Archaeological Collaboration with American Indians: Case Studies from the Western U.S.

Archaeological Collaboration with American Indians: Case Studiesfrom the Western United States

Wendi Field MurrayNicholas C. LalukBarbara J. MillsT. J. Ferguson

Collaborative Anthropologies, Volume 2, 2009, pp. 65-86 (Article)

Published by University of Nebraska Press

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by University of Arizona at 12/23/11 7:12PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cla/summary/v002/2.murray.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cla/summary/v002/2.murray.html

archaeological collaboration with american indiansCase Studies from the Western United States

wendi field murray, University of Arizona

nicholas c. laluk, University of Arizona

barbara j. mills, University of Arizona

t. j. ferguson, Anthropological Research, LLC,

and the University of Arizona

North American archaeologists engage with American Indians in a variety of ways to further the research and preservation goals of both groups. Some projects simply include the participation of individual consultants, while others engage formal collaboration with tribal or-ganizations that help determine research design, project methodol-ogy, and interpretation of results (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Fergu-son 2008). Research done for and with Indian tribes is expanding the repertoire of questions investigated, changing the manner in which re-search is conducted, and influencing the evaluation of results (Kerber 2006; Silliman 2008). Much of this work takes place in the context of providing information needed for historic preservation and manage-ment of cultural resources, but some cooperative projects develop be-yond legislatively mandated research. An increasing number of tribes play an active role in archaeological research that identifies ancestral sites and traditional cultural properties and clarifies the cultural values that make such places significant. Archaeologists responding to tribal initiatives are training students in collaborative processes so that this type of research can be carried forward in future projects.

This article describes two collaborative projects with tribes in the western United States. The first examines traditional uses of eagles by

collaborative anthropologies • volume 2 • 2009 66 •

the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara (the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation). Our second example considers the involve-ment of Western Apaches in heritage resource management on the Coronado National Forest. These two research projects, conducted by Wendi Field Murray and Nicholas Laluk, graduate students at the Uni-versity of Arizona (UA), exemplify the diverse ways in which collabora-tion can be achieved. Both students were part of a field school offered cooperatively by the University of Arizona and the White Mountain Apache Tribe in which collaboration was embedded in the curriculum (Mills et al. 2008), and we briefly describe how that training helped to frame their subsequent research. The goals and process of these col-laborative research projects elucidate the principles underlying funda-mental changes in the conduct and teaching of contemporary archaeol-ogy in the western United States.

The work we discuss here is similar to other collaborative research conducted with Indian tribes at the University of Arizona. The work of María Nieves Zedeño, Richard Stoffle, Diane Austin, and their students working for the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology employs similar collaborative principles, and several former UA Field School students work on those projects as well (e.g., Stoffle et al. 2001; Zede-ño 2007; Zedeño and Laluk 2008; Zedeño et al. 2006, 2009). In addi-tion, the American Indian Studies Interdisciplinary Program has both core and affiliated faculty who regularly teach collaborative research methods based on their work. The healthy exchange of theoretical and methodological concepts between faculty and students working on dif-ferent projects at the UA benefits the overall program of collaborative research, and in fact it is this density of involvement that we think is be-ginning to foster a major shift in student interests and awareness about how work with and for American Indian communities can be incorpo-rated into their training.

White Mountain apache tribe and University of arizona archaeological Field school

Wendi Field Murray and Nick Laluk attended the UA Archaeological Field School during its three-year collaboration with the White Moun-tain Apache Tribe (WMAT; Mills et al. 2008). The collaboration was ini-tiated by Barbara Mills, director of the Field School, who wished to re-

Murray, laluk, Mills, & Ferguson • archaeological collaboration • 67

place the annual site visits of tribal members that had been conducted before 2001 (Mills 2000) with a more intensive project in which goals were set by the WMAT. The WMAT Historic Preservation Program helped design archaeological projects that could be incorporated into the field training in a manner congruent with tribal objectives. Specific projects were identified that would assist with tribal heritage manage-ment: (1) assistance in ruins stabilization at Kinishba, a pueblo dating to AD 1250–1400; (2) an archaeological survey of the Forestdale Valley to provide a basis for tribal management during future development; (3) mapping of archaeological sites damaged from looting; and (4) damage assessment and restoration of areas that had been disturbed at the two largest pueblo sites in the Forestdale Valley. To support this work, the Field School received a three-year National Science Foun-dation (NSF) Research Experiences for Undergraduates Sites award, which ran from 2002 to 2004.

This program met the White Mountain Apache Tribe’s stated prin-ciple of sharing the financial and economic benefits of all research con-ducted on the reservation because the field projects were selected by the tribe’s Heritage Preservation Program; the WMAT had ownership and control of all information and materials collected on the reservation, and there was a sharing of administrative funds (Mills et al. 2008, 33). A 2001 tribal council resolution authorized the Heritage Preservation Program to work with the university and set the agenda for our collabo-ration. This resolution was submitted to NSF as a part of the proposal and shared with the students.

