Indigenous Research and Archaeology: Transformative Practices in/with/for the Ngarrindjeri Community

The relationships between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists in Australia have consisted of conflict, consultation and collaboration. The literature looks at very little the roles and challenges met by Indigenous archaeologists and the issues that arise as a result of working between two different knowledge systems. This paper therefore will discuss the question of how archaeologists could modify their practice for better answering the Indigenous communities and treats this particular question by presenting my own work among the Ngarrindjeri nation of southeast South Australia. By the means of a lived experiment of conducting research with/in/for my community, I will consider the effect of the personal identity related to community stories while also examining how the knowledge of the interior can be at the same time complex but very significant for the development of archaeology.

---

Resumé Par le passé, les rapports entre les aborigènes et les archéologues en Australie se sont avérés conflictuels, consultatifs et collaboratifs. Même si les aborigènes ont été impliqués dans la recherche archéologique, les chercheurs non-aborigènes ont été à l’avant plan dans le développement de méthodes et de techniques concernant la discipline archéologique à défaut d’avoir des aborigènes formés à cette discipline. Cet article se veut une contribution au développement actuel de recherche sur les méthodologies employées en archéologie par l’intermédiaire d’une discussion sur l’expérience d’un étudiant Ngarrindjeri récemment gradué en archéologie et qui travaille avec les communautés. Même si le cas présenté ici utilise la question hautement contentieuse et politique du rapatriement, l’objectif de cet article est de refléter les pratiques adoptées qui amènent à la transformation significative des procédures pour les archéologues Ngarrindjeri qui travaillent dans/avec/pour leur communauté afin de soutenir les efforts de protection de notre patrimoine culturel.

---

Resumen Las relaciones entre los pueblos indígenas y los arqueólogos en Australia han sido de conflicto, consulta y colaboración. La bibliografía sobre el tema no tiene muy en cuenta los roles y los desafíos con los que se enfrentan los arqueólogos indígenas y las cuestiones que surgen como resultado de trabajar entre dos sistemas diferentes de conocimiento. Este artículo, en consecuencia, discutirá la cuestión de la manera en que los arqueólogos podrían modificar sus prácticas para dar una mejor respuesta a las comunidades indígenas; el artículo trata esta cuestión particular al presentar mi propio trabajo entre la nación Ngarrindjeri al sudeste del sur de Australia. Por la experiencia vivida al conducir una investigación en/con mi comunidad, consideraré el efecto de la identidad en relación a las historias de la comunidad a la vez que examinaré de que forma en conocimiento interior puede ser a la vez complejo pero muy significativo para el desarrollo de la arqueología.

     

Ethinicity and Identity in the Archaeological Record (Reconstruction of an Excavation Completed in 1937 on a Chickasaw Village Site in Northeast Mississippi)

This article presents the restitution of an operation of excavation carried out in 1937 by Moreau Chambers on the site of a Chickasaw village. The objective of my research is to carry out a new analysis of the documents of the old excavations, to answer the interrogations concerning the way of life of Chickasaw at the beginning of the historical period and to reconstitute a site plan for this Chickasaw village. This operation included/understood also the handing-over of repatriated bodies. I also discuss the way in which my implication in this project interacted with my identity as a Chickasaw woman. The restitution of the operation of excavation, repatriation, and associated research contributed to show to the Chickasaw people the ways in which the law can help them. I finish this article by discussing the implications on the long term of the operation of Chambers for the modern archaeologists, the Chickasaw people, and Chickasaw who are themselves archaeologists.     

Refugees, repatriation and liberal citizenship

This article considers the meanings attached to refugeehood, repatriation and liberal citizenship in the twentieth century. Refugees are those who have been unjustly expelled from their political community. Their physical displacement is above all symbolic of a deeper political separation from the state and the citizenry. ‘Solving’ refugees’ exile is therefore not a question of halting refugees’ flight and reversing their movement, but requires political action restoring citizenship.All three ‘durable solutions’ developed by the international community in the twentieth century - repatriation, resettlement and local integration - are intended to restore a refugee's access to citizenship, and through citizenship the protection and expression of their fundamental human rights. Yet repatriation poses particular challenges for liberal political thought. The logic of repatriation reinforces the organization of political space into bounded nation-state territories. However, it is the exclusionary consequences of national controls over political membership - and through this of access to citizenship rights - that prompt mass refugee flows. Can a framework for repatriation be developed which balances national state order and liberal citizenship rights?This article argues that using the social contract model to consider the different obligations and pacts between citizens, societies and states can provide a theoretical framework through which the liberal idea of citizenship and national controls on membership can be reconciled.Historical evidence suggests that the connections in practice between ideas of citizenship and repatriation have been far more complex. In particular, debate between Western liberal and Soviet authoritarian/collectivist understandings of the relationship between citizen and state played a key role in shaping the refugee protection regime that emerged after World War II and remains in place today. Repatriation - or more accurately liberal resistance to non-voluntary refugee repatriation - became an important tool of Cold War politics and retains an important value for states interested in projecting and reaffirming the primacy of liberal citizenship values. Yet the contradictions in post-Cold War operational use of repatriation to ‘solve’ displacement, and a growing reliance on ‘state-building’ exercises to validate refugees’ returns demonstrates that tension remains between national state interests and the universal distribution of liberal rights, as is particularly evident when considering Western donor states’ contemporary policies on refugees and asylum. For both intellectual and humanitarian reasons there is therefore an urgent need for the political theory underpinning refugee protection to be closely examined, in order that citizenship can be placed at the centre of refugees’ ‘solutions’.     

