Ashley Scott
December 7, 2009
ANTH 600
Topic 12: Constructing Identities
Constructing Identities: Indigenous Peoples and Archaeology
Ethnic identity is a challenging subject that often entails larger tensions
between individuals, the collective group, and the state. The articles by Anawak and
Mamani Condori provide indigenous perspectives on ethnic identity. For Anawak,
the time-honored traditions of his culture are an essential part of his ethnic identity.
This is evidenced by his statement that: “We, as Inuit, have a strong sense of self –
of who we are, and why we are as we are. Although our north is changing…we
maintain to ourselves that which is passed on to us and will be passed on by us”
(Anawak 648). For Mamani Condori, on the other hand, the archaeological ruins left
by ancient cultures are “the source of our identity” (Mamani Condori 635).
The articles by Anawak and Mamani Condori demonstrate how a person’s ethnic
identity is closely associated with their culture’s past. However, the Western
opposition of past and present is largely rejected by indigenous people. For them,
there is no differentiating between the two; time is viewed as being cyclical and
immanent rather than linear and progressive. (Preucel and Hodder 604-605) This
cyclical view of time can be seen in Anawak’s article when he describes the Inuit
tradition of passing down names from one generation to the next. He states that his
own name, Illuitock, had been passed down to him, and in the future he will carry
on the tradition by passing the name down himself. His name is what connects him
to the past and the future. The notion of time being cyclical is further demonstrated
by Anawak’s statement that in his culture “time-honoured skills and attitudes can
never be relegated solely to the past; (they) ensure a way of life and survival in the
present and for the future” (Anawak 647).
Another issue of contention for indigenous people is the contrast between a
“dead” and “living” past, which is discussed in Mamani Condori’s article. Here he
shows how a “dead” past has been produced by explorers and researchers whose
“discovery” (and renaming) of ancient sites neglected to associate them with the
contemporary living people. (Mamani Condori 634) He reminds the reader that for
native people, archaeological sites are not “dead” and that archaeological ruins “are
the link with a dignified and autonomous past in which (we were) the subjects of
our own history” (Mamani Condori’s 635).
For many indigenous people, archaeology is seen as a threat to their ethnic
identity because, by definition, archaeology separates people from their past. And to
separate them from their past is to separate them from an important source of their
ethnic identity. Mamani Condori sees the nationalist archaeology of Bolivia as a
continuation of the colonial oppression that he and other Indians endured for many
years. He even goes so far as to say that archaeology “has been up until now a
means of domination and the colonial dispossession of our identity” (Mamani
Condori 644). In his mind, in order for archaeology to benefit the Indians, it must be
undertaken by Indians themselves. A positive and cooperative relationship between
the native population and archaeologists, however, is put forth in Anawak’s article.
Here he mentions how the Inuit are taking a greater interest in archaeology, and,
unlike Mamani Condori, he envisions the Inuit working side-by-side with
archaeologists to share their knowledge. For him, “both of us can only gain from
this process” (Anawak 650). Anawak also discusses a positive relationship between
the native Inuit and the Canadian government. In his article, he describes how the
Department of Education places importance on tradition by having funds (Cultural
Inclusion funds) allocated for elders of the Inuit community to acquaint students
with aspects of traditional Inuit culture.
Zimmerman’s and Vizenor’s articles present another perspective on the topic of
identity—that of the archaeologist. Their articles discuss how ethnic identity is an
important part of the issue of reburial of Native American remains. In his article,
Zimmerman states that archaeologists “like to think that we are carrying out a noble
task, preserving the Indian past, but many Indians view it as another form of
exploitation” (Zimmerman 64). He finds fault with the assertion of many
archaeologists that “extinct cultures have a right to have their story told and that
Indian demands for limitations on excavation and analyasis prevent this”
(Zimmerman 64). He believes that, by describing the Indian cultures that are being
studied as “extinct”, these archaeologists who hold this view are also showing how
they believe that there is no cultural continuity between the Indians being studied
and contemporary tribes. A proposed solution to the issue of reburial of Native
American remains is set forth in Vizenor’s article. Here he argues for the
establishment of a “Bone Court” where tribal bones have rights to their own
narratives. He describes it as being “a forum where the rights of human remains, and
aboriginal bone narratives, would be represented” (Vizenor 656). This proposition
of a Bone Court seems more like an extreme scenario meant to “protect” the bones
from the interests of both archaeologists and Native American tribes. I agree that
some form of mediation is needed in order for the interests of the parties involved to
be addressed; however, I do not believe that a Bone Court is the solution.
It is dangerous to think that we archaeologists are the only ones who can know
the past of a certain culture. It is important to note Zimmerman’s conclusion that we
must acknowledge that “archaeologists and Indians sometimes view the world
differently” (Zimmerman 64). Like Anawak and Zimmerman, I believe that much
can be gained by archaeologists and indigenous people working side-by-side.
References
Anawak, J. (1989). Inuit perceptions of the past. In: Contemporary Archaeology in
Theory: A Reader. Preucel, R.W. and Hodder, I. (eds). Pp. 646-651.
Mamani Condori, C. (1989). History and pre-history in Bolivia: What about the Indians?
In: Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Preucel, R.W. and Hodder, I. (eds).
Pp. 632-645.
Meskell, L. and Preucel, R.W. (2004). Identities. In: Companion to Social Archaeology.
Preucel, R.W. and Hodder, I. (eds). Pp. 121-141.
Preucel, R.W. and Hodder, I. (1996). Constructing Identities. In: Contemporary
Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Preucel, R.W. and Hodder, I. (eds). Pp. 601-614.
Vizenor, G. (1986). Bone courts: The rights and narrative representations of tribal bonds.
In: Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Preucel, R.W. and Hodder, I. (eds).
Pp. 652-663.
Zimmerman, L. (1989). Made radical by my own: an archaeologist learns to accept
reburial. In: Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. Layton, R. (ed.). Pp. 60-67.