Students at the Field School rotated through a set of field projects during the day, followed by afternoon lab work and evening lectures. Teaching professional ethics was an important component of the field school, and we organized a series of discussions about the legal and scholarly obligations we have to consult with the descendants of the people whose archaeology we study. White Mountain Apache tribal members participated in several discussion sessions, and this helped to coordinate our research with the Apache people who currently have use-rights in the areas where we worked. Apache speakers explained to students and instructors the challenges they face in their roles as tribal officials or cultural advisors involved in heritage preservation and pro-vided a personal perspective on Apache cultural values.

During the field school Ferguson was assisting the White Mountain


Apache Tribe with a cultural affiliation study pursuant to the tribe’s re-sponsibilities under the Native American Graves Protection and Repa-triation Act (NAGPRA; Welch and Ferguson 2007). From the Apache perspective these NAGPRA responsibilities include identifying the de-scendants of the groups who occupied the ancient archaeological sites on the Apache reservation so that all culturally affiliated tribes can be included in government-to-government consultation involving tribal and federal agencies. Under NAGPRA, museums and federal agencies must consult with the appropriate Indian tribes regarding culturally affiliated human remains and objects held in their collections prior to 1990, and federal agencies have a responsibility to engage in govern-ment-to-government consultation with the tribe on whose land human remains are discovered after 1990. The White Mountain Apache Tribe is committed to involving all culturally affiliated tribes in consulta-tion about human remains and objects held in museum collections or discovered after 1990. In the WMAT cultural affiliation study, research teams composed of knowledgeable tribal members from the Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni worked with Western Apache tribal members, con-tinuing a long-standing intertribal collaboration on repatriation issues. This collaboration operated at two levels: one involving cooperation between archaeologists and tribal members, and the other involving cooperation between the historic preservation offices and cultural advi-sors of three tribes and the Western Apache NAGPRA Working Group. Apache values of land stewardship guided the work, and collaborators were particularly concerned to revitalize tribal connections to lands, sites, objects, and traditions as a way to protect ancestral places associ-ated with Pueblo and Apache peoples.

Ten tribal cultural advisors involved in the cultural affiliation study visited students working on the damage assessment project in the Forestdale Valley and had dinner at the field camp with the staff and students. After sharing a meal, the tribal representatives spoke to the students about their collaborative work to document the shared iden-tity between present-day tribes and the past groups who lived in the an-cient Puebloan villages that now constitute such a prominent part of the archaeological record on the White Mountain Apache reservation (see figure 1). The American Indian cultural advisors presented chal-lenging ideas to the field school students and described the cultural values that inform their work. They explained how their efforts to pro-


tect ancestral sites and graves from desecration by land modifying proj-ects relates to NAGPRA, and what they perceive as archaeologists’ roles in assisting the tribes. They also expressed their view that archaeologi-cal excavation is most acceptable when it is related to the mitigation of adverse effects of construction projects, and that the excavation of human remains should only be done to remove those remains from harm’s way. In their opinion, when archaeologists excavate ancestral human remains, those remains must be reburied along with their as-sociated grave offerings so that those ancestors can continue on their spiritual journey in the afterlife. Retaining human remains and funer-ary objects for further study or museum display causes cultural harm to Indian communities. Research beyond that needed to document hu-man remains and associated funerary objects for the implementation of NAGPRA is considered less important than timely reburial.

Repatriation and reburial of human remains have been contentious issues in the past, with heated rhetoric that has created a rift between archaeologists and American Indians (Fine-Dare 2002; Thomas 2000). At the field school an open discussion of these issues with American

fig. 1. a panel of hopi, Zuni, and apache cultural advisors described collabora-tive nagpra research with field school students, July 2003. photograph by t. J. Ferguson.


Indian cultural advisors was conducted without rancor, providing a model for how difficult issues can be directly addressed to increase un-derstanding of the social dimensions of contemporary archaeology. Sometimes collaborators can agree to disagree, but ultimately everyone has to abide by the legal provisions of NAGPRA. Incorporating tribal members into the educational program of the field school through for-mal discussion sessions and informal interaction during meals helped to humanize Indigenous concerns, making the ethical and profession-al issues entailed in working with American Indians less abstract and more personal.

Some of the visits by tribal members were planned in advance, but others were incorporated later as the interest of individual tribal mem-bers in our project became evident. In one case this interaction grew as students identified specific research projects relating to the history and land use of the Forestdale Valley. One tribal member, whose fam-ily used the valley for farming and ranching, learned about student re-search when he came to our field camp to speak to the students about his perspectives on history and archaeology. He subsequently became an important contributor to several student projects and offered on-site commentary about past land use (Jelinek 2005). His curiosity about what archaeology could contribute resulted in our taking tree-ring samples for dating an early twentieth-century storage structure built by his grandfather, and he was able to identify specifically the dates of use for other features.

Several field school students who enthusiastically embraced the col-laborative ethic decided to attend the UA for graduate work and have subsequently applied a collaborative methodology in their graduate re-search. Two examples of this resulting collaborative approach are pro-vided in the following discussion of Wendi Field Murray’s master’s the-sis research and Nicholas Laluk’s dissertation research.

eagle research in collaboration with the Mandan, hidatsa, and arikara nation and the national park service

Wendi Field Murray worked with the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara (MHA) Nation to conduct archaeological and ethnographic research relating to the traditional uses of eagles and the contemporary signifi-cance of eagle trapping sites along the Missouri River (see figure 2).


