AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Through Wary Eyes:Indigenous Perspectiveson ArchaeologyJoe WatkinsDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico87131-0001; email: jwatkins@unm.edu

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 34:429–49

The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120540

Copyright c© 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0429$20.00

Key Words

Aboriginal, ethics, Indigeneity, Fourth World, colonialism

AbstractArchaeology has been linked to colonialist attitudes and scientificimperialism. But what are the perspectives of Indigenous groups con-cerning the practice of archaeology? Numerous organizations recog-nize the distinctive needs of Indigenous communities throughout theworld and have adopted agreements and definitions that govern theirrelationships with those populations. The specific name by whichIndigenous groups are known varies from country to country, as lo-cal governments are involved in determining the appropriateness ofparticular definitions to populations within their borders. This pa-per begins with an examination of the various aspects that have beenused to determine whether or not a group of people might be con-sidered “indigenous” under various definitions, and then uses thehistory of the relationships between North American archaeologistsand Indigenous populations as a background for the examinationof some of the political aspects of archaeology that have impactedIndigenous populations. It then proceeds to discuss perspectives onarchaeology offered by members of various Indigenous populationsthroughout the World.

429

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430WHO IS “INDIGENOUS”? . . . . . . . . 430AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL

HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES

ON ARCHAEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . 433North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433Mesoamerica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436The “Southern Cone” . . . . . . . . . . . . 437Scandinavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439Australia and New Zealand . . . . . . . 439

ETHICS, ARCHAEOLOGY, ANDINDIGENOUS ISSUES . . . . . . . . . 440

DOES “UNSPOKEN” MEAN“UNPROBLEMATIC”? . . . . . . . . . 441

INTRODUCTION

Who are the Indigenous people throughoutthe world whose perspectives on the prac-tice of archaeology are becoming more impor-tant? In North America they might be calledby general names such as “American Indians,”“Native Americans,” “Native Alaskan corpo-rations” or “Native Hawaiians”; in Canadathey may be referred to as “First Nations”or “Meti”; in Australia they might be called“Aboriginals,” “Maori” in New Zealand, or“Sami” in Scandinavia. Despite the fact thateach group has a specific name by which itidentifies, a particular name by which thesepeople are recognized in particular countriesor regions, these “indigenous people” are gen-erally lumped into a category that identifiestheir relationship with the dominant govern-ment that controls the land upon which theylive.

WHO IS “INDIGENOUS”?

Although it certainly is beyond the scope ofthis article to reach any conclusion regard-ing the definition of “Indigenous” in relation

to world popuations, it is necessary that thereader understand the myriad of issues thatspring from this one word. One can get anencyclopedia’s definition (Wikipedia 2004),but such definitions are less useful in this in-stance than an anthropological one.

According to the International Labor Or-ganization, Indigenous people are “peoples inindependent countries whose social, cultural,and economic conditions distinguish themfrom other sections of the national commu-nity, and whose status is regulated wholly orpartially by their own customs or traditionsor by special laws or regulations.” Or, theymight be “regarded as indigenous on accountof their descent from the populations whichinhabited the country, or a geographical re-gion to which the country belongs, at the timeof conquest or colonization or the establish-ment of present State boundaries and who, ir-respective of their legal status, retain some orall of their own social, economic, cultural, andpolitical institutions” (ILO 1989). Economicorganizations maintain their own definitionsof who is “Indigenous” (Asian DevelopmentBank 2004), and the World Health Organiza-tion has developed a set of ethics for dealingwith Indigenous groups (WHO 2004). All ofthese definitions are related to various aspectsof the communities’ involvement with outsideorganizations or governments.

If we examine these definitions, we can see,as Sylvain (2002, p. 1075) notes, that thereare “four broad criteria for identifying indige-nous peoples: (a) genealogical heritage (i.e.,historical continuity with prior occupants ofa region); (b) political, economic, or ‘struc-tural’ marginalization (i.e., nondominance);(c) cultural attributes (i.e., being ‘culturallydistinct’); and (d) self-identification.”

Regardless of the criteria that are used, In-digenous populations are often seen as “polit-ically weak, economically marginal, and cul-turally stigmatized members of the nationalsocieties that have overtaken them and theirlands” (Dyck 1992, p. 1). The interruptionof land tenure by colonizing interlopers, thesuppression of native language by a dominant

430 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

society that seeks to integrate dissimilar cul-tures into a singular “homogenous” one, theperception by their “conquerors” that Indige-nous people are an inferior race, and the socialand economic marginalization of the group asa whole all contribute to the ongoing percep-tion of Indigenous populations as second-classcitizens. Commonly known as the “FourthWorld,” such Indigenous groups generally areoften subsumed within the national heritagethat surrounds them. Karlsson (2003, p. 407)points out some of the problems inherent inrecognizing Indigenous groups, however de-fined, through a discussion of the situation onthe Indian subcontinent, where subordinationof people by ruling groups has led to “inter-nal colonization.” In the Indian situation thatKarlsson describes, “cultural difference is thusstressed, whereas the question of being ‘orig-inal settlers’ is regarded as less significant.”

Other anthropologists have examined theissue of what is meant by the term “Indige-nous.” Beteille’s 1998 article “The Idea of In-digenous People” debated the utility of theconcept, and comments by Childs & Delgado(1999) further refined the issue. Using theCurrent Anthropology format of primary ar-ticle and outside reviewer comments placedimmediately following it, Greene (2004) ex-amined culture as politics and property (us-ing the issue of pharmaceutical bioprospect-ing) with other anthropologists (Bannerjee2004, Bannister 2004, Brush 2004, Castree2004, Dhillion 2004, Hayden 2004, Lewiset al. 2004, McAfee 2004, Veber 2004) of-fering detailed comments. On a more gen-eral note, Kuper (2003) examined the con-cept of “Native” from the anthropologicalperspective. The detailed comments offeredby Asch & Samson (2004), Heinen (2004),Kenrick and Lewis (2004), Omura (2003),Plaice (2003), Ramos (2003), Robins (2003),Saugestad (2004), Suzman (2003), and Turner(2004) further expanded the discussion andincreased its utility. Even archaeologists[Nicholas & Bannister (2004), with commentsby Brown (2004), Hamilakis (2004), Ouzman(2004), and Vitelli (2004)] chose to examine

the possibility of Indigenous groups exert-ing ownership claims of intellectual propertyrights over archaeological material, therebyextending the notion that Indigeneity carrieswith it a modicum of special favor above andbeyond that of the other “non-Indigenous”ones in the same situation or country.

In Australia, “Indigenous” is equated with“Aboriginal,” and “Aboriginality” has beenthe topic of discussion for nearly two decades(Anderson 1985). Special Issue 2 of The Aus-tralian Journal of Anthropology (Thiele 1991)provided a series of articles reflecting on thestatus of “Aboriginal Studies” in Australia.Archer (1991, p. 163) noted that “Aborigi-nality as a construction for purposes of po-litical action has all the characteristic contra-dictions of nationalism,” and Lewins (1991,p. 177) noted “it is not possible to keep Abo-riginality and politics apart.” Thiele (1991,p. 180) argued Aboriginality involves “descen-tism,” based “solely on the grounds of biolog-ical parentage.” Roughly (1991, p. 211) wrotethat race, nationality, possession, and differ-ence were “the controlling and central termsin the written history of a racial discoursethat must be continuously deconstructed,”whereas Sackett (1991, p. 235) detailed thestereotypical belief held by some that “Abo-riginal values and practices are somehow oranother more ‘ecologically sound’ than thoseof non-Aborigines.” Finally, Davidson (1991,p. 256) noted that, in the changing rela-tionships between archaeologists and Aborig-ines, “the motives of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in the cooperation havenot always been the same.” This discussionagain chose to recognize that being “Indige-nous” carries with it a marked difference.

Although not anthropological, legal anal-yses of Indigenous rights and issues providedby the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission (ATSIC 2004), the AustralasianLegal Information Institute (Pritchard 2001),and the Indigenous Peoples’ Human RightsProject of the University of Minnesota Hu-man Rights Center (2003) also are impor-tant to consider regarding the description of

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 431

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

“Indigenous.” These documents carry withthem the international recognition of as-pects above and beyond those of professionalorganizations, and also carry with them theappearance of some sort of “governmentalsanction.”

