 World
Archaeological Bulletin
Number One
Cultural Imperialism: American Indian Remains in Cardboard Boxes
Jan Hammil
In April 1986, at the Plenary Session of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA),
for the first time within the profession, Indian speakers and archaeologists appeared
together and addressed the issue of the remains of some 500 000 American Indians currently
stored in cardboard boxes, paper sacks and plastic bags in archaeological laboratories,
museums and universities throughout the United States of America. Two of the three Indian
speakers were Maria Pearson, a member of the Iowa Indian Commission, and Jan Hammil,
Director of American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD).
A project of the American Indian Movement and the International Indian Treaty Council,
AIAD was formed in 1980 for the purpose of addressing and challenging the archaeological
treatment of Indian remains, and the desecration of sacred Indian burial sites. Although
the focus of attention by AIAD and other Indian organizations had been limited to local,
state and national boundaries, Indian people have been aware for some time that
excavations and international trading practices between universities and museums had
resulted in thousands of Indian remains and sacred objects being shipped and stored in
facilities throughout Europe, thereby making the treatment of American Indian burials and
the violation of traditional Indian religious beliefs an international problem.
Present at the SAA Plenary Session were representatives of the World Archaeological
Congress, which resulted in invitations to the American Indian speakers to attend the
September Congress in Southampton, England. AIAD had previously considered attending the
Southampton meeting, but had rejected the idea because of the progress then being made
between archaeologists and Indian people within the United States over the 'reburial'
issue. That decision was reconsidered when, following the Plenary Session, the Executive
Committee of the SAA adopted a policy on the treatment of human remains which included the
following statement:
The weight accorded to any claim made by an individual or group concerning particular
human remains should depend upon the strength of their demonstrated biological or cultural
affinity with the remains in question.
Such a policy placed unreasonable requirements on the American Indian, and was
obviously formulated in the knowledge that such a requirement could never be met by Indian
people, particularly when considering the genocide policies pursued against the Indian
nations by the United States' government. The SAA statement was therefore viewed as an
insult to the Indian people. The limited contact that previously existed between the
American Indians and the Executive Committee of the SAA was therefore halted. Further
polarization developed as we at AIAD became aware of lobbying efforts by members of the
SAA's Executive Committee to various federal agencies, stating the SAA's opposition to
contact with Indian people in general, and with AIAD specifically, over the treatment of
American Indian remains. As such agencies are required to consult with traditional
spiritual leaders under the American Indian Freedom of Religion Act, these efforts by the
SAA's Executive Committee were viewed as attempts to subvert the constitutional right of
the American Indian.
While many archaeologists viewed the lack of contact with the Indians as being of no
particular concern, AIAD had been very clear that it was totally unacceptable for American
archaeologists to continue to ignore the 'problem', emphasising that whatever means
necessary would be taken to ensure that the issue and storage of 500 000 Indian bodies
would be addressed. Whether solutions resulted in third party intervention, judicial
review, or federal legislation to exclude scientific interest, as opposed to Indian people
and archaeologists seeking reasonable working relationships, is, from our position,
immaterial. To the extent that such third party intervention would affect scientists
throughout the world we suggest that decisions by archaeologists in America will affect
the interests of all archaeologists, and we question whether such interest is being
accurately protected, voiced and represented.
As predicted, the position taken by the Executive Committee of the SAA resulted in
litigation (Hammil & Means vs AMREP) halting a S17 000 000 construction project in the
state of New Mexico. While this litigation resulted in the return and replacement of the
Pueblo remains and sacred objects previously removed from the site, it also resulted in
the removal of the archaeologist employed by AMREP, all fulfilling demands made by AIAD in
the course of litigation. Additional preparation of legal actions by other Indian
organizations occurred, as well as the introduction of federal legislation by Senator
Melcher of Wyoming, all with the specific intent of limiting future input by
archaeologists into the treatment and disposition of Indian burials. Simply stated, if
archaeologists in the United States decided to ignore the effects of their profession on
the religious practices, customs and traditions of the American Indian, we found little
alternative but to respond by excluding the profession, arguing that while the US
Constitution ensured the right of religious freedom it remained silent on the right of
scientific study.
Under such a negative atmosphere, invitations to the World Archaeological Congress were
accepted by the various Indian organizations, including the Intertribal Council of Arizona
as represented by Cecil Antone, and Steve Moore of the Native American Rights Fund.
Representing AIAD was myself as Director, and Robert Cruz from the Papago Reservation in
Southern Arizona.
While many significant advantages resulted for Indian participants in the Congress, one
of the most important was the realization that the respect and sanctity of all graves was
universal, particularly amongst third world peoples. While many Indians were aware that
the treatment of the Australian Aboriginal remains had been addressed, few had the
opportunity, until Southampton, to meet and discuss with either the people or the
archaeologists the events and current status of such relationships. On the contrary,
American Indians had been led to believe that our respect for our ancestors' graves was
indicative of some form of abnormality unique to the American Indian.
As usual, communications between the Indian participants had occurred prior to our
arrival in England. It was a surprise, however, that during the sessions all participants
emphasized the frustration felt by Indian people concerning the treatment of our ancestors
by the archaeological community, and addressed themselves to Indian concerns. Despite the
partial boycott of the Congress by Americans as a result of the ban on South Africa, our
session entitled 'Material Culture and the Making of the Modern United States: Views from
Native America' was well attended, with archaeologists standing in the aisles and
overflowing out of the hall. As the first paper was presented I sensed the reactions of
both surprise and shock from non-American archaeologists to the objections being voiced by
their colleagues from America. While we were pleased with the positive feed-back following
the session we were very surprised when the enthusiasm extended and grew as the week
progressed, resulting in invitations to attend and participate in other sessions involving
third world interests. We found it interesting that many archaeologists who viewed
Americans as being advanced in most areas of their profession expressed concerns about the
retardation of the US archaeologists in the area of human relations.
For Indian people it was refreshing to learn that not all archaeologists feared
discussion of the treatment of Indian remains with Indian people and, in fact, accepted
and encouraged the development of a working relationship in attempts to resolve
differences. One of the more important results of the Southampton Congress was the meeting
of Indian people from throughout the Western hemisphere. While communications between the
various nations in North America had been well established, for the first time discussions
of mutual problems and concerns occurred with Indian peoples from South America,
establishing that the same problem existed for all red people of the Western hemisphere.
As a result of Southampton, the issue of desecration has been brought to the
international archaeological community. Whether a reformed World Archaeological Congress
continues to exist is yet unclear. What remains clear is that the issue will not 'go away'
simply because of an inability on the part of individuals, organizations or nations to
address the issues. Equally clear, we hope, is the unacceptability of placing scientific
interest over the religious beliefs, practices and customs of third world people.
It is our hope, however, that the most significant message retained as a result of
Southampton will be that third world peoples have additional contributions to offer, other
than as additions to collections, artifacts and objects of antiquity. The organizers of
the World Archaeological Congress made a decision to include third world peoples as human
beings in an atmosphere of respect for the right of each other to exist, thereby
developing the potential for better relationships. We believe that such progress is
important to all peoples; the white and black man as well as the red and yellow.
This page built by the blood sweat and OCR of Dave
Redhouse, 22nd March, 1995
Last update 26th March, 1995
Comments and suggestions to Sara Champion
|
