-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathrdepm4uc0ig.html
1 lines (1 loc) · 17.3 KB
/
rdepm4uc0ig.html
1
<div> With relations being important for archaeologists and museums to understand repatriation is a clear point to have when dealing with legalities of ownership. This after all, improves your exhibits and which improves the records that are being kept. This means updating or change of the archaeological ethics code in countries that have Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Relations with Indigenous groups may be different from group to group like in the Arctic. Searles says that he did not encounter the same problems that others were having due to the “<b>Kennewick man</b>” in the 1996. In the Canadian Arctic, Searles when he graduated in 1989 he was hired by the National museum of Natural History to catalog the Arctic artifacts that were in their collection. Then afterwards he was hired on to join the expedition up north as well where a member from the Inuit community joined them to help them with navigation and logistical purposes in the waters of Labrador and southern Baffin island <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Searles2017}</cite>. This hiring of the Inuit, called Pauloosie, was an important member of their team to help make sure they survived the waters. These relationships that Searles explains from his own personal experiences shows that the community and inclusiveness of archaeology can be a beneficial tool to avoid conflicts with communities like that of what was happening with the Kennewick man when he was first discovered. </div><div> Relations with the Inuit were important to keep in good standing because their knowledge of the land land was invaluable to the survival of those studying in the region(<b>Breanna- reworded this sentence and expanded for clarity.)</b>. This knowledge of the land has been exploited by the governments and colonial powers but now in recently things have been on the change. Again Searles, draws the attention to the need for inclusion to the indigenous community to help spark the desire for the indigenous communities to preserve the remains found. In these respects of preservation it is up to the community to preserve them artifacts the way they believe is the best way for them. The desire for the wanting archaeologists in the community - whether they are non-indigenous or are indigenous - the needing for the spark of archaeology is needed to help with these remains and artifacts that may be found. Searles advocates the need for more indigenous people in the field of archaeology to ensure the proper preservation of the found remains and artifacts and the inclusion is required for this. This inclusion will be needed to avoid problems here in Canada and America with the indigenous communities.</div><div> </div><h2>Archaeological reforms of Canada and America.</h2><div> </div><div> When discussing the reforms in archaeology, one must consider the change of ethics. This change helped Indigenous groups in having a voice, especially during the involvement of archaeological sites. Organizations such as the CAA (Canadian Archaeological Association), the SAA (Society for American Archaeology), and other groups have helped in defining guidelines for archaeologists in working with Indigenous communities <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Rosenswig1997}</cite>. <b>(</b><b>Nelly</b><b> - I have edited this paragraph for better flow)</b></div><div> It is a crucial step that was taken by archaeologist in the 1990’s to include the Indigenous people since they are still a living culture. The first conference of archaeologists was a global one and was the first code of ethics to be created that included Indigenous people. While <b>SOPA</b> or Society of Professional Archaeologists created a code of ethics that help to support the archaeologist within a legal measure <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Rosenswig1997}</cite>. These conferences and societies were important to help push archaeology into the modern era.</div><div> </div><div> Archaeology has been based within a colonial framework. Removal of artifacts and items to be displayed within museums for the public to see and to promote nationality and depending on where you are in the world, modernity <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Kreps1998}</cite>. When speaking of modernity, it is an idea that a government wants to be like that of the West or where ever they see as modern. In Indonesia, museums were built as a display of modernism and nationalism but depending on where you were the museums felt distant from the public <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Kreps1998}</cite>. Museums themselves -viewed personally – are constructs of the past colonial structure and which confines the archaeological evidence within it. What is needed is the following of what some museums in Indonesia have done and hiring local people of the tribe that the museum focuses on which helps to strengthen the relationship of the institute and allow for more authentic exhibits to be performed <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Kreps1998}</cite>.