Comparative (cross-cultural) articles oninternational aspects of Indigenous commu-nities have been developed as well, includ-ing Dow and Gardiner-Garden’s 1998 “In-digenous Affairs in Australia, New Zealand,Canada, United States of America, Norwayand Sweden,” Morse’s “Comparative Assess-ments of Indigenous Peoples in Australasia,Scandinavia, and North America” (1997), andCohen’s (2003) comparison of Australian “In-digeneity” with those of Latin America.

But, beyond the vagaries of definition,what has been archaeology’s relationship andperspective on Indigenous populations?

AN ARCHAEOLOGICALHISTORY

Native groups have struggled to obtain, tell,or protect their past. In the United States, nu-merous authors such as Bray (1996), Downer(1997), Ferguson (1996), Kelly (1998),Klesert & Downer (1990), McGuire (1992),Pullar (1994), Swidler et al. (1997), andTrigger (1980, 1986, 1989) have documentedthat struggle. In Canada, Friesen (1998),Gotthardt (2000), Gotthardt & Hare (1994),Hare & Gotthardt (1996), and Hare & Greer(1994) have presented archaeological perspec-tives on Indigenous archaeologies, whereasNicholas & Andrews (1997) described morethe future relationships between First Nationsand archaeologists. In Australia, Anderson(1985), Mulvaney (1991), and Pardoe (1992)have been at the forefront of the discussionsthat have taken place within the anthropolog-ical literature. Yet, although these present ahistory of the relationships between Indige-nous populations and archaeology, these dis-cussions generally center around the situationas it appears in one particular country or an-other. Hubert (1994) and Lowenthal (1994)

offer good overviews of the conflicts in theUnited States and Australia, and Watkins’(2001) comparison of the conflict betweenarchaeologists and native peoples in theUnited States and Australia regarding the dis-position of cultural materials from founderpopulations (which may be considered ances-tral to entire continental populations) sug-gests that the concerns of native peoples inthese two industrialized countries are quitesimilar.

But how has archaeology, as a discipline,dealt with Indigenous people and their per-spectives on the field? Throughout its devel-opment, archaeology generally has operatedas if it exists apart from and outside of thepeople whose past it studies—whether thosepeople are the descendants of the actual peo-ple who created the archaeological sites (suchas the survivors from Pecos Pueblo who nowreside at Jemez Pueblo in the SouthwesternUnited States), or whether those people are amore generalized group of descendants (suchas American Indian tribes that share generalrelationships with an archaeological culture).Many archaeologists continue to operate as ifthe body of science operating within the po-litical structure of the dominant governmentis a harmless entity to nondominant groups.In North America, for example, a numberof anthropologists (Bettinger 1991; Downer1997; Ferguson 1996; Kehoe 1998; Lurie1988; McGuire 1992, 1997; Meltzer 1983;Nicholas & Andrews 1997; Trigger 1980,1986, 1989; Watkins 2000a, Zimmerman1997) have traced the history of anthropologyand its relationships with American Indiansand Canadian First Nations.

Anthropologist Bruce Trigger was one ofthe first anthropologists to force American ar-chaeologists to come to terms with the ideathat science exists as a part of the social struc-ture in which it operates. He writes: “prob-lems social scientists choose to research and(hopefully less often) the conclusions thatthey reach are influenced in various ways. . .(among them). . . the attitudes and opinionsthat are prevalent in the societies in which

432 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

they live” (1980, p. 662). He argued that, inthe United States during the one hundredyears between the 1770s and the 1870s, theview that American Indians were inferior to“civilized” people was used to rationalize theseizure of Indian lands and the violation oftheir treaty rights. Going beyond the histor-ical record and writing about contemporaryissues, Trigger (1986, p. 206) suggested that“archeologists have turned from using theirdiscipline to rationalize Euro-American prej-udices against native people, as they did in thenineteenth century, to simply ignoring nativepeople as an end of study in themselves.” Ina more critical history of archaeology, Kehoe(1998) argues that archaeologists continue totreat American Indians as belonging outsideof science and act as if only they (the ar-chaeologists) have the ability to present andunderstand the processes that led to the de-velopment of American Indian culture andprehistory.

Fowler (1987) also examined the role ofarchaeology in the United States, noting thatit (as a discipline) might have been at leastpartially complicit in the removal of Amer-ican Indians from their lands. Its failure toaccept (or to prove) the American Indian’srelationship with the archaeological cultureswithin their lands served to disconnect themfrom their past and strengthened the govern-ment’s “arguments for moving the ‘savage’ In-dians out of the way of white ‘civilization’”(1987, p. 230). The extermination of Ameri-can Indians by westward moving settlementsof the United States was made morally eas-ier by the apparent primitiveness of the na-tives, and the controversy over the originatorsof the archaeological cultures encounteredby the Europeans served well as a justifica-tion for exterminating the Indian groups thatwere viewed as having destroyed North Amer-ica’s only “civilized” culture (Trigger 1980,p. 665). The political aspects of archaeologyand identity are still being debated and dis-cussed on a worldwide scale (Brothwell 2004,Meskell 2002, Ratnagar 2004, Smith 2004,Zimmerman 2001).

INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVESON ARCHAEOLOGY

North America

As can be recognized based on the previousdiscussion, archaeologists in North Americaand Australia, two continents with large num-bers of Indigenous people, began examiningthe relationships they maintained with the In-digenous populations of their area more thantwo decades ago. Whereas archaeologists havewritten of those relationships, few Indigenouspeople have offered written comments on thediscipline of archaeology or their relation-ships with archaeologists. An early attempt atincluding the Native voice and Native per-spectives on archaeology was the Preservationon the Reservation volume edited by Klesert &Downer (1990), where Native Americans par-ticipated in group discussions that followedformal presentations about various aspects ofthe archaeological enterprise. These discus-sions were published in the final volume andoffer intriguing snippets of the relationshipsas they were perceived at that time.

The publication of papers compiled fromthree inter-related forums held at the Societyfor American Archaeology meeting in NewOrleans in 1996 (Swidler et al. 1997) by indi-vidual American Indians who participated inarchaeology in one form or another (Begay1997, Carter 1997, Cypress 1997, Echo-Hawk 1997, Ferguson et al. 1997, Forsman1997, Fuller 1997, Jackson & Stevens 1997,Jemison 1997, Kluth & Munnell 1997, Lip-pert 1997, Martin 1997, White Deer 1997)also gave the discipline the opportunity tosee the ways that individual American Indi-ans viewed the discipline that purported to be“writing unwritten history” (Watkins 2000b)or integrating that history with archaeology(Echo-Hawk 2000).

Although there is a general paucity ofcomments concerning archaeology, someacademic-based American Indians have of-fered acerbic perspectives on archaeology.Historian James Riding In (1992, p. 12), amember of the Pawnee tribe of Oklahoma,

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 433

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

wrote, “Individuals who violate the sanctityof the grave outside of the law are viewed ascriminals, Satan worshippers, or imbalanced.When caught, tried, and convicted, the guiltyare usually incarcerated, fined, or placed inmental institutions. Yet public opinion andlegal loopholes have until recently enabledwhite society to loot and pillage with im-punity American Indian cemeteries. Archae-ology, a branch of anthropology that still at-tempts to sanctify this tradition of exploitingdead Indians, arose as an honorable profes-sion from this sacrilege.” Another historian,Devon Mihesuah (1996, p. 233), a ChoctawIndian from Oklahoma, offered, “[to Ameri-can Indians] the only difference between anillegal ransacking of a burial ground and a sci-entific one is the time element, sun screen, lit-tle whisk brooms, and the neatness of the areawhen finished.” Even organizational state-ments, such as those offered by American In-dians Against Desecration before the WorldArchaeological Congress (Hammil & Cruz1994) provided much needed informationconcerning the perspectives of American In-dians about American archaeology.