This research is predicated on a particular conservation discourse in natural resource management in the United States—one that often im-pedes or prohibits the practice of American Indian cultural traditions.

The passage of the 1940 Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668–668d) was the first in a series of natural resource conservation laws that made illegal a spiritually, politically, and economically significant tradition for tribes along the Missouri River. An amendment in 1962 provided for limited Indian access to eagle feathers and parts for religious use with permits (CFR 21.22), so long as the “take” was not incompatible with the preservation of the species. Aside from provisions for limited take, the National Eagle Repository, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the only legal means by which federally recognized tribal members can access and utilize eagle parts. A limited supply of eagle parts, strict applicant eligibility requirements, and restrictions on how the parts can be used upon receipt make this an insufficient sys-tem for many Indigenous people.

Though it is well known that eagles figure prominently in many American Indian religions, contemporary native perspectives about eagle trapping in the Northern Plains have not been recorded; the last

fig. 2. calvin grinnell, Mha nation tribal historian, stands inside an eagle trap-ping pit on a bluff overlooking lake sakakawea, august 2008. photograph by Wendi Field Murray.


ethnographic account of eagle trapping for the MHA dates to the mid-twentieth century (see Bowers 1992, 2004). In light of this, the recent delisting (June 2007) of the eagle as an endangered species, and the proposed post-delisting management guidelines for bald and golden eagles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), led the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology (BARA) at the University of Arizona and the National Park Service (NPS) to collaborate on a research project with the MHA Nation. This project was designed to document eagle trap-ping sites on federal lands in North Dakota, investigate the continuities and changes in eagle knowledge and acquisition and use of eagle parts, and consider how to incorporate Indigenous perspectives on eagle trap-ping sites into the resource management strategies of national parks. Because the eagle has multiple dimensions of significance for multiple stakeholders, this project necessitated a collaborative approach.1

Prior to European contact, the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara were three ethnically and linguistically distinct semi-sedentary groups living in earthlodge villages on the banks of the Missouri River and its tribu-taries (see Bowers 1992, 2004; Parks 2001). A series of devastating epi-demics during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries resulted in the consolidation of their communities by 1862, and the three tribes were formally recognized as a single political entity in 1936 (Schneider 2001, 391). Today the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara are federally recognized as the Three Affiliated Tribes. They continue to occupy a small portion of their traditional homelands, the approximately one-million-acre Fort Berthold Reservation in west-central North Dakota. The MHA Cultural Preservation Office oversees or participates in several archaeological and historical research projects and has been engaged in collaborative research with BARA staff since 2004 (i.e., Grinnell et al. 2006; Hollen-back et al. 2006; Zedeño et al. 2009).

Like many collaborative endeavors, this project slowly developed over the course of another project, a collaborative ethnobotany proj-ect involving BARA, the MHA Nation, and the Midwest Regional Office of the NPS. In 2007, while conducting outdoor interviews with native consultants about traditional plant use, the group came upon the only known eagle trapping site inside Knife River Indian Villages Na-tional Historic Site. The consultants were clearly knowledgeable about the site, and the ethnobotany project had revealed close cultural asso-ciations between particular plants and eagle traditions. NPS personnel


expressed concern that from a management perspective, knowledge about these types of sites was limited.

The idea for a research project aimed at understanding native per-spectives on eagles and eagle trapping sites was presented to the MHA Cultural Preservation Office (CPO), who agreed that it would be a use-ful project. Though this project was not driven by compliance with fed-eral legislation, it did address the special trust relationship that the fed-eral government holds with American Indian tribes and the obligation of the NPS to provide tribes with access to sacred sites and resources on federal lands. More formal discussions occurred later in the year to define the goals and parameters of the research. The NPS and the uni-versity’s Department of Anthropology furnished funding for the proj-ect, and field work began in August of 2008.

Though all stakeholders share an interest in the preservation of eagle trapping sites, the project was designed to accommodate addi-tional goals. Tribal participants expressed an interest in eagle knowl-edge preservation, the identification of eagle trapping site locations on federal lands, and management plans that protect this informa-tion from the public. The NPS was interested in identifying the natu-ral and cultural resources crucial to maintaining contemporary eagle traditions, specifically within Knife River Indian Villages National His-toric Site, Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, and Theo-dore Roosevelt National Park. Although the NPS must adhere to federal laws that prohibit the taking of eagles (Bald and Golden Eagle Protec-tion Act, 16 USC 668–668d, as amended; Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531–1544, as amended), many of the tribe’s eagle traditions have been adapted over time to fit within the parameters of protection legis-lation. Therefore, the NPS sought recommendations from the tribe on how parks can effectively accommodate these cultural activities. From an anthropological perspective, researchers were interested in the ma-terial culture associated with the eagle; how traditions associated with the eagle are embedded in the Missouri River landscape; how legal, lo-gistical, and social constraints have influenced cultural practice; and in updating the ethnographic and archaeological record.

These various goals guided the development of interview questions, which were sent to the CPO and the NPS for review, approval, and com-ments. Questions were continuously adjusted based upon feedback, to make them more culturally appropriate and to limit information to a


comfortable level of specificity. Because “place” often evokes memory and stimulates discussion, we conducted landscape-based interviews at locations of the consultants’ choosing.2 For example, the first in-terviews took place at various eagle trapping pits, at a butte associat-ed with the thunderbirds and the Hidatsa culture hero Packs Antelope, and at an eagle nesting site on Lake Sakakawea.

