Archaeology in the Service of the Tribe: Three Episodes in Twenty-first-Century Tribal Archaeology in the US–Mexico Borderlands

Abstract

The 1987 publication “Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State” offers the inspiration for considering the emerging role of descendent communities in archaeological research and cultural resource management in the American Southwest. Recognizing that interpretations of the past are seldom “value neutral”, we explore the implications and benefits of interpretations of the past when they are “value tribal”. Three episodes in twenty-first-century Tribal Archaeology in Arizona are considered including repatriation of religious objects under state statutes, international repatriation of human remains, and Tribal documentation of traditional cultural properties. We conclude that as federally recognized tribes initiate their own programs in archaeological investigation and assume greater responsibility in the cultural resource management process, new perspectives on the past are coming to light that are of potential benefit to everyone.

La publicación en 1987 de “Los Usos del Pasado: La Arqueología en Servicio del Estado” nos inspira a considerar el rol emergente que cumplen los descendientes de comunidades indigenas en la investigación arqueológica y la gestión de recursos culturales en el Suroeste de los Estados Unidos. Tomando en cuenta que las interpretaciones del pasado raramente son neutrales (“Value neutral”), exploramos las implicaciones y beneficios que surgen cuando el pasado es interpretado con valores tribales (“value tribal”). Analizamos tres episodios del siglo 21 que transcurrieron en Arizona: la repatriación de objetos religiosos bajo un estatuto a nivel de estado, la repatriación internacional de restos humanos, y la documentación tribal de propiedad cultural tradicional. Concluimos que a medida que tribus con reconocimiento federal inician programas de investigación arqueológica y asumen mayor responsabilidad en el manejo de recursos culturales, también surgen nuevas perspectivas acerca del pasado que pueden traer beneficios mayores.

KEYWORDS:

• NAGPRA
• Traditional Cultural Property
• Yaqui
• Repatriation
• Guanaco Figurine
• A.R.S. §41–844
• Genocide
• O'odham

Acknowledgements

This article covers far too much ground to acknowledge everyone who may have contributed to the three episodes in Tribal archaeology that we present. For the sake of brevity and by proxy, we would like to thank the following institutions who assisted us over the years: the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) (including the Cultural Resource Management Program, the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, and the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project), the international community of the Yaqui Tribe (including the Pascua Yaqui Tribe in the U.S. and the Tribu Yaqui in Mexico), the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) (in Sonora and in Mexico City), the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CDI), the Arizona State Museum (ASM), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the National Parks Service (NPS). Certain individuals should be identified for their direct assistance including James Hopkins (University of Arizona), Nell Murphy (AMNH), M. Kyle Woodson (GRIC CRMP), Larry Benallie (GRIC THPO), Heidi Bauer-Clapp (UMASS-Amherst), Ventura Pérez (UMASS-Amherst), Randall McGuire (Binghamton University), Lynn Teague (ASM, formerly), Raquel Padilla Ramos (INAH Sonora), Guadalupe Lara Amézquita, Ernesto Argüellez Méndez, José Antonio Pompa y Padilla (INAH), Victor Nocamea Valencia, Joaquin Muñoz, to name only a few. Randall McGuire, Paul Fish (ASM), and a third anonymous reviewer assisted us with their insightful comments. Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna (Southern Methodist University) generously donated his time to translate our abstract. The authors, of course, take full responsibility for the content and perspectives expressed in this article.

Notes

1 We would be remiss in failing to acknowledge that other descendent communities have their own archaeologies representing Latin Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans and as yet federally unrecognized Native Americans, to name a few. However, federally recognized Tribes in the United States are also sovereign nations. Through cultural resource programing and as Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), they have the option of participating in the national program for historic preservation, and many federally recognized Tribes do. In so doing, they introduce a culture of the past and its preservation that reflects their needs and purposes while fulfilling the requirements of federal legislation.

2 The Gila River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Ak Chin Indian Community and the Tohono O'odham Nation are independent, federally recognized Indian Nations often identified collectively as the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona. The O'odham residents of the Gila River Indian Community are known as Akimel O'odham or ‘River People’, whereas O'odham from other areas are known as the Tohono O'odham, the Hia'ced O'odham, among others. In this article general references to culture or cultural practices are identified as O'odham; likewise, we refer to the culture of Pascua Yaqui in Arizona and the Tribu Yaqui living in Río Yaqui, Sonora as Yaqui. While it is important to acknowledge that regional, cultural and linguistic differences exist between these related communities, we do not explore these differences in this presentation.

3 Described by some scholars as the “new animal geography”, contemplation of the role of place and space in human–animal relationships accompanies traditional anthropological, sociological, and psychological approaches (Philo and Wilbert 2000:2–4). These include the spiritual, religious, economic, and dietary characteristics of human–animal relationships cross-culturally (see for example Knight 2000; Manning and Serpell 1994; Philo and Wilbert 2000; Serpell 1986, 1995; Urton 1985).

4 On June 15, 2001, the newspaper article “Hohokam must-haves — Were guanaco artifacts idols or pre-Columbian kid craze?” appeared in the Arizona Republic. Written largely tongue-in-cheek, the article engaged in an ethnocentric exercise stating that the figurines were “bobble-headed” toys that served as souvenirs from ceremonial ballgames (Arizona Republic 2001).