There are, of course, many other Ameri-can Indian perspectives on archaeology, andnot all of them are “antiarchaeology.” DonSampson, a former Chairman of the Board ofTrustees for the Confederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation, stated in a po-sition paper that “[w]e want the public andscientists to understand that we do not rejectscience. In fact, we have anthropologists andother scientists on staff, and we use science ev-ery day to help in protecting our people andthe land.” His views are probably shared bymany American Indian groups participating inthe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer pro-gram of the United States Department of theInterior’s National Park Service, or those run-ning tribal archaeology programs (TwoBears2000). His views, however, do not accept thenotion that science should replace traditionalworldviews: “we do reject the notion that sci-ence is the answer to everything and there-fore it should take precedence over the reli-

gious rights and beliefs of American citizens”(Sampson 1997).

North American archaeologists have beenactive in seeking out the views of Ameri-can Indians, First Nations, and other “In-digenous” people as part of procedures re-quired during projects under cultural (orheritage) resources management legislation,often making an effort to integrate the min-imum requirements of the appropriate lawsto make the projects meaningful to localgroups (Ferguson & Colwell-Chanthaphonh2004). In the United States, laws such asthe National Historic Preservation Act of1966, the Archaeological Resources Protec-tion Act of 1979, and the Native Ameri-can Graves Protection and Repatriation Actof 1990 all require some level of interac-tion between archaeologists and American In-dian tribes that are recognized by the federalgovernment, Alaska Native corporations, andNative Hawaiians.

Canada does not have such far-reachinglaws because cultural resources manage-ment programs operate primarily throughtwo organizations—Parks Canada, a FederalCrown Corporation responsible for admin-istering all aspects of Canada’s 29 nationalparks and more than 100 monuments andforts, and the Archaeological Survey ofCanada, a branch of the National Museumof Man, which operates an archaeological sal-vage program to minimize the loss of archae-ological resources and information caused byconstruction projects.

Although there are no nationwide heritagelaws that govern the practice of archaeology inCanada, the relationships between First Na-tions and archaeologists are relatively strong.Laws relating to heritage are implementedprimarily on provincial, municipal, andcorporate levels. Additionally, the absence ofa Canadian national law means that “there isno leverage to hold the province accountablefor bilaterally funded projects, no precedentsfor the provincial politicians to become usedto funding large scale mitigation projects,and no heritage legislation for federal lands,

434 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

including reserves” (Syms 1997, p. 54). InBritish Columbia, for example, the relation-ship between Simon Fraser University andthe Secwepemc (Shuswap) Nation has ledto a strong collaborative program (Nicholas2000); in the Yukon, the Yukon HeritageBranch has worked collaboratively with FirstNations such as the Carcross/Tagish (Hare& Greer 1994), the Inuvialuit (Friesen 1998),and the Kwanlin Dan (Gotthardt & Hare1994). In spite of the absence of a nationwideperspective on heritage issues, Canadian re-lationships with First Nations are seen to bestrong, primarily the result of archaeologiststaking into consideration the wishes of theIndigenous populations in the research arenarather than through a regulatory or legalframework. Nicholas (2000, p. 163), in BritishColumbia, notes that “consultation with theappropriate First Nation is now a prerequisitefor obtaining an archaeological permit. Thisrequirement occurred in response to demandsfor greater Aboriginal representation, andoverall, has had a positive impact on thediscipline as it makes archaeologists moreresponsive to contemporary needs and theirwork more relevant.”

Yellowhorn (2000, p. 137), a CanadianFirst Nation man, presents a summary dis-cussion of the “impact that Indians are likelyto have on archaeology” beyond their roles asmere technicians or “resource managers.” Hisdoctoral dissertation through McGill Univer-sity was aimed at awakening what he terms“Internalist Archaeology”—what may be de-fined as an archaeology developed by and forthe benefit of particular Indigenous groups by“articulating a theoretical foundation that em-anates from the Indian’s sense of the past”(2002, p. 27). This archaeology, he notes,might be used by “Indian researchers guidedby Fourth World ideology” to “embrace re-sistance to an establishment that seeks to ap-propriate their heritage for its own purposes”(2002, p. 31). Yellowhorn eloquently stateshis perspective on the uses of archaeology forIndigenous groups: “Internalist archaeologyscouts the two paths that Native people must

make into one by seeking the common land-marks of a global antiquity common to hu-manity and the local customs that respect aunique sense of the past” (2002, p. 346).

The discovery of a 600-year-old humanbody in a glacier in August of 1999 demon-strates some of the attitudes of the elders ofthe Champagne and Aishihik First Nations ofCanada toward archaeology. When three peo-ple hunting sheep in a remote corner of BritishColumbia discovered the frozen remains ofa human in a melting glacier in WildernessPark on August 14, 1999, tribal elders favoredobtaining scientific information from the findprior to its reburial. Ron Chambers, a tribalmember of the park management board, isquoted as saying “The elders did say that theyfelt it was as important to get as much infor-mation as possible from this person—that’skind of an endorsement of scientific study”(Brooke 1999).

The framework for the study of the adultmale called Kwaday Dan Ts’ınchi, meaning“long-ago person found” in Tutchone, was an-nounced in September 1999. The Canadiangovernment and tribal groups set up a scien-tific advisory panel to evaluate research pro-posals for scientific studies, and then turnedthe remains over to descendants for burial(Beattie et al. 2000).

In spite of the agreement to allow the stud-ies, Diane Strand, a heritage resource offi-cer for the Champagne and Aishihik FirstNations, said the agreement was not unani-mously endorsed: “You have one-third of thepeople saying ‘Bury him,’ one-third of thepeople saying ‘You’re doing the right thing,’and the other one-third saying ‘We don’tknow.’ But the goal is learning and educating”(Sorenson 1999).

Bob Charlie, chief of the Champagne andAishihik First Nations, noted that the ar-chaeologists were respectful to the Nations’wishes: “Their willingness to cooperate hasbeen quite pleasing to us. They have beenvery patient, because I’m sure they wouldhave liked to jump ahead and plow aheadwith it” (Brooke 1999). Thus, First Nation

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 435

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

perspectives on archaeology have been posi-tively influenced by the actions of the archae-ologists involved in this study.

In addition, other projects undertaken byarchaeologists in conjunction with First Na-tions in Canada (Charlie & Clark 2003,Friesen 1998, Gotthardt 2000, Gotthardt &Hare 1994, Hare & Gotthardt 1996, Hare &Greer 1994) have led not only to increasedinvolvement of the First Nations in archaeol-ogy, but also to better relationships betweenthe archaeologists and the people who are thesubject of their studies as both parties under-stand the issues that arise from each group’sperspectives.

Mesoamerica

The tension between cultural properties andthe groups that relate to them has become in-creasingly obvious in Latin America. Coggins(2003) writes about the inherent conflict in theeconomic progress sought by Latin Americancountries toward “globalization of the econ-omy and the internationalization of cultureto create a global patrimony” while strug-gling toward “the reestablishment of sepa-rate national languages and cultures” withinthose countries. In Mexico, for example, po-litical rulers appropriated great heritage itemsfrom the social and cultural “peripheries” ofthe country to construct a national identitythat suited their needs, yet Indigenous peoplewere given little opportunity to be involvedin the nation that was constructed. And al-though the politics of archaeology in Mexicoare currently moving away from centraliza-tion toward regionalization as regional muse-ums such as the one at Oaxaca’s Monte Albanspring up to highlight regional accomplish-ments rather than national ones, Indigenouspeople are seen “not as things of equal valuewith the present, but as ‘tourist attractions’”(Ames 2000, p. 23).