The image of the city in modern literature

This article considers the meanings attached to refugeehood, repatriation and liberal citizenship in the twentieth century. Refugees are those who have been unjustly expelled from their political community. Their physical displacement is above all symbolic of a deeper political separation from the state and the citizenry. ‘Solving’ refugees’ exile is therefore not a question of halting refugees’ flight and reversing their movement, but requires political action restoring citizenship.

All three ‘durable solutions’ developed by the international community in the twentieth century – repatriation, resettlement and local integration – are intended to restore a refugee's access to citizenship, and through citizenship the protection and expression of their fundamental human rights. Yet repatriation poses particular challenges for liberal political thought. The logic of repatriation reinforces the organization of political space into bounded nation–state territories. However, it is the exclusionary consequences of national controls over political membership – and through this of access to citizenship rights – that prompt mass refugee flows. Can a framework for repatriation be developed which balances national state order and liberal citizenship rights?

This article argues that using the social contract model to consider the different obligations and pacts between citizens, societies and states can provide a theoretical framework through which the liberal idea of citizenship and national controls on membership can be reconciled.

Historical evidence suggests that the connections in practice between ideas of citizenship and repatriation have been far more complex. In particular, debate between Western liberal and Soviet authoritarian/collectivist understandings of the relationship between citizen and state played a key role in shaping the refugee protection regime that emerged after World War II and remains in place today. Repatriation – or more accurately liberal resistance to non-voluntary refugee repatriation – became an important tool of Cold War politics and retains an important value for states interested in projecting and reaffirming the primacy of liberal citizenship values. Yet the contradictions in post-Cold War operational use of repatriation to ‘solve’ displacement, and a growing reliance on ‘state-building’ exercises to validate refugees’ returns demonstrates that tension remains between national state interests and the universal distribution of liberal rights, as is particularly evident when considering Western donor states’ contemporary policies on refugees and asylum. For both intellectual and humanitarian reasons there is therefore an urgent need for the political theory underpinning refugee protection to be closely examined, in order that citizenship can be placed at the centre of refugees’ ‘solutions’.     

A Polluting Concept of Culture: Native Artefacts Contaminated with Toxic Preservatives

This research examines the practical and theoretical fallout of the toxic methods used by museum conservators to preserve native artefacts and regalia. These conservation practices, dating to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were undertaken before the age of museum professionalisation and within a larger context of cultural assimilation. Many of these chemical preservatives produce the same harmful effects in humans as they do in the organisms they were designed to eradicate. As these contaminated artefacts are repatriated, members of native communities who attempt to reintegrate them into ceremonial and daily practice are put at significant health risk. Not only do these pollutants undermine the stated goals of repatriation but they also stand as a literal instance of the way in which a hegemonic and interpreting culture has metaphorically contaminated the culture it has purported to preserve and display.     

Body Snatching & Grave Robbing: Bodies for Science

This paper parallels the history of body snatching for dissection in the United States with the robbing of Native American graves by nineteenth‐century anthropologists for osteological collections. The implications of the similarities revealed are discussed; specifically whether ethical responsibilities to the deceased were being upheld by researchers and how these practices were maintained through the exploitation of marginalized members of society. In both cases, bodies were commodified in the grave (interred as people and later extracted as resources) and clandestinely acquired, studied and then disposed of or stored away. For doctors, the traffic in cadavers ended when voluntary donation of bodies to science increased in the twentieth century. For anthropologists the situation has been reversed, as they now face the potential destruction of their skeletal collections as a result of legal reforms such as NAGRPA.     

A passage from India: Geographies and experiences of repatriation, 1858-1939

This paper examines both the imagined and material geographies of return experienced by the imperial elite as they returned from India. Focusing on Cheltenham and Bedford, I explore how the 'aristocratic' lifestyles of earlier repatriates became increasingly difficult to sustain over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although imaginatