1. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
1
Indigenous Archaeology
Indigenous voices of the world have historically been marginalized or entirely
absent from historical accounts, governance, education, and other forms of human
action and interaction. The term ‘indigenous’ in this instance and context is chosen
specifically to engender two unique yet related notions. The first connotation of
‘indigenous’ is the popular and common definition for the term, roughly related as ‘what
culture(s) existed in a place before historic European colonization of the globe’
Contemporarily, China and the United States take the role of the colonizers. The second
connotation of ‘indigenous’ is meant to refer to the self and one’s personal voice (this
connotation includes all people). That condition of the second connotation is thereafter
altered as our minds become colonized and acculturated through influences in our
households, education, and careers, becoming re-defined. In this paper the term
‘indigenous Anthropology’ or ‘indigenous archaeology’ refers to the contemporary
inclusion of indigenous peoples and opinions into Anthropology and archaeology. This
use of the term ‘indigenous archaeology’ is meant to infer the same meaning as Joe
Watkins does in his book Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and
Scientific Practice. The terms ‘indigenous Anthropology’ and ‘indigenous archaeology’
are not meant to refer to Messerschmidt’s use of the term ‘Indigenous Anthropology’,
which denotes practicing Anthropology within and upon one’s own culture
(Messerschmidt).
These interpretations of ‘indigenous’ and this indigenous/colonized voice
interaction are paramount to anthropology and the choices we make, both as humans
and as anthropologists. Anthropology—the study of humans, human ancestors, and

2. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
2
humanness—during the twentieth century shifted its foci and ethical intentions, not from
indigenous to colonial, but from colonial to indigenous. Historically, anthropology and
archaeology have been conducted through a Western (Euro-American) cultural lens.
This Western cultural lens portrays a given culture through the dominant Western
culture and rhetoric, and quite possibly is not a complete or correct examination of a
given. Contemporarily, an understanding the culture that is being studied is requisite to
properly understand portray a culture anthropologically or archaeologically. Issues in
anthropology have recently ranged from epistemological, to practical, to theoretical and
numerous points between. Intrinsically these opinions, issues, and theories vary
depending on who is reproducing as well as practicing them. Contemporarily, the
practices of anthropology and archaeology have increasingly been conducted through
an indigenous lens and have included indigenous voices and views. This increased
inclusion of indigenous views and voices belies a necessary change in anthropology
and archaeology, and is essential in order to more-aptly and more-respectfully
document humans and their history.
As identified by James Clifford, notable past faults of anthropology and
archaeology—and those anthropologists and archaeologists whom practiced it—vary
from acting as authorities on native artifacts or acting without consultation with the
respective tribes to conducting excavations without receiving prior permission from all
tribes locally. (Clifford 5). Clifford continues by identifying another past fault as the lack
of exchange information about anthropological and archaeological results between
Native American tribes and anthropologists (Clifford). These historical aspects of
anthropology are rooted in the colonial mind-frame within which anthropology

3. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
3
developed. Clifford discusses and posits the, “possibilities and limits of collaborative
work,” between Native Americans and anthropologists (Clifford 5). Clifford is qualified to
discuss and ponder these possibilities through his work on Native heritage exhibitions
with Native Alaskans in Southern Alaska (Clifford). One way of resisting or negating
anthropology's colonial influence (gained during the anthropology’s development) can
be found through indigenous anthropology. Indigenous anthropology seeks to address
and amend some issues that historically have both insulted and offended native
communities and simultaneously hindered and caused the evolution of anthropology
and archaeology (Watkins XIII). That being said, the importance of the history of
anthropology cannot be understated. It is from our histories and pasts that we plan for
our futures, and despite present-day criticisms of past anthropologists, they played their
crucial role in the evolution of anthropology and anthropological theory.
Past Anthropologists and their bodies of thought should not be disregarded
because of current disagreement with their methods, practices, or goals, for they offer
and have founded many theories that persist and are enacted today. Franz Boas
contributed greatly to the field of anthropology during his professional career. Boas is
considered widely as the father of American Anthropology, despite being formally
educated in physics and geology (Boas). The aim of anthropological research,
according to Boas, was an attempt to understand humans and their past and present
biology, psychology, and culture (Boas—Aims of Anthropological Research). Boas is
considered the father of American Anthropology because of his legacy: laying the
foundation for Anthropology’s four sub-fields (Boas). Interestingly, Boas utilized cranial
measurements to challenge racial inferiority theories while the same types of

4. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
4
measurements served others to embolden their theories regarding and supporting racial
categories (Boas). Despite some controversy surrounding Boas, during his career and
after his passing, Boas contributed much to what is considered modern North American
Anthropology (Boas). This influence stems from his body of work and spread outward
through those he influenced professionally—Kroeber, Sapir, and Meade to name a few
(Boas).
Burgeoning partially from the lasting influence of the, “murky ferment of French
colonial history,” are such theorists as Sartre, Bourdieu, and Foucault (Goodwin-Smith).
All three of these men had measurable impact and influence on anthropology as a
practice and science, yet all three will not be discussed here. Despite Foucault not
being an Anthropologist, his theories are still relevant to the field of Anthropology and
are discussed contemporarily. Arguably one of Foucault’s greatest contributions to
Anthropological theory was his theory on post-structuralism (Goodwin-Smith). Post-
structuralism is a theory that arose in response to structuralism. Post-structuralism
states that there is not a unified truth and instability is inherent to all structures
(Eagleton). This aspect of post-structuralism is especially relevant to Anthropology.
Furthermore post-structuralism identifies that power structures reinforce hierarchies
(Owl). Boas and Foucault both influenced anthropology as a study and a science and
these influences created opportunities for new advancements in anthropology and
anthropological theory.
Despite, and arguably because of, some past scholars’ and anthropologists’
lacking utilization of indigenous voices and knowledge, the study of anthropology and
archaeology has begun to incorporate indigenous peoples and their viewpoints into

5. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
5
anthropological and archaeological work. As stated by Ferguson, "fundamental changes
are occurring in the way archaeology is conducted in the Americas" and as Ferguson
points out, there will always be both proponents and opponents to any kind of change
(Ferguson). Ferguson looks to the chance this change presents—both for Native
Americans and anthropologists and archaeologists—to work together conducting
indigenous archaeology (Ferguson). Not only are indigenous voices now more valued,
sought, and presented, but also anthropology and archaeology are being conducted by
indigenous peoples, as will be discussed in more depth later.
Vine Deloria was a prominent Native American scholar and leader with a law
degree from the University of Colorado (Deloria). Deloria was a pivotal figure in
American politics of the twentieth and early twenty-first century and during the civil
rights movement and the American Indian Movement (Deloria). In his first book, Custer
Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto Deloria “redefined the relationship of Native
Peoples to Anthropologists and Archaeologists” (Leventhal 3). In short, Deloria
condemned the study and characterization of Native Americans as a strange, perishing
type of people, necessary to study and quantify (Stocking). Deloria suggested that
anthropologists should refrain from studying Native Americans unless those
anthropologists could present a tangible advantage in accepting such proposed study
(Deloria). Deloria wanted Anthropologists, “to seek tribal permission for their work and
to focus on ‘applied’ research helpful to Indians in the here and now” (Stocking 270).
Seeking tribal permission before a project is started through explicit contract
agreements has now become a standard Archaeological practice (Clifford). Deloria
gave, “Native individuals and their governments…intellectual, theoretical, philosophical,

6. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
6
and substantive arguments necessary to support their inherent personal and national
sovereignty" (Wilkins 151). Another crucial aspect of Deloria’s body of work, “sought to
improve the nation-to nation and intergovernmental relationships of and between First
Nations, and between First Nations and non-Native governments at all levels" (Wilkins).
Deloria had an aunt, Ella C. Deloria, who was an anthropologist, publishing works on
American Indian linguistics and ethnography (Deloria).
In their book Digging It Up Down Under: A Practical Guide to Doing Archaeology
in Australia, Claire Smith and Heather Burke discuss in-depth the process of conducting
archaeology in Australia (Smith). Their book is relevant to this essay because of the
importance Smith and Burke place on interaction between local Aboriginal tribes before,
throughout, and concluding the archaeological process (Smith). Smith and Burke state
that historical archaeology is, "the heritage of contemporary communities" (Smith 206).
An important caveat made by Smith and Burke is on the possibility of archaeological
results coming into conflict with the truths held by a given community regarding their
understanding of their culture and history (Smith). Alternate truths, no matter how
immiscible, all can offer to share alternate and worthy understandings of ourselves and
the world that surrounds us. A key example given by Smith and Burke where the
inclusion of Aboriginal people in anthropological and archaeological work is beneficial
and arguably indispensable is the analysis of rock art in Australia (Smith). The
interpretations of rock art by culturally-foreign anthropologists are limited to descriptive
and comparative analyses, and these interpretations may be entirely erroneous to the
actual meaning of painting (Smith). This limitation is overcome when Aboriginal
Australian artists and elders local to the painting(s) in question are consulted (Smith).

7. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
7
This positive, focused interaction between Aboriginal Australians and anthropologists
and archaeologists is one instance where a great array of information becomes
available to learn about. Rock art in Australia is used by Aboriginal people to document,
“social activities, economy, material culture, ideology, and environmental context”
encompassing all parts of their lives, history, culture, and environment (Smith 173).
Joe Watkins is an authority on the integration of Native Americans into
archaeology as he is a Choctaw Indian and a practicing archaeologist. He also is a
proponent of this paper’s use of the term ‘indigenous archaeology’. In his book
Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice, Watkins calls
for the advancement and increased practice of indigenous archaeology. In his view,
indigenous archaeology would be defined as including native peoples as partners with
equal decision-making power in cultural resources management and its practice
(Watkins). Watkins himself is an example of indigenous archaeology, but also gives
examples in his book where indigenous archaeology has been implemented (Watkins).
One major example given by Watkins is the Navajo Cultural Resources Management
Program (Stamps). The Navajo Cultural Resources Management Program was created
by, and is run by and for, the Navajo Nation (Begay). The Navajo Cultural Resources
Management Program has its roots in the Navajo Nation’s Tribal Museum (Begay).
During the 1950s the Navajo Nation’s Tribal Museum was heading an active
archaeological and historic research program (Begay). By 1977, the Navajo Nation
formally established their cultural resources management program (Begay). The Navajo
Nation later created the Navajo Historic Preservation Department in 1986, which was
largely empowered by the Navajo Nation’s passing of the Cultural Resources Protection

8. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
8
Act (Begay). The act placed, “the authority for Navajo historic preservation decisions
with the Navajo Nation and the Historic Preservation Department (Begay). These
actions by the Navajo Nation are a further example showing how indigenous
anthropology and indigenous archaeology can create benefit for all parties involved.
Indigenous voices have historically been disregarded and absent from historical
accounts, governance, education, and many other human interactions. The term
‘indigenous’ in this instance and context is chosen specifically to engender two unique
yet related notions. This essay argued for the increasing need and necessity for
implementation of an indigenous form of archaeology. Indigenous anthropology and
archaeology mark a shift in greater anthropological and archaeological ethical intent.
Indigenous archaeology rejects the Western cultural lens in sake of a culturally relevant
lens. Contemporarily, anthropology and archaeology have increasingly relied upon a
culturally-native cultural lens, provided through the inclusion of native peoples into
anthropology and archaeology. This increasing inclusion of native peoples, views, and
voices into anthropology and archaeology is necessary in order to document human
history through more respectful and complete means.

9. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
9
Bibliography
Begay, Daryl R. “Navajo Preservation: The Success of the Navajo Nation Historic
Preservation Department” CRM Vol. 14, No. 4 National Parks Service. Web.
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/14-4/14-4-all.pdf
Boas, Franz. “The Aims of Anthropological Research” Science, New Series, Vol. 76, No.
1983 (Dec. 30, 1932). 605-613. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1656627
"Boas, Franz." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity,
Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, (2008). 344-346. Gale Virtual
Reference Library. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3045300218&v=2.1&u=hum_gvrl&it=r
&p=GVRL&sw=w
Clifford, James. “Looking Several Ways: Anthropology and Native Heritage in Alaska”
Current Anthropology. Vol. 45, No. 1 (2004). 5-30. Web.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/379634
"Deloria, Vine Jr." Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2004.
481-484. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3404701728&v=2.1&u=hum_gvrl&it=r
&p=GVRL&sw=w
Ferguson, T. J. “Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology”. Annual Review of
Anthropology. Vol. 25 (October 1996). 63-79. Web.
http://www.annualreviews.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25
.1.63
Leventhal, Richard M. "Vine Deloria, Jr. (1933--2005)." Expedition Vol. 48.1 (2006): 3.
Academic Search Elite. Web. 7 Mar. 2013.

10. Nic Grosjean
ANTH 410
M. Scoggin
10
Messerschmidt, Donald A. “On Indigenous Anthropology: Some Observations” Current
Anthropology. Vol. 22, No. 2 (Apr., 1981). 197-198. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742723
Goodwin-Smith, I. “Resisting Foucault: the necessity of appropriation” Social Identities,
(2010). 587-596.
Eagleton, Terry “Marxism, Structuralism, and Post-Structuralism: In the Tracks of
Historical Materialism by Perry Anderson” Diacritics. Vol. 15, No. 4 (1985). 2-12. Web.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/464931
Smith, Claire; Burke, Heather. “Digging It Up Down Under: A Practical Guide to Doing
Archaeology in Australia” New York: Springer Science+Business Media, (2007). Et al.
Print.
Stamps, Richard B. “Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific
Practice” by Joe Watkins” American Antiquity. Vol. 68, No. 1 (2003). 196-197. Web.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557051
Stocking George W., Jr. Review “Indians and Anthropology: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the
Critique of Anthropology by Thomas Biolsi; Larry J. Zimmerman; Vine Deloria”. Pacific
Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (May, 1998), 270-272. Web.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3641568
Watkins, Joe. "Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific
Practice". Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press, (2000). Et al. Print.
Wilkins, David E. “Vine Deloria Jr. and Indigenous Americans” Wicazo Sa Review, Vol.
21, No. 2 (Autumn, 2006). 151-155. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4140273