In Mexico, one circumstance from 2002drew attention to a local perspective on ar-chaeology. A story posted on the Mesoweb onOctober 9, 2002, entitled “Protest Leads to

DiscoveryAnnouncement” (http://www.mesoweb.com/reports/discovery.html), paint-ed a murky picture of the involvement of thelocal, Indigenous community with the archae-ology (and archaeologists) in the area. MoisesMorales, described in the story as a “renownedPalenque guide,” established a protest at theentrance to the Cross Group site at Palenqueto draw attention to a new monument fromTemple XXI—described as a “throne-altar-platform”—discovered by archaeologists ofthe Instituto National de Antropologıa e His-toria (the National Institute of Anthropologyand History). The newspaper La Republica enChiapas reported that pressure from the peo-ple of Palenque had led to the public an-nouncement of a discovery that had beenkept secret since August 27, 2002. Moralesprotested the silence concerning the discov-ery of the “throne-altar-platform” through aplacard posted at the site’s entrance. The signbegan, “In view of the event of August 27,2002, and as an energetic protest against yourindifference to the people of Palenque, partic-ularly the youth, permit me to ask you . . . .” Itthen went on to imply that the archaeologistsdisplayed disregard for the city of Palenque,its authorities, and the governor of Chiapasby failing to report the discovery when it wasmade, by moving the platform “in order toprotect it,” and by having a banquet in an ele-gant restaurant. Morales asked: “Who is pay-ing for your career? Is this how you repay us?Can you prove me wrong?”

In this situation, the local populationviewed the site of Palenque as belonging tothem in as much of an economic sense as aproprietary one. That is, the situation thatwas brought under scrutiny was not the intel-lectual or social impact of the archaeologicalinterpretations on the local population, butrather the economic impact of the archaeo-logical enterprise on those people.

In November 2002, a conference entitled“Toward a More Ethical Mayan Archeology”held at the University of British Columbia of-fered some Mayan people the opportunity tooffer their views on archaeology and its impact

436 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

on local Indigenous groups. The conference,organized by Cohodas (2002), brought to-gether Indigenous people and professional ar-chaeologists who offered their opinions notonly on the economic impacts of archaeology,but also on some of the philosophicalaspects of archaeology as it is practiced inMesoamerica. The conference attendees ex-amined the use of such terms as the “Mayancollapse” and the psychological and politicalimplications such terminology has on localIndigenous groups. Presentations by mem-bers of Indigenous Mayan groups (Castaneda2002, Cocom 2002, C Cojtı 2002, R Cojtı2002, Lopez 2002) drew attention to some as-pect of the political implications between ar-chaeology and Mayan groups, and offered in-dividual Mayan perspectives on the ways thatarchaeology could be more beneficial to localIndigenous groups.

The majority of these presenters wereacademics or students pursuing a degree inarchaeology, and their perspectives on archae-ology are derived not from interaction with ar-chaeologists as an outsider, but primarily frominteraction with the discipline through inter-nal relationships. In the rest of Mesoamerica,few nonprofessionals are given the opportu-nity to offer their perspectives. The situationis mirrored in certain areas of South Americaas well.

The “Southern Cone”

In South America, a situation similar to that inMexico and Mesoamerica seems to exist. Pe-ruvian archaeologist Garth Bawden (personalcommunication 2004) noted that there is alack of “indigenous” populations (i.e., “orig-inal settlers”) due to social factors such aspopulation decimation due to health prob-lems, migration, or other social aspects re-sulting from colonization. This absence of“original settlers” might be viewed as the rea-son that biological or genealogical differen-tiation factors have come to be replaced byeconomic or social ones. Alejandro Haber,for example, equates social class with biolog-

ical or genealogical ones in his research, ba-sically equating “peasants” with “Indigenous”(Haber 2005), whereas another Argentineanarchaeologist, Endere (2002), looks at the re-lationships between social groups (subordi-nated and dominant social and governmentalgroups) in much the same way that Americanarchaeologists examine relationships betweendominant and Indigenous groups.

Other circumstances are beginning to sig-nal an end to the silence regarding Indigenousperspectives on archaeology in South Amer-ica, however. For example, the July 2003 issueof the South American publication Chungara,a publication of the Department of Archae-ology and Museology of the Faculty of So-cial, Administrative, and Economics Sciencesof the University of Tarapaca, Chile, con-tains a number of articles that are relevantto the discussion of Indigenous perspectiveson archaeology. Ayala et al. (2003, pp. 275–285) address the experiences arising from aproject titled “Links between Social Archae-ology and the Ollague Indigenous Commu-nity,” one of whose main objectives was toimprove working relationships between theLeandro Bravo V. Museum, the Indigenouscommunity (self-identified as Quechua) andresearchers. Another paper in the same issueby Jofre Poblete (2003, pp. 327–335) used anethnoarchaeological approach that incorpo-rated ethnographic information into archaeo-logical interpretation. Bravo Gonzalez (2003,pp. 287–293) writes of work in the native com-munities of Coyo and Quitor in the Provinceof El Loa in northern Chile sponsored bythe communities themselves, where the mainidea of the work is to allow the communi-ties to manage their own patrimony. Romero’spaper on his work in northern Chile (2003,pp. 337–346) argues that there has been lit-tle interaction between scientific archaeol-ogy and the Indigenous population in theprovinces of Arica and Parinacota in North-ern Chile. However, Romero notes that, withthe initiation of more effective political poli-cies toward the protection of cultural patri-mony and Indigenous rights, archaeologists

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 437

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

and Indigenous populations have begun to in-teract more openly. Uribe Rodrıguez & AdanAlfaro (2003, pp. 295–304) address the debateon the ways that societies construct and recon-struct their historic memories, particularly inThird World nations like Chile. They beginby describing their scientific and professionalexperience with Indigenous and local commu-nities from the Atacama Desert and discuss theparticular cultural contingency of the ChileanState regarding these issues, ultimately argu-ing that the archaeological community musttake a position concerning the role of scienceand, particularly, archaeology, in the societyof which it is a part.

These are a few instances whereby archae-ologists in South America are actively exam-ining Indigenous perspectives on the disci-pline of archaeology. Interestingly enough,the current editor of Chungara, Vickie Cass-man of the University of Nevada, Las Ve-gas, is a North American anthropologist ina North American university. Unfortunately,these articles are written by archaeologists be-ginning to undertake projects that activelywork with Indigenous populations (howeverdefined) rather than articles written by In-digenous people that give documentation oftheir perspectives on the utility, value, or eventhe practice of archaeology. It is hoped that asmore articles of this sort are published, moreIndigenous voices will be heard within SouthAmerica.

Scandinavia

The Sami are an Indigenous people who livein four separate countries—Finland, Norway,Sweden, and Russia. Formerly called “Lap-planders,” the population estimates in 1990were 17,000 in Sweden, 5700 in Finland, andover 30,000 in Norway (Morse 1997, p. 310).Valid population estimates for the Sami inthe former Soviet Union are not currentlyavailable.

The Sami are thought to have originatedsomewhere in what is now northeastern Rus-sia, although there does remain some points

of contention as to the location of their ori-gin (Olsson & Lewis 1995, p. 148). Increasedmovement into the upper Scandinavian coun-tries began following contact with the Vikingsin the eighth or ninth century as the Sami wereforced from their more favored area into landsfurther northward. Olsson & Lewis (1995,p. 249) note that the efforts by Denmark andSweden to control the Sami resulted in threemajor responses: the emergence of a coast-Sami culture based mainly on fishing and sup-plemented by agriculture; the emergence ofan inland-Sami culture where agriculture wassupplemented by hunting, fishing, and somereindeer herding; and a nomadic Sami culturedrawn from both the coastal and inland-Samigroups mainly occupied with taming, tending,and herding reindeer.

Marjut & Pekka Aikio document thepaucity of Sami archaeology and the desireby some Sami archaeology students in Nor-way to halt archaeological excavations until“the Sami archaeologists themselves can takeover and perform this invaluable work” (Aikio& Aikio 1994, p. 128). As part of an attemptto involve the Sami of Sweden more in the ar-chaeological process, a Program of Sami Stud-ies has been set up under the Departmentof Archaeology at the University of Umea.This program is intended to encourage theSami to develop a new curriculum and gradu-ate program integrating theory, method, andpractice in archaeology using a Sami culturalperspective.