Understanding that there are cultural restrictions on who possesses the rights to speak about specialized, resource-based knowledge, we deferred to the tribal collaborators in identifying appropriate consul-tants for interviews. While this method of participant recruitment cer-tainly does not ensure unbiased perspectives, it respects tribal author-ity regarding access to and dissemination of cultural knowledge and is consistent with the methodologies of previous collaborations with the MHA Nation (see Zedeño et al. 2009).3 The CPO suggested individuals who had knowledge of eagle trapping, the rights to handle eagles, the rights to dance the Sun Dance, the rights to eagle medicine, and the authority and willingness to discuss their knowledge. The CPO put the researchers in touch not only with people in the Fort Berthold commu-nity but also with local landowners who are familiar with site locations. Tribal collaborators visited eagle trapping sites both on and off the res-ervation, identified known and potential site locations on maps, as-sisted with literature research, accompanied researchers on interviews, and edited the final report.

By integrating archival, archaeological, and ethnographic data from interviews, this research found that eagle trapping had begun to de-cline before the passage of environmental protection legislation and is no longer practiced today. However, eagle feather handling rights emerged in the early twentieth century as the primary component of eagle medicine, and individuals who possess these rights maintain the same elevated social status and community responsibilities as did their eagle trapping ancestors. We identified five different eagle site types recognized by individuals with eagle medicine, all of which remain sources of spiritual power by providing access to supernatural beings and knowledge. Many of these sites occur on park lands, and they are known to be potential places to fast and seek visions. Most significant-ly, the study revealed that the eagle is an active participant in the lives of individuals and communities, and eagles and eagle parts are central to a complex network of materials, practices, beliefs, identities, and land-


scapes identified as the “eagle complex.” The final report offers a con-ceptual model that provides resource managers with a more holistic view of how resources located on federal lands contribute to the spiri-tual health of Indigenous communities (Murray 2009, 70). It also high-lights potential problems in Western epistemological approaches to re-source management (i.e., site-based; species-based). Results indicate that tribes would benefit from resource management strategies that emphasize resource systems over resource objects (Murray 2009, 72).

This research not only provides new information regarding the cul-tural significance of eagles, appropriate management strategies for eagle trapping sites and associated resources, and current interest in the revitalization of eagle trapping practices; it demonstrates how col-laborative, research-driven work can appeal to the interests of multiple parties, accommodate the needs of multiple stakeholders, and provide opportunities to view resources in new ways.

collaborative research in the chiricahua Mountains

Nicholas Laluk is pursuing collaborative research for his dissertation on Apache archaeology while employed in the Student Career Experi-ence Program of the U.S. Forest Service.4 Relatively little archaeologi-cal research concerning Apache archaeology has been conducted in the U.S. Southwest, and this research has not reached its full potential. Lo-cating historical-period Apache occupations is difficult because of the Apache way of “living lightly on the land.” Moreover, interpreting these subtle traces through their sparse diagnostic assemblages and histori-cal-period European-American accounts does not highlight Apache in-terpretations of their former homelands, nor does it take into account significant and powerful Apache traditions. Combining intensive ar-chaeological field methods with on-site Apache interpretations yields an understanding of historical-period Apache life-ways that emphasiz-es both Apache archaeology and the unique cultural ties still connect-ing Apache people to the Chiricahua Mountains within the Coronado National Forest.

Several Apache groups still claim affiliations to the Chiricahua Moun-tains region even though Apache groups have long been removed from the mountain range as a result of federal Indian policy, presidential executive orders, and agency regulations. Furthermore, although the


Western Apache and Chiricahua Apache are distinguished by cultural and dialectical variations, the historical-period record of these groups is very similar. Both groups exploited resources well beyond present-day reservation boundaries through a highly mobile lifestyle, and the historical-period material remains of these groups are quite similar (Adams 2000a, 2000b; Ayres 1994; Donaldson and Welch 1991; Greg-ory 1981; Ferg 2004). Several ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts document the Apache groups that occupied the Chiricahua Mountain range as well as a large portion of southeastern Arizona (Basso 1983; Sweeney 1991; Watt and Basso 2004). Western Apache and Chiricahua Apache tribal members are engaged in the project to interpret the re-cord of Apache occupation of the Chiricahua Mountains and to form stronger collaborative relationships with the Forest Service.

As a White Mountain Apache tribal member, Nicholas Laluk sees himself as an American Indian archaeologist dedicated to working with tribes in cultural heritage resource (CHR) management activities and in cultivating within the Forest Service an understanding of the im-portance of involving tribal members in all areas of research. He agrees with Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2006, 190) that “Native viewpoints are vital for understanding Apache history not only because they contribute facts but also because they afford alternative interpre-tations to complement those found in documentary sources.” These viewpoints are distilled in Apache beliefs concerning the resources, places, objects, and intangibles (e.g., songs, customs, and stories) that are significant to respective groups. The research project explicitly em-ployed Apache cultural viewpoints and guidelines.

