribal government.

Despite the pleas of area residents that the ancestral remains be given back for reburial, the tribal government is refusing to return them, citing a federal law that prohibits them from doing so. However, the area residents (who are direct decedents of the unearthed ancestors) state that the federal law does not apply to this situation as the law only necessitates that the remains be held in custody if there are no living ancestors to whom they can be released.

In this case, since there are living ancestors, the law does not apply and the remains should be immediately released back to the area residents for reburial. The Tohono O'odham Nation tribal government has neglected its constitutional directive that mandates them to protect the Him’dag – the O’odham way of life. They have allowed the disturbance of a sacred burial site and have allowed non-O’odham people to handle these sacred remains. They now hold sacred, ancient relatives in bags and boxes.

The elder descendants of the ancestors whose remains were unearthed held a meeting on May 23. They cried for their relatives and are demanding that the remains be immediately returned. The Elders were very grief stricken at the great disrespect shown toward their relatives’ remains.

Margaret Garcia cried and asked, "Why do these non-O’odham continue to mistreat us? We are humans, we do not go to their [Anglo] graves and dig them up and put them in boxes." Julia Merino also cried and told the people at the meeting that she knew how it felt to go away somewhere and long for home. She said that is how the unearthed relatives feel right now. She asked those in attendance to do whatever they could to get the remains returned as soon as possible. Frances Aguila stated that the unearthed ancestors were her direct relatives and named a Great-great grandfather that was buried in the location. She also stated that there were other remains much older then that – a point that all the relatives restated.

Ofelia Rivas stated that her deceased aunt, Mary Merino, was the last person born at the abandoned village where she passed away two years ago at the age of 90. Ofelia also named three of her Great-great grandfathers that were buried in the area and stated that many more relatives dating back more than seven generations are buried in the area.

This petition is demanding that this great atrocity must stop! This petition is demanding that the Tohono O’odham Nation tribal government immediately release the remains that were unearthed and immediately return them to the local community for a proper, traditional reburial! Please sign and forward this petition to all your friends, relatives and networks.

See our last posts on the border struggle, the Tohono O'odham and other Native American land struggles.

Replies

Rightful Title??

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1977144592600.101054.1362...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Land is the most sacred thing to us,” Worl said. “It is the basis of our being it is the basis of our culture."

SEACC looks to divide Native people

and grabbing

Tohono O'odham: border wall disturbs ancestral graves

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Land is the most sacred thing to us,” Worl said. “It is the basis of our being it is the basis of our culture."