</div><div> </div><div> These go along with the idea of inclusion of Indigenous people in-line with the creation of the codes of ethics by the archaeological society and groups. The study that was conducted though by Rosenswig (1997) shows that the reforms showed clear cut how each society focused on the Indigenous and non-Indigenous. This means that in the ethical actions of archaeologists who may work for museums and universities have protection to make sure that all parties are equally represented. With SOPA’s code of ethics the archaeologist must follow guidelines or will be discredited and also for the WAC code of ethics it highly encouraged the employment of indigenous people in the field. These code of ethics from former colonies as well helped to protect themselves and the archaeologist within legal framework because the Indigenous people were given a voice and an equal share <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Rosenswig1997}</cite>. The codes also differed from country to country and Canada was the only nation to use “spirit” within the CAA code of ethics while in America the SAA was for the mercantile and preservation of Indigenous artifacts <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Rosenswig1997}</cite>.</div><div> </div><div> Even with some of these changes happening in the 1990’s it is still relevant to acknowledge the changes that took place. These changes helped to give more of a voice to the Indigenous people on what artifacts would be displayed by museums and collected by archaeologists. Another is the change in the way the world was viewing the Indigenous people. The view that everyone had has now become a more protective society of it and that the importance of their culture must be there to preserve the Indigenous autonomy when it comes to living cultures artifacts. This legal framework also helped to build a better relationship with the nations own Indigenous people and gave also the nation their own guidelines to control how artifacts should be treated within national borders.</div><div> </div><h2>Reflection to changes in museums and archaeology.</h2><div> </div><div> To conclude this section, it is evident to myself that there is still much work needing to be done. Canada and America both need to be willing to relinquish the items – not artifacts since artifacts mean material remains of a past and not living culture – for the ownership of such items belongs to that of the Indigenous community. It is understandable that both parties do want to keep the items and have good claims but truly the items deserve to be with their proper owners. These items have more important symbolism than we can understand and deserve to be with people that understand them. Though this paper is not here to state that “this is the way we need to correct these problems,” it is here to shed more light on the subject. As advocates this is what needs to be done to ensure the continued trust and support of Indigenous communities which is highlighted in Searles’s article. We as the advocates for the Indigenous community it is relevant to bring to light the changes that need to be done in not just archaeology but in anthropology, as well.</div><div> </div><div> Archaeology has significant role to help people from all ethnics to be proud of their past cultures and same too does anthropology have to that of present cultures. It is important to note that museums play a big part in constructing a national identity. This national identity helps to de-construct the colonialism of the nation but also replaces it with a commodifying effect on the country. What is important is the education of people, both Indigenous and non-indigenous, for that is a start de-construct this cycle of colonialism. In the start of Donald’s article, he gives a story about how he went to a fort in Edmonton, Alberta and at this fort he realized the myth construct of the fort and the wilderness; the civilized and the primitive. The educational system needs to be this reforming and informational part to help separate the colonialism that has gripped our country and that of others <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Donald2009}</cite>. It is evident that even sharing our message from here in Canada to that of other places of the world is important since not all nations have this ethics code to share. It needs to be there to help improve the lives of all Indigenous people, but it will show problems too like in South Africa with the Boers <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Plaice2014}</cite>.</div><div> </div><div> I believe that de-colonialization of Canadian anthropology is best to be confronted by advocacy and education is going to be the best practical options. Here in Canada, we need to be the advocates of this change and be at the frontlines to protect Indigenous items from the environment and ourselves. This model of taking or looting as they would see it needs to be changed to end this colonial cycle and in-turn means the need of a new model. When Plaice went to South Africa and explained their thesis to South African anthropologists it sent a ripple that surprised them since they were dealing with a unique type of Indigeneity <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Plaice2014}</cite>. This form of Indigeneity was about the Boers and how they claimed to be Indigenous to South Africa, yet they were descendants of Dutch colonialists <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Plaice2014}</cite>. This posed a problem where the Indigenous majority where surprised to see a small group having such power over a government <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Plaice2014}</cite>.</div><div> </div><div></div><h1 data-label="467459" class="ltx_title_section"><b>The Decolonization of Archaeological Practices</b> </h1><div> Archaeology has always been a colonialist endeavour where archaeologists have considered themselves experts on the Indigenous past. Although there is a growing recognition among western scholars of the value of Indigenous knowledge, scientific research still remains a prominent source of validation <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{harris2005}</cite><b>.