The White Mountain Apache definition of cultural heritage resourc-es includes all places, objects, and intangibles having significance to Apache people. This definition extends to everything linked to or pro-duced by Apache ancestors: all history, culture, customs, traditions, ceremonies, beliefs, stories, songs, language, arts, crafts, artifacts, sa-cred objects, funerary objects, and archaeological and human remains. This definition provides a working model for preservation and protec-tion of Apache culture and heritage and guiding principles that stress respectful and responsible research when dealing with Apache cultural heritage resources on and off Apache trust lands.

The area has a long history of intense Apache occupation. In a per-spective similar to that of Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh (2006),


Wylie (1995) suggests: “American Indian histories provide histories that both complement conventional academic research and challenge that research to explicitly address its underlying assumptions and knowl-edge claims to discern its silences, limitations, and partialities.” This theoretical perspective identifies the need to integrate American Indian histories into all areas of archaeological research and the benefits of pluralistic research that stresses using multiple lines of evidence to in-terpret the past. Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992, the passage of NAGPRA, and promulgation of Executive Order 13007 concerning sacred sites and Executive Order 13175 mandating appropriate consultation with Indian tribal governments have worked together to strengthen American Indian involvement in cultural re-source management issues by formalizing when and how federal agen-cies confer with Indian tribes during implementation of federal laws. Federal agency research involving American Indians is now evolving by moving beyond legally mandated consultation to voluntary, respectful, and mutually beneficial collaborative projects.

Accordingly, the goals of Laluk’s collaborative research are to provide alternative histories of Apache occupation in the Chiricahua Mountains and to draw on the White Mountain Apache tribe’s best management practices in caring for cultural heritage sites. This work is directed at contributing Apache perspectives to historical-period Apache occupa-tion of the Chiricahua Mountains and providing Apache views of his-torical-period Apache life-ways, which for the most part have been in-terpreted by non-Apache researchers (e.g., Goodwin n.d., 1942; Opler 1965, 1969, 1983). The final products of the research will be shared through deliverables that include public presentations and long-term exhibits. One such endeavor is the Coronado National Forest’s “In the Footsteps of Cochise” exhibit, which provides a well-informed under-standing of the unique ways Apache people view themselves in the past and present rather than being based upon non-Apache interpretation of Apache history and culture. These exhibits and presentations will stress the inter-Apache collaborative component of the research involving var-ious Apache groups as well as providing views of Apache history and culture that move beyond the general romantic and sensational views of historical-period Apache life-ways (see Basso 1983; Welch and Riley 2001). This project is laying a foundation for additional collaborative re-search between Apache nations and federal land-managing agencies.


Participants began the project by visiting the Fort Bowie National Historic site located at the northern end of the Chiricahua Mountains. This national park has one of the largest displays in the Southwest of historical-period Apache material items, and it features the areas where Apache scouts lived during the time they were stationed at Fort Bowie in the late 1800s, as depicted in historical-period photographs. Park Director Larry Ludwig led the tour around the fort and pointed out the locations of the Apache campsites. The goals of the Bowie visit were to give the non-Apache archaeologists a sense of what to look for during the subsequent archaeological survey of the project area and to show the Apache representatives an area that is significantly tied to Apache history.

The survey component of the Chiricahua project was significant be-cause it focused primarily on identifying and documenting Apache ar-chaeological sites and providing managerial recommendations based on Apache principles of cultural heritage as previously defined. The preliminary fieldwork involved tribal representatives selected by the his-toric preservation offices of the White Mountain Apache and Mescalero Apache tribes. Because the project is ongoing, future work will involve the San Carlos Apache and Fort Sill Apache tribes as well as continued work with the White Mountain and Mescalero tribes. The project in-volved Forest Service and National Park Service archaeologists working side by side with Apache representatives to locate and identify Apache sites. Tribal representatives helped survey the landscape and were able to tell archaeologists what to look for and how to interpret the ephem-eral Apache archaeological record. For example, during a survey to lo-cate the site of an 1869 battle between the Chiricahua Apache and the U.S. military, the White Mountain Apache Tribal Historic Preservation Officer stressed the highly mobile lifestyle of Apache groups and sug-gested that the areas on top of the battle site ridge served as temporary camp site areas. This statement reflects the highly mobile lifestyle of Apache groups and highlights the cross-cultural similarities of West-ern and Chiricahua Apache settlement patterns. Moreover, it under-scored for non-Apache participants that even large Apache rancherias and battle sites have a sparse archaeological material record and are as difficult to identify as smaller historical-period Apache sites.

An interesting component of the project was the formal discussion of Apache archaeology by Apache representatives and non-Apache ar-


chaeologists who have studied Apachean archaeology. One evening, tribal members and Coronado National Forest heritage staff made presentations on this topic to the entire research group, consisting of nearly twenty-five tribal, Forest Service, and Park Service representa-tives. The presentations focused around the difficulties of recognizing Apache archaeology on the ground surface due to the minimal mate-rial assemblages left behind and their highly mobile lifestyle (Good-win n.d.; Gregory 1981). The presentations also stressed performing responsible, respectful research in a manner consistent with the White Mountain Apache Tribe’s management practices for cultural heritage resources. An essential element in this research strategy is a “least im-pact” methodology that preserves the physical integrity of archaeologi-cal sites. A White Mountain Apache tribal resolution adopted in 2004 mandates the best management practices of the tribe, and these provide conceptual and practical tools for use in projects that have the potential to affect cultural heritage resources on White Mountain Apache trust lands. During the discussion, Apache tribal representatives explained why this type of research is necessary. They explained how much of Apache history has been documented by non-Apache researchers and does not include Apache perspectives because many Apache traditions are considered confidential and sensitive and cannot be written down or divulged to outsiders. These standardized and sensational accounts often portray historical-period Apache life-ways through singled out historical figures such as Geronimo or Cochise.