Mulk (1997, p. 123) an archaeologist ofSami extraction, notes that traces of Sami cul-tures usually are “hunting pits, hearths, hutfoundations, graves, and sacrificial places,”with a great number of these sacrificial placesinvestigated by various authors. Perhaps be-cause there have been few archaeological ex-cavations on Sami cultural sites, Sami per-spectives (with few exceptions) have not madetheir way into print, other than in relationto repatriation and reburial of human re-mains (Schanche 2002, Sellevold 2002). IfMulk is true in her belief that “to this veryday there are Sami who have a knowledge

438 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

of old Sami popular beliefs, some of thempracticing as medicine-men” (1997, p. 130)then perhaps there will be more discus-sion of issues concerning archaeology on thehorizon.

Africa

In southern Africa the “concern to distinguishIndigenous Africans from other Africans hasresulted in an overdrawn distinction between‘cultural’ features of Indigeneity and thepolitical economic features that Indigenouspeoples share with marginalized minorities”(Sylvain 2002, p. 1075). As in other portionsof the industrialized world, the voices of In-digenous populations are rarely given a forumfor the presentation of their ideas. Althoughresearchers such as Engelbrecht (2002) andSmith & Ouzman (2004) recognize the rela-tionships between the Indigenous groups andarchaeological materials, the people them-selves are given few opportunities to speakabout the material. This large continent withits many separate countries and complex eth-nic identity issues remains relatively quietconcerning Indigenous perspectives on ar-chaeology, but those perspectives should be-come more known as the researchers beginincreasing their involvement with local popu-lations and as local populations are given thepolitical, economic, and academic opportuni-ties to participate.

Australia and New Zealand

Jones & Harris (1998, p. 255) note, “Arche-ologists and anthropologists in New Zealandare facing the same ethical issues as havearisen in Australia, Britain, and the UnitedStates.” As noted earlier, Hubert (1994) of-fered an interesting comparison between sit-uations in Australia and the United States con-cerning the issue of the reburial of the dead,in particular, and perspectives of Indigenouspopulations in general. Turnbull (2002) andAird (2002) also examine the concerns of In-digenous Australian people with the protec-

tion of their dead, the use of archaeology tostrengthen native title claims, and the repatri-ation of cultural items. Other heritage man-agement archaeologists (Thorley 2002) arealso involved in working with Aboriginal com-munities to use archeology to strengthen landrights claims.

Archaeologists in Australia are more likelyto take Indigenous perspectives on archae-ology into consideration as part of their re-search. Researchers such as Greer et al. (2002)and Smith & Burke (2003) use community-based archaeology to make the disciplinemore useful to the people whose heritage isbeing studied by involving the local commu-nity in all aspects of the research. Additionally,research such as that conducted by the Uni-versity of New England with the Yarrawarrain New South Wales (Beck et al. 2000, Brownet al. 2000, Murphy et al. 2000, Smith et al.2000, Somerville et al. 2000) provides not onlymuch-needed training for archaeologists andanthropologists in working with Indigenousgroups, it also gives the community the op-portunity to provide their perspectives on theutility of the enterprise.

But perhaps the most encouraging actionsin relation to Indigenous perspectives on ar-chaeology are those taken by students whohave pointedly asked Indigenous people theirperspectives. Amy Roberts, as part of her doc-toral research through Flinders University,pointedly asked Indigenous South Australiansfor their perspectives on archaeology (Roberts2003). Hubbs, in her thesis through the Uni-versity of South Australia, compared Indige-nous Australian and Hopi (a North AmericanIndian group) perspectives on archaeology(Hubbs 2002). As these dissertations getmore widespread notice, more students willmake use of similar investigations to obtainand publish Indigenous perspectives on thediscipline.

Isaacson, an Australian Aboriginal manfrom Mount Isa, Northern Territory, writesabout his perspective on archaeology andIndigenous groups in relation to the WorldArchaeological Congress in Washington,

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 439

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THEINTERNATIONAL ARENA

Indigenous peoples worldwide are facing problems on numer-ous levels and issues. In May 1971, the United Nations Eco-nomic and Social Council authorized the Sub-Commission onPrevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities tostudy the problem of discrimination against Indigenous popu-lations. In August 1971, the Sub-Commission appointed JoseR. Martinez Cobo as rapporteur to oversee the study. Beforethe study was completed, the Sub-Commission was autho-rized to establish a working group on indigenous populationsto review developments pertaining to the human rights of In-digenous populations and to give attention to the evolutionof standards concerning the rights of such populations. TheWorking Group on Indigenous Populations held its first ses-sion in Geneva in August 1982 and submitted the text of theDraft Declaration to the Sub-Commission in 1994. In August1994, the Sub-Commission adopted the text of the Draft Dec-laration and submitted it to the Commission on Human Rightsin 1995. Since its submission to the Commission on HumanRights Working Group (CHRWG) on the Draft Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, few state delegationshave been prepared to accept all articles of the Declaration.Most argue that at least some require modification, clarifi-cation, or correction, with many commenting that particularprovisions are at variance with national legislation and policyand are therefore unacceptable.

D.C., in 2003. He notes how many Indigenousspeakers “spoke about walking arm-in-arm,not only with archaeologists but also with eachother, in a partnership of respect” (Isaacson2004). Such a partnership founded on respect,in his view, is of paramount importance inmaintaining a working relationship betweenIndigenous groups and archaeologists.In New Zealand, tribally-based Maoriactivist Desmond Kahotea, who also hap-pens to be a trained archaeologist, noteshow his “particular perspective on archae-ology, and especially my own advocacyrole in land claims and heritage debates,has served to keep me marginal to main-stream New Zealand archaeology” (Kahotea2004).

ETHICS, ARCHAEOLOGY, ANDINDIGENOUS ISSUES

Ethics statements promulgated by the world’smajor archaeological or anthropologicalorganizations—the American Anthropo-logical Association (1998), the AustralianArchaeological Association (2004), theCanadian Archaeological Association (1996),the European Association of Archaeologists(1998), the New Zealand ArchaeologicalAssociation (1999), the Register of Profes-sional Archaeologists (2002), the Society forAmerican Archaeology (1996), and the WorldArchaeological Congress (1989)—recognizeanthropology’s or archaeology’s relationshipwith and responsibilities to the Indigenouspopulations with which it works. The pro-cesses that led to the formulation of theseethics statements are as important as the finalcodes themselves. There is not enough roomto examine the processes in detail here, butLynott & Wylie (2000) discuss the Society forAmerican Archaeology’s Principles of Archae-ological Ethics; Nicholson et al. (1996) discussthe Canadian Archaeological Association’sStatement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Per-taining to Aboriginal Peoples; and Zimmerman& Bruguier (1994) discuss the World Archae-ological Code of Ethics as it relates to In-digenous people. The New Zealand Archae-ological Association adopted the Society forAmerican Archaeology’s Principles of Archae-ological Ethics with only minor adaptation,whereas the Australian Archaeological Asso-ciation’s Code of Ethics mirrors the WorldArchaeological Congress’ Code of Ethics.

These Codes, although necessary steps to-ward integrating the perspectives of nonan-thropologists in the discipline and examininganthropology’s impact (both intentional andunintentional) on local communities world-wide, have little meaning if they are believedto take the place of meaningful ongoing com-munication with Indigenous groups. And suchstatements may have no meaning to peoplewho are not members of the organizations andassociations and who do not agree to be bound

440 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

by the statements. As the discipline of archae-ology questions its relative value and place inthe contemporary world, it becomes necessaryfor individual archaeologists to continually re-examine the impact of their relationships withthe nonarchaeologists that surround them aswell as the utility that Indigenous groups canmake of our discipline.

DOES “UNSPOKEN” MEAN“UNPROBLEMATIC”?

When one looks at the archaeological litera-ture, one can interpret the relative quiet of theIndigenous voice concerning archaeology indifferent ways. Does the paucity of publishedcomment mean Indigenous groups have noissues with the way archaeology is practicedor the way archaeology impacts them, or does

that quietude mean only that no one has askedtheir opinion? Perhaps the air is silent onlybecause Indigenous people are unable to gettheir opinions published, or maybe the In-digenous group is afraid to draw attention totheir situation for one reason or another.