</b></div><div><b> Colonialism</b> within the discipline of archaeology can be traced back to the <b>Missionary Era</b>, where explorers and missionaries encountered indigenous peoples during their travels <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{hancock2006}</cite>. The HMS <i>Investigator</i> was an example of this, sailing in search of the Franklin expedition that went missing in 1845 looking for the North-West Passage. During their voyage, they became trapped in the ice of Mercy Bay and abandoned ship in 1853. The crew cached most of their remaining supplies onshore where tins and barrels were discovered and utilized by Inuinnait (Copper Inuit) groups from neighbouring islands. <b>Ethnocentric</b> attitudes towards indigenous peoples were prevalent during this time and there was no exception within the crew members of the <i>Investigator</i>. The journals of Captain Robert McClure, surgeon Alexander Armstrong, Inuktitut translator Johann Miertsching, and seaman James Nelson described the Inuit to be primitive, immoral, filthy, and simple children of nature <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{hodgetts2012}</cite>. </div><div> These attitudes displaying Indigenous inferiority greatly influenced early archaeological interpretation. Clifford Hickey, an archaeologist who studied the Inuinnait groups in the 1980s proposed that their culture underwent a significant transformation due to the influx of goods from the <i>Investigator</i>. He argued that groups closest to Mercy Bay had exclusive access to these objects in which created an unfair advantage in trading and led to significant differences between the Inuinnait and other Inuit groups. Archaeological interpretations such as these showed a unidirectional approach; a one-way flow of ideas and change from colonizers to colonized. In the case of the HMS <i>Investigator</i>, we see a focus on how the goods found from the <i>Investigator</i> were portrayed to have ‘transformed’ Inuit culture instead of examining the ways in which those goods were incorporated into or resisted by existing cultural practices. Today, archaeologists strive to recognize the complexities of the individual and group identities <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{hodgetts2012}</cite> . </div><div> </div><div> The <b>Amateur Era</b> was quite influential towards<b> Iroquoian archaeology</b> in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While these amateurs were largely unprofessional, they were essential towards the archaeological process in documenting sites, excavation, and the interpretation of human remains. Unfortunately due to their lack in experience, costly mistakes were made in retrieving archaeological material from the sites. Excavators would often fill ossuaries with stones and logs, or break bones from digging with shovels. There were also issues with the public’s interpretation of the archaeological record, often portraying First Nations as noble savages or evil barbarians. The media would add to this stigma by publishing articles that would place past Indigenous populations in constant warfare, thus interpreting ossuaries as a result of large battles. Artifacts were also described through a colonial lens where the material was viewed as “rough”, “rude”, or “unfinished” <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{hamilton2006}</cite>. </div><div> </div><div> The <b>National Museum Era</b> brought about important figures such as Edward Sapir and Marius Barbeau. Edward Sapir was greatly influenced by Franz Boas, an American cultural anthropologist who brought about theoretical approaches such as <b>historical</b> <b>particularism</b> and <b>cultural</b> <b>relativism</b>. During this time, Boas was extremely concerned about the extinction of Native North American cultures and introduced <b>salvage ethnography <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{murphy2008}</cite></b>. This method of ethnographic analysis inspired Marius Barbeau, who worked to preserve “authentic” traditional cultures. His work mainly focused on oral traditions, songs, and genealogies from various Indigenous cultures, as well as legends, old furniture, wood carvings, and other materials from rural French Canada. Barbeau believed that early-twentieth-century Canadian anthropologists saw themselves as “pioneers” in correcting popular misconceptions about Indigenous cultures and preserving cultural records and artifacts that would be forever lost <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{nurse2006}</cite>. </div><div> Barbeau took this colonial methodology one step further and proposed a series of research tactics in recovering <b>authentic</b> elements of supposedly dying cultures. The requirements for Barbeau’s fieldwork needed an approach to efficiently collect cultural traits for archives and museums, in other words, for collection not observation or understanding. He approached this task by producing steps in acquiring material such as finding an effective research site with trustworthy informants. These individuals had to be uneducated because he believed that educated informants failed to understand their heritage and were not authentic. They also needed to be elders, from lower social classes, and those with little to no contact with surrounding cultures. Barbeau made it very clear that he was not interested in the informants’ oppinions or social views, just their memories <cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{nurse2006}</cite>. He was influenced by these colonial methods where he kept a distance between himself and his informants as he believed they devalued his research <b>- Delaney, added this short point to highlight early anthropologists' colonial influences)</b></div>