Cultural heritage resources are important because they provide a foundation for Apache identity and tribal sovereignty. Given these fac-tors, Western Apache representatives stressed the importance of heri-tage resources for tribes and why respect is an integral Apache compo-nent for preservation. Western Apaches practice this form of respect through least impact cultural heritage resource inventory strategies and designing projects to avoid adverse effects on sites.

A question and answer session following the presentations helped non-Apache federal personnel to understand in what ways heritage re-sources need to be respected. Heritage resources are integral to Apache well-being, and everything linked to or produced by Apache ancestors, as earlier listed, constitutes the foundations for distinctive Apache identities (White Mountain Apache Heritage Program 2004). Further-more, because Apache people generally avoid ancestral sites and do not


speak of deceased relatives due to traditional cultural practices, visiting archaeological sites may result in spiritual consequences that produce suffering. For this reason, respecting heritage resources through sim-ple avoidance and the minimal research needed to identify and protect them is preferable. During cultural resource management research, certain forms of information and data are sensitive and cannot be re-corded or divulged to the public.

There is no overarching consensus among the various Apache groups concerning proper management of heritage resources. None-theless, the guiding principles of the White Mountain Apache Tribe highlight the shared association Apache groups have to the past and il-lustrate how divulging sensitive information or conducting disrespect-ful research can affect contemporary Apache people adversely.

The application of the White Mountain Apache management practic-es to off-reservation areas such as the Chiricahua Mountains provides an example of how land-managing agencies like the Forest Service can work with tribal nations as co-stewards of the land. This co-steward-ship is based on adapting and integrating both Apache and Forest Ser-vice land and environmental management perspectives to manage for-mer Apache homelands better.

The project is still evolving. Future research will include collabora-tive visits by archaeologists and Apache representatives to rock art sites in the Chiricahua and Dragoon mountains as well as the excavation and in-field interpretation of agave roasting pits. Upon completion of the research any data will be shared with tribes, and anything the tribes feel should not be disseminated to the public or published will be left out of final deliverables and products.

The project will also use Mescalero–Chiricahua Apache land claims research (Basehart 1959) that recorded Apache place names, along with latitude and longitude, in and near the Chiricahua research area. Areas with Apache toponyms will be visited with Apache consultants to document Apache place and landscape associations and to contrib-ute information about the historic ties the Apaches have to the region (see Basso 1996). As Deloria suggests, “American Indians hold their lands—places—as having the highest possible meaning, and all other statements are made with this reference point in mind” (Deloria 1994, 63). In this sense, the investigation of the archaeological record helps to interpret an enduring Apache sense of place. In this manner the re-


search investigates environmental and social interactions that archae-ology alone cannot reach.

The results of collaborative research with Apache tribes will be in-corporated into the revision of the Coronado National Forest Plan and will also be used to nominate the Chiricahua Mountains to the National Register of Historic Places. Working together, Apache tribes and land-managing agencies are recognizing places of outstanding historical and contemporary significance to Apache people and are collaborating to preserve and protect these places for the future.

conclusion

Long-term collaboration between Indian tribes and archaeologists spans many projects, and new research programs often evolve out of existing projects. The projects with the MHA Nation and the Apache tribes are examples of continuities in collaborative practices, begin-ning with the participation of the two senior authors in an archaeologi-cal field school that emphasized how archaeologists and tribes could work together to meet common goals. The senior authors then contin-ued to work with tribes in a collaborative mode in their own research programs.

The collaborative approach espoused by the University of Arizona Field School built upon earlier models of field research conducted in close association with tribes, including field schools run by Florence Hawley Ellis at the University of New Mexico and the research program of Clifford Barnett and John Rick of Stanford University at the Pueblo of Zuni (Rick 1991). Today tribal cultural and historic preservation of-fices play a key role in facilitating contemporary collaborative projects, and as a result many projects focus on documenting and evaluating heritage sites to provide tribes with the information they need in order to engage meaningfully in the nation’s historic preservation program. Sharing decisions about research design and methodology between tribal officials and archaeologists helps to ensure that research is cul-turally appropriate and beneficial to all parties. The trust that develops between tribal officials and individual archaeologists provides a foun-dation on which new research relationships are established with indi-vidual tribal members during the course of research.

Another theme that emerges from the case studies discussed here is


that the active involvement of a tribe’s cultural or historic preservation office provides an important means of recruiting tribal members as participants in research projects. Tribal review of reports produced dur-ing collaborative projects provides an important means of correcting interpretive mistakes and ensuring that culturally sensitive informa-tion is presented in a manner that does not harm tribal members. This tribal review is analogous to the formal peer review process involved in academic publishing, and it results in better and more meaningful scholarship. The production and meaning of archaeological knowl-edge created during collaborative projects is gauged against multiple epistemological standards, producing a more inclusive and pluralistic archaeology that serves the needs of both descendant groups and ar-chaeologists. That these approaches to archaeological collaboration can now be included as part of undergraduate and graduate training in anthropological archaeology is, we think, an important change—one that lays the groundwork for the future of our discipline.