Regardless of the real reason, there is noreal way of knowing the basis for the rela-tive silence of the Indigenous communitiesthroughout the world in relation to the disci-pline of archaeology. But the more we inviteIndigenous groups to be involved in our dis-cipline and make them equal partners in theenterprise, the more we should begin hearingthose voices. If we listen, we can hear themnow, as soft as they may be. If we give themthe opportunity to speak, they may shout atfirst, but perhaps, with time, we can all con-verse in normal tones.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Indigenous peoples have an unequal place in the international political and socialstructure.

2. Archaeology is viewed by Indigenous peoples as a colonialist enterprise with contin-uing political undertones.

3. Relations between archaeologists and Indigenous groups in the United States aregenerally cool, although some tribal groups use archaeology and its methods to meetlegal standards concerning cultural resources management.

4. In Canada, the lack of a national law regarding cultural (heritage) resources man-agement has generally allowed provinces to establish varying degrees of relationshipswith First Nations.

5. In Mesoamerica and South America, the study and awareness of the formal relation-ship between archaeologists are in their nascent stage, with the relationships only nowbeing examined openly.

6. In Scandinavia, the Indigenous peoples (the Sami) have only recently become involvedin discussing the archaeological material from the Sami perspective.

7. In Australia and New Zealand, the Aboriginal peoples (the Australian Aboriginals andthe Maori) are more involved with using archaeology as a means of re-establishingland tenure.

8. The ethics statements of most of the world’s major archaeological and anthropologicalassociations recognize the responsibilities to the Indigenous peoples whom they studyor with whom they work.

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 441

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

UNRESOLVED ISSUES/FUTURE DIRECTIONS

1. Indigenous peoples need to gain equal footing on the world’s social and political stage.

2. Archaeology needs to continue to examine its relationship with Indigenous peoplesand recognize that stewardship should be shared.

3. Indigenous peoples and archaeologists have much to learn from each other, and opencommunication will help ensure that active learning takes place.

4. Indigenous archaeology—archaeology done by and for Indigenous people—is pro-viding an Indigenous voice in the practice of archaeology as a means of allowingalternative interpretations of the archaeological record.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The idea that Indigenous peoples have the right to be involved in the ways that archaeologysearches through their refuse has been espoused by a myriad of authors over the years. RoderickSprague is one of the first archaeologists I can remember whose writings influenced my own;Dorothy Lippert, Claire Smith, Martin Wobst, and Larry Zimmerman share my resolve toget more Indigenous voices published and act as intrepid advisors. Today’s authors are moreaware of the influence of Indigenous thought, especially those authors involved in the “ClosetChickens” listserv. Many of the ideas that have come home to roost with that group inform mythoughts. I also thank Carol Ellick, whose advice has helped shape not only my writings butalso me, and my children Ethan and Sydney, who continue to shape the father I become.

LITERATURE CITED

Aikio M, Aikio P. 1994. A chapter in the history of the colonization of Sami lands: the forcedmigration of Norwegian reindeer Sami to Finland in the 1800s. See Layton 1994, pp.116–30

Aird M. 2002. Developments in the repatriation of human remains and other cultural items inQueensland. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 303–11

Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 1998. Code of Ethics. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethc-ode.htm

Ames M. 2000. Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: Univ.B.C. 230 pp. 2nd ed.

Anderson C. 1985. On the notion of Aboriginality: a discussion. Mankind 15:41–43Archer J. 1991. Ambiguity in political ideology: Aboriginality as nationalism. See Thiele 1991,

pp. 161–70Asch M, Samson C. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:261–62Asian Development Bank. 2004. Definition of indigenous people. http://www.adb.org/

Documents/Policies/Indigenous Peoples/ippp 002.aspATSIC (Aborig. Torres Strait Isl. Comm.). 2004. An analysis of the United Na-

tions Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.atsic.gov.au/issues/indigenous rights/international/draft declaration/draft dec five d.asp

Aust. Archaeol. Assoc. 2004. Code of Ethics of the Australian Archaeological Association.http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/codeofethics.php

442 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Ayala P, Avendano S, Cardenas U. 2003. Linkages between a social archaeology and Ollague’sindigenous community (region of Antofagasta, Chile). Chungara (Arica) 35:275–85

Bannerjee SB. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, cultureas property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:224–25

Bannister K. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, cultureas property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:225–26

Beattie O, Apland B, Blake EW, Cosgrove JA, Gaunt S, et al. 2000. The Kwaday Dan Ts’ınchidiscovery from a glacier in British Columbia. Can. J. Archaeol. 24:129–47

Beck W, Brown C, Murphy D, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. Yarrawarra Places:making stories. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 42 pp.

Begay RM. 1997. The role of archaeology on Indian lands: the Navajo Nation. See Swidleret al. 1997, pp. 161–66

Beteille A. 1998. The idea of indigenous people. Curr. Anthropol. 39:187–91Bettinger R. 1991. Hunter/Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. New York: Plenum.

280 pp.Biolsi T, Zimmerman L, eds. 1997. Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique

of Anthropology. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. 240 pp.Bray T. 1996. Repatriation, power relations and the politics of the past. Antiquity 70:440–44Bray T, ed. 2001. The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation. New

York: Garland. 272 pp.Bray T, Killian T, eds. 1994. Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the

Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. 194 pp.Brooke J. 1999. Ancient man uncovered in Canadian ice: hunter preserved with clothing, tools.

San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 25:1Brothwell D. 2004. Bring out your dead – people, pots, and politics. Antiquity 78:414–18Brown C, Beck W, Murphy D, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. The Old Camp: Corindi

Lake North. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 42 pp.Brown M. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights

issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 43:342–43Brush S. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous people incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as

property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:226–27Can. Archaeol. Assoc. 1996. Statement for principles of ethical conduct pertaining to Aboriginal

peoples. http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/ethical.lassoCarter CE. 1997. Straight talk and trust. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 151–55Castaneda Q. 2002. Ethics and intervention in Yucatec Maya archaeology: past and present.

http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Castaneda.html.Castree N. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture

as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:227Charlie D, Clark DW. 2003. Frenchman and Tatchun Lakes: Long Ago People. Whitehorse,

Canada: Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 26 pp.Childs JB, Delgado-P G. 1999. On the idea of indigenous. Curr. Anthropol. 40:211–12Cocom J. 2002. Privilege and ethics in archaeology: the experience as fiction. http://ethical.

arts.ubc.ca/Cocom.htmlCoggins C. 2003. Latin America, Native America, and the politics of culture. In Claiming the

Stones, Naming the Bones: Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity,ed. E Barkan, R Bush, pp. 97–115. Los Angeles: Getty Res. Inst.

Cohen E. 2003. Multiculturalism, Latin Americans, and ‘Indigeneity’ in Australia. Aust. J.Anthropol. 14:39–52

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 443

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Cohodas M. 2002. Toward a More Ethical Mayanist Archaeology. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Introduction.html

Cojtı Cuxil D. 2002. Mayanist archaeology and Maya patrimony. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/CojtiCuxil.html

Cojtı Ren A. 2002. Maya archaeology and the political and cultural identity of contemporary Mayapeople. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/CojtiRen.html

Cypress BL. 1997. The role of archaeology in the Seminole Tribe of Florida. See Swidler et al.1997, pp. 156–60

Davidson I. 1991. Archaeologists and Aborigines. See Thiele 1991, pp. 247–58Dhillion SS. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture

as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:227–28Dongoske K, Aldenderfer M, Doehner K, eds. 2000. Working Together: Native Americans and

Archaeologists. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol. 237 pp.Dow C, Gardiner-Garden J. 1998. Indigenous affairs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United

States of America, Norway and Sweden. Backgr. Pap. 15, 1997–98. Parliam. Aust., Parliam.Libr. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bp/1997–98/98bp15.htm

Downer AS. 1997. Archaeologists-Native American relations. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp.23–34

Dyck N. 1992. Indigenous peoples and the nation-state: ‘Fourth World’ politics in Canada,Australia, and Norway. Soc. Econ. Pap. 14. Meml. Univ. Nfd.: Inst. Soc. Econ. Res.

Echo-Hawk R. 1997. Forging a new ancient history for Native America. See Swidler et al.1997, pp. 88–102

Echo-Hawk R. 2000. Exploring ancient worlds. See Dongoske et al. 2000, pp. 3–7Endere M-L. 2002. The reburial issue in Argentina: a growing conflict. See Fforde et al. 2002,

pp. 266–83Engelbrecht ML. 2002. The connection between archaeological treasures and the Koisan

people. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 242–44Eur. Assoc. Archaeol. 1998. The EAA Principles of Conduct. http://www.e-a-a.org/princond.

htmEur. Assoc. Archaeol. 1997. The EAA Code of Practice. http://www.e-a-a.org/codeprac.htmFerguson TJ. 1996. Native Americans and the practice of archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

25:63–79Ferguson TJ, Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2004. One valley, many histories: Tohono O’odham,

Hopi, Zuni and Western Apache history in the San Pedro valley. Archaeol. SW 18:1–16Ferguson TJ, Watkins J, Pullar GL. 1997. Native Americans and archaeologists: commentary

and personal perspectives. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 237–52Fforde C, Hubert J, Turnbull P, eds. 2002. The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in

Principle, Policy and Practice, One World Archaeol. Ser. 43. London: RoutledgeForsman L. 1997. Straddling the current: a view from the bridge over Clear Salt Water. See

Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 105–11Fowler D. 1987. Uses of the past: archaeology in the services of the state. Am. Antiq. 52:229–48Friesen TM. 1998. Qikiqtqruk: Inuvialuit Archaeology on Herschel Island. Whitehorse, Canada:

Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 22 pp.Fuller R. 1997. A Me-Wuk perspective on Sierran archaeology. See Swidler et al. 1997,

pp. 143–48Gonzalez, A. 2003. Archaeology applied to the development of Atacameno communities. Chun-

gara (Arica) 35:287–93Gotthardt R. 2000. Ta’an Kwach’an: People of the Lake. Whitehorse, Canada: Gov. Yukon, Herit.

Branch. 32 pp.

444 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Gotthardt R, Hare G. 1994. Fish Lake: Uncovering the Past. Whitehorse, Canada: Gov. Yukon,Herit. Branch. 36 pp.

Greene S. 2004. Indigenous People Incorporated? culture as politics, culture as property inpharmaceutical bioprospecting (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:211–24

Greer S, Harrison R, McIntyre-Tamwoy S. 2002. Community-based archaeology in Australia.World Archaeol. 34:265–87

Haber A. 2005. Archaeology at both sides of the iron bars. Archaeologies 1:In pressHamilakis Y. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights

issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:343–44Hammil J, Cruz R. 1994. Statement of American Indians against desecration before the World

Archaeological Congress. See Layton 1994, pp. 32–45Hare G, Gotthardt R. 1996. A Look Back in Time: The Archaeology of Fort Selkirk. Whitehorse,

Canada: Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 32 pp.Hare G, Greer S. 1994. Desdele Mene’: The Archaeology of Annie Lake. Whitehorse, Canada:

Gov. Yukon, Herit. Branch. 29 pp.Hayden C. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture

as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting.’ Curr. Anthropol. 45:228–29Heinen D. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:262Hubbs D. 2002. Cultural heritage: conflict, contradiction, and rationalization in South Australia.

PhD thesis. Univ. S. Aust., Adelaide. 456 pp.Hubert J. 1994. A proper place for the dead: a critical review of the “reburial” issue. See Layton

1994, pp. 131–66Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights Proj. 2003. Study Guide: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Univ. Minn. Hum. Rights Cent. http://www.hrusa.org/indig/studyguide.htmInt. Labour Organ. 1989. C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989. http://www.

ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/recomm/instr/c 169.htmIsaacson K. 2004. Walking arm in arm. http://antiquity.ac.uk/wac5/issacson.htmlJackson L, Stevens RH. 1997. Hualapai tradition, religion, and the role of Cultural Resource

Management. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 135–42Jemison GP. 1997. Who owns the past? See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 57–63Jones DG, Harris R. 1998. Archaeological human remains. Curr. Anthropol. 39:253–64Kahotea D. 2004. Commitment to Indigenous Archaeology. http://antiquity.ac.uk/wac5/

kahotea.htmlKarlsson B. 2003. Anthropology and the ‘Indigenous Slot’: claims to and debates about Indige-

nous Peoples’ status in India. Crit. Anthropol. 23:403–23Kehoe A. 1998. The Land of Prehistory. New York: Routledge. 288 pp.Kelly R. 1998. Native Americans and archaeology: a vital partnership. Soc. Am. Archaeol. Bull.

16:24–26Kenrick J, Lewis J. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:263Klesert AL, Downer AS, eds. 1990. Preservation on the Reservation: Native Americans, Native

American Lands and Archeology. Navajo Nation Pap. Anthropol. No. 26. Navajo NationArcheol. Dep. Navajo Nation Hist. Preserv. Dep.

Kluth R, Munnell K. 1997. The integration of tradition and scientific knowledge on the LeechLake Reservation. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 112–19

Kuper A. 2003. The return of the native (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 44:389–95Layton R, ed. 1994. Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London: Unwin Hyman. 272

pp.Lewins F. 1991 Theoretical and political implications of the dynamic approach to Aboriginality.

See Thiele 1991, pp. 171–78

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 445

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Lewis WH, Lamas G, Vaisberg A, Rogerio Castro N, Elvin-Lewis M. 2004. Comment on ‘In-digenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as property in pharmaceuticalbioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:229–31

Lippert D. 1997. In front of the mirror: Native Americans and academic archaeology. SeeSwidler et al. 1997, pp. 120–27

Lopez L. 2002. The protection of Indigenous peoples’ knowledge. http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Lopez.html.

Lowenthal D. 1994. Conclusion: archaeologists and others. In The Politics of the Past, ed. PGathercole, D Lowenthal, pp. 302–14. London: Routledge

Lurie NO. 1988. Relations between Indians and anthropologists. In History of Indian-WhiteRelations, ed. WE Washburn, pp. 548–56. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.

Lynott M, Wylie A, eds. 2000. Ethics in American Archaeology. Washington, DC: Soc. Am.Archaeol. 168 pp. 2nd ed.

Martin R. 1997. How traditional Navajos view historic preservation: a question of interpreta-tion. See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 128–34

McAfee K. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, cultureas property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting.’ Curr. Anthropol. 45:231–32

McGuire R. 1992. Archaeology and the first Americans. Am. Anthropol. 94:816–36McGuire R. 1997. Why have archaeologists thought the real Indians were dead and what can

we do about it? See Biolsi & Zimmerman 1997, pp. 63–91Meltzer D. 1983. The antiquity of man and the development of American Archaeology. Advan.

Methods Theory 8:1–51Meskell L. 2002. The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

31:279–301Mihesuah D. 1996. American Indians, anthropologists, pothunters and repatriation: ethical,

religious, and political differences. Am. Indian Q. 20:229–37Morse B. 1997. Comparative assessments of Indigenous Peoples in Australasia, Scandinavia,

and North America. Sover. Symp. 10th, pp. 309–44. Oklahoma City: Okla. Bar Assoc.Mulk I-M. 1997. Sacrificial places and their meaning in Sami society. In Sacred Sites, Sacred

Places, ed. D Carmichael, J Hubert, B Reeves, A Schande, pp. 121–31. London: Unwin-Hyman

Mulvaney J. 1991. Past regained, future lost: the Kow Swamp Pleistocene burials. Antiquity65:12–21

Murphy D, Beck W, Brown C, Perkins T, Smith A, Somerville M. 2000. ‘No man’s land’: Campsat Corindi Lake South. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 40 pp.

N. Z. Archaeol. Assoc. 1999. NZAA Code of Ethics. http://www.nzarchaeology.org/ethics.htmNicholas GP. 2000. Archaeology, education, and the Secwepemc. In Forging Respect: Archae-

ologists and Native Americans Working Together, ed. KE Dongoske, KE Aldenderfer, KDoehner, pp. 153–63. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol.

Nicholas GP. 1998. The SFU-Secwepemc Education Institute Archaeology Field School.Midden 3:2–5

Nicholas GP, Andrews T. 1997. Indigenous archaeology in the postmodern world. In At aCrossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, ed. G Nicholas, T Andrews, pp. 1–18.Vancouver, BC: Archaeol. Press

Nicholas GP, Bannister KP. 2004. Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual propertyrights issues in archaeology (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:327–42

Nicholson B, Pokotylo D, Williamson R. 1996. Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Per-taining to Aboriginal Peoples: A Report from the Aboriginal Heritage Committee. Can. Archaeol.Assoc. Dep. Can. Herit.

446 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Olsson S, Lewis D. 1995. Welfare rules and indigenous rights: the Sami people and the Nordicwelfare states. In Social Welfare with Indigenous Peoples, ed. J Dixon, R Scheurell, pp. 141–85.London: Routledge

Omura K. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:395–96Ouzman S. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights

issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:344–45Pardoe C. 1992. Arches of radii, corridors of power: Reflections on current archaeological

practice. In Power, Knowledge, and Aborigines, ed. B Attwood, B. Arnold, pp. 132–41.Melbourne: La Trobe Univ.

Plaice E. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:396–97Poblete D. 2003. A proposal for approaching the archaeological heritage of the Belen commu-

nity (Region of Tarapaca, Chile). Chungara (Arica) 35:327–35Pritchard S. 2001. Indigenous peoples’ rights and self-determination. Australasian Legal Infor-

mation Institute, Human Rights Defender Manual. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HRLRes/2001/8/

Pullar GL. 1994. The Qikertarmuit and the scientist: fifty years of clashing world views. SeeBray & Killion 1994, pp. 15–25

Ramos AR. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:397–98Ratnagar S. 2004. Archaeology at the heart of a political confrontation: the case of Ayodhya

(with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:239–49Regist. Prof. Archaeol. 2002. Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance. http://

www.rpanet.orgRiding In J. 1992. Without ethics and morality: a historical overview of imperial archaeology

and American Indians. Ariz. State Law J. 24:11–34Roberts A. 2003. Knowledge, power and voice: An investigation of indigenous South Australian

perspectives of archaeology. PhD thesis. Flinders Univ., AdelaideRobins S. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native.’ Curr. Anthropol. 44:398–99Rodrıguez U, Alfaro L. 2003. Archaeology, cultural heritage, and native populations: reflections

from the Atacama Desert. Chungara (Arica) 35:295–304Romero A. 2003. Archaeology and Indigenous communities of northern Chile. Chungara (Ar-

ica) 35:337–46Roughly A. 1991 Racism, Aboriginality, and textuality: toward a deconstructing discourse. See

Thiele 1991, pp. 202–12Sackett L. 1991 Promoting primitivism: conservationist depictions of Aboriginal Australians.

See Thiele 1991, pp. 233–46Sampson D. 1997. (Former) Tribal chair questions scientists’ motives and credibility. http://www.

umatilla.nsn.us/kman2.htmlSaugestad S. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:263–64Schanche A. 2002. Saami skulls, anthropological race research and the repatriation question in

Norway. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 47–59Sellevold BJ. 2002. Skeletal remains of the Norwegian Saami. See Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 59–62Smith A, Beck W, Brown C, Murphy D, Perkins T, Somerville M. 2000. Red Rock: Camping

and Exchange. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 38 pp.Smith B, Ouzman S. 2004. Taking stock: identifying Khoekhoen herder rock art in southern

Africa (with CA comment). Curr. Anthropol. 45:499–515Smith C, Burke H. 2003. In the spirit of the code. See Zimmerman et al. 2003, pp. 177–200Smith L. 2004. The repatriation of human remains—problem or opportunity? Antiquity

78:404–13

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 447

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Soc. Am. Archaeol. 1996. Principles of Archaeological Ethics. http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/ethics.html

Somerville M, Beck W, Brown C, Murphy D, Perkins T, Smith A. 2000. Arrawarra MeetingPlace. Armidale, Aust.: Univ. New Engl. 42 pp.

Sorenson E. 1999. B.C.’s ‘Long Ago Man’: a snapshot in time. Seattle Times, Sept. 14. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com

Suzman J. 2003. Comment on ‘The return of the native’. Curr. Anthropol. 44:399–400Swidler N, Dongoske KE, Anyon R, Downer AS, eds. 1997. Native Americans and Archaeologists:

Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. 289 pp.Sylvain R. 2002. Land, water, and truth: San identity and global Indigenism. Am. Anthropol.

104:1074–85Syms EL. 1997. Increasing awareness and involvement of Aboriginal People in their heritage

preservation: recent developments at the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. SeeNicholas & Andrews 1997, pp. 53–68

Thiele S, ed. 1991. Reconsidering Aboriginality. Aust. J. Anthropol. 2(2): Spec. issueThorley P. 2002. Current realities, idealized pasts: archaeology, values and indigenous heritage

management in Central Australia. Oceania 73:110–25Trigger BG. 1980. Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. Am. Antiq. 45:662–76Trigger BG. 1986. Prehistoric archaeology and American society: an historical perspective. In

American Archaeology: Past and Future, ed. D Meltzer, DD Fowler, JA Sabloff, pp. 187–215.Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.

Trigger BG. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressTurnbull P. 2002. Indigenous Australian people, their defence of the dead and native title. See

Fforde et al. 2002, pp. 63–86Turner T. 2004. On the return of the native. Curr. Anthropol. 45:264–65TwoBears D. 2000. A Navajo student’s perception: anthropology and the Navajo Nation Ar-

chaeology Department Student Training Program. See Dongoske et al. 2000, pp. 15–22Veber H. 2004. Comment on ‘Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as

property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:232Vitelli KD. 2004. Comment on ‘Copyrighting the past? Emerging intellectual property rights

issues in archaeology’. Curr. Anthropol. 45:345Watkins J. 2000a. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira. 218 pp.Watkins J. 2000b. Writing unwritten history. Archaeology 53(6):36–41Watkins J. 2001. Yours, mine, or ours?: conflicts between archaeologists and ethnic groups.

See Bray 2001, pp. 57–68White Deer G. 1997. Return of the sacred: spirituality and the scientific imperative. See Swidler

et al. 1997, pp. 37–43Wikipedia. 2004. Indigenous peoples. In Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Indigenous peopleWorld Archaeol. Congr. 1989. The Vermillion Accord on Human Remains. http://ehlt.flinders.

edu.au/wac/site/about ethi.phpWorld Archaeol. Congr. World Archaeological Congress First Code of Ethics. http://ehlt.

flinders.edu.au/wac/site/about ethi.phpWHO. 2004. Ethics and Health. http://www.who.int/ethics/indigenous peoples/en/

index.htmlYellowhorn E. 2000. Indians, archaeology, and the changing world. See Lynott & Wylie 2000,

pp. 126–37

448 Watkins

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-22 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Yellowhorn E. 2002. Awakening Internalist Archaeology in the Aboriginal World. PhD thesis.McGill Univ., Montreal

Zimmerman L. 1997. Remythologizing the relationship between Indians and archaeologists.See Swidler et al. 1997, pp. 44–57

Zimmerman L. 2001. Usurping Native American voice. See Bray 2001, pp. 169–84Zimmerman L, Bruguier L. 1994. Indigenous peoples and the World Archaeological Congress

Code of Ethics. Public Archaeol. Rev. 2:5–8Zimmerman L, Vitelli KD, Hollowell-Zimmer J, eds. 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira. 336 pp.

www.annualreviews.org • Through Wary Eyes 449

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

FrontispieceSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern HumansErik Trinkaus � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 207

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 495

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 523

Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 741

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Indexes

Subject Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:429

-449

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Geo

rget

own

Uni

vers

ity M

edic

al C

ente

r- D

AH

LG

RE

N M

ED

ICA

L L

IBR

AR

Y o

n 09

/13/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.