• • • • •wendi field murray, originally from Massachusetts, received a ba in sociology from saint anselm college, a bs in anthropology from bridgewater state college, and an Ma in anthropology from the University of arizona. since attending the University of arizona’s field school in 2003 she has worked as an archaeologist and ethnographer in new england, alaska, the northern plains, and the southwest. she is currently a doctoral student at the University of arizona, and her research interests include cultural resource management, indigenous and collaborative archaeology, ethnohistory, cultural landscapes, and nagpra.

nicholas c. laluk is a graduate student in the school of anthropology at the University of arizona. his research interests include heritage preservation, collaborative research, apache archaeology, and Federal indian law. his dissertation research focuses on apache occupation of the chiricahua Mountains in southeastern arizona. this research involves collaboration with apache groups that retain significant ties to the mountain range.

barbara j. mills is professor and director of the school of anthropology at the University of arizona, where she is also an affiliated faculty member with the american indian studies interdisciplinary program and a curator at the arizona state Museum. From 1993 to 2005 she directed the University of arizona archaeological Field school, which involved collaboration with Western pueblo and White Mountain apache tribes. her interests include southwest archaeology, ceramic analysis, migration, identity, social memory, and heritage preservation.

t. j. ferguson owns anthropological research, llc, a research company in tucson, arizona, where he is also a professor of practice in the school of anthropology at the University of arizona. he has worked extensively with Western


pueblo and apache tribes in arizona and new Mexico on research related to repatriation, historic preservation, and land and water rights litigation.

notes

For their assistance with the research in this paper we thank Calvin Grinnell and Elgin Crows Breast of the MHA Nation Cultural Preservation Office; MHA tribal consultants Michael J. Evans of the Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service; María Nieves Zedeño of BARA; and William Gillispie and Mary Farrell of the Coronado National Forest. Wendi Field Murray thanks the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service and the Department of Anthropology at University of Arizona for funding her project. We also acknowledge the funding to the University of Arizona Archaeological Field School provided by the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program (principal investigators Barbara Mills and John Welch) and by the University of Arizona Department of Anthropology. Collaboration with the White Mountain Apache Tribe for the UA Field School and for Nicholas Laluk’s research has been facilitated by the Heritage Preservation Program, and we especially thank Mark Altaha for his help on all these projects.

1. Although all interested parties are stakeholders, it should be noted that the “stakes” they hold are not necessarily equal.

2. In this article we use the term consultant to refer to a paid tribal participant who is recognized as having specialized knowledge pertinent to the research. The term informant is avoided, as it may imply power inequalities between the researcher and the cultural knowledge specialist. In Murray’s research, consultants were paid an agreed-upon fee in addition to tobacco and other gifts. The giving of gifts is consistent with traditional MHA rules of knowledge exchange that are still practiced today. Gifts are intended for the mentor as well as for the eagle, in order to ensure that the exchange occurs safely and sincerely.

3. Murray notes that her conclusions are not being presented as representative of the entire MHA community, as the methods of participant recruitment emphasized cultural respect over methodological rigor. This touches upon a dilemma for archaeologists in collaborative research; conventional definitions for what constitute methodologically rigorous studies are often incompatible with the reality of working with Indigenous communities.

4. Students granted employment with the program expect to work for the Forest Service after graduation.

references

Adams, Christopher D. 2000a. Dark Canyon Ranchería Apache Military Battle Site, Lin-coln National Forest, New Mexico. Alamogordo, NM: Lincoln National Forest Heritage Program.

———. 2000b. Last Chance Canyon 1869 Apache/Cavalry Battle Site, Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. Alamogordo, NM: Lincoln National Forest Heritage Program.

Ayres, James. 1994. “Apache Camps.” In The Historical Archaeology of Dam Construction Camps in Central Arizona, vol. 2A: Sites in the Roosevelt Dam Area, ed. Simon Bruder, 255–374. Dames and Moore Intermountain Cultural Resource Service Research Paper 11. Phoenix: Dames and Moore.


Basehart, Harry W. 1959. Chiricahua Apache Subsistence and Socio-Political Organization. Albu-querque: University of New Mexico.

Bass0, Keith H. 1983. Western Apache. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10: Southwest, ed. Alfonso Ortiz, 462–88. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

———. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Bowers, Alfred W. 1992. Hidatsa Social and Ceremonial Organization. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press, 1963. Reprint, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 194, Wash-ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

———. 2004. Mandan Social and Ceremonial Organization. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1950. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson. 2008. Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Deloria, Vine. 1994. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.Donaldson, Bruce R., and John R. Welch. 1991. “Western Apache Dwellings and Their

Archaeological Correlates.” In Mogollon V, ed. Patrick Beckett, 93–105. Las Cruces: COAS.

Ferg, Alan. 2004. An Introduction to Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache Pottery. Arizona Archae-ologist 35. Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society.

Ferguson, T. J., and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh. 2006. History Is in the Land: Multivocal Tribal Traditions in Arizona’s San Pedro Valley. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Fine-Dare, Kathleen S. 2002. Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Goodwin, Grenville. N.d. Dwellings of the White Mountain Apache, Artifacts, Fire and Tobacco. Field notes on file at the Arizona State Museum Archives, Ms. A-71. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona.

———. 1942. Social Organization of the Western Apache. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gregory, David A. 1981. “Western Apache Archaeology: Problems and Approaches.” In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450–1700, ed. David R. Wil-cox and W. Bruce Masse, 257–74. Anthropological Research Papers no. 24. Tempe: Arizona State University.

Grinnell, Calvin, Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman, María Nieves Zedeño, and Nicholas Laluk. 2006. Reconstructing Landscape Knowledge and History from Bundles. Poster pre-sented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Hollenback, Kacy L., Calvin Grinnell, and María Nieves Zedeño. 2006. Collaborative Re-search from a Tribal Perspective. Poster presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Jelinek, Lauren E. 2005. “Silencing the Past: Social Memory and the Archaeology of the White Mountain Apache and Mormons in the Forestdale Valley, Arizona.” MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Kerber, Jordan E., ed. 2006. Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Mills, Barbara J. 2000. “The Archaeological Field School in the 1990s: Collaboration in Research and Training.” In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, ed. Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner, 121–28.Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.

Mills, Barbara J., Mark Altaha, John Welch, and T. J. Ferguson. 2008. “Field Schools


without Trowels: Teaching Archaeological Ethics and Heritage Preservation in a Col-laborative Context.” In Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indig-enous Archaeology, ed. Stephen Silliman, 25–49. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Murray, Wendi Field. 2009. “‘The Gods Above Have Come’: A Contemporary Analysis of the Eagle as a Cultural Resource in the Northern Plains.” MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Opler, Morris E. 1965. An Apache Life-way: The Economic, Social, and Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians. New York: Cooper Square Publishers.

———. 1969. Apache Odyssey: A Journey between Two Worlds. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

———. 1983. “The Apachean Culture Pattern and Its Origins.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10: Southwest, ed. by Alfonso Ortiz, 368–92. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Parks, Douglas R. 2001. “Arikara.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13: Plains, ed. Raymond J. DeMallie, pt. 1: 365–90. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Rick, John. 1991. “The Zuni Stanford Anthropology/Archaeology Project.” In Zuni Histo-ry: Victories in the 1990s, ed. E. Richard Hart, 11–18. Seattle, WA: Institute of the North American West.

Schneider, Mary Jane. 2001. “Three Affiliated Tribes.” In Handbook of North American Indi-ans, vol. 13: Plains, ed. Raymond J. DeMallie, pt. 1, 391–98.

Silliman, Stephen, ed. 2008. Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in In-digenous Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Stoffle, Richard W., María Nieves Zedeño, and David B. Halmo. 2001. American Indians and the Nevada Test Site: A Model of Research and Consultation. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office.

Sweeney, Edwin R. 1991. Cochise: Chiricahua Apache Chief. Norman: University of Oklaho-ma Press.

Thomas, David Hurst. 2000. Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Na-tive American Identity. New York: Basic Books.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. “Draft Environmental Assessment: Proposal to Permit Take as Provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.” Divi-sion of Migratory Bird Management, July 2008. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm.

Watt, Eva Tulene, with Keith H. Basso. 2004. Don’t Let the Sun Step over You: A White Moun-tain Apache Family Life, 1860–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Welch, John R., and T. J. Ferguson. 2007. “Putting Patria back into Repatriation: Cultur-al Affiliation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal Lands.” Journal of Social Archaeology 7 (2): 171–98.

Welch, John R., and Ramon Riley. 2001. “Reclaiming Land and Spirit in the Western Apache Homeland.” American Indian Quarterly 25 (1): 5–12.

White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program. 2004. White Mountain Apache Tribe Cultural Heritage Resources Best Management Practices. On file, White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program, Fort Apache, Arizona.

Wylie, Alison. 1995. “Alternative Histories, Epistemic Disunity and Political Integrity.” In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Set-tings, ed. Peter R. Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson, 255–72. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Zedeño, María Nieves. 2007. “Blackfeet Landscape Knowledge and the Badger-Two Medicine Traditional Cultural District.” SAA Archaeological Record 7 (2): 9–18.


Zedeño, María Nieves, Kacy Hollenback, Christopher Balsadú, Vania Fletcher, and Sam-rat Miller. 2006. Cultural Affiliation Statement and Ethnographic Resource Assessment Study for Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, and Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona. Submitted to the National Park Service, Mid-west Regional Office, DSCESU Cooperative Agreement CA-1248-00-002.

Zedeño, María Nieves, and Nicholas Laluk. 2008. “When Is a Site Culturally Viable? Landscape Evolution and Ojibwa Heritage Building on the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin.” Heritage Management 1: 71–98.

Zedeño, María Nieves, Samrat Millar, Wendi Field Murray, and Kacy L. Hollenback. 2009. Draft Plant Field Guide: Ethnobotany of the Knife River and Missouri River En-virons. Prepared for the National Park Service, Midwest Region. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Archaeological Collaboration with American Indians: Case Studies from the Western U.S.

Documents

Transcript of Archaeological Collaboration with American Indians: Case Studies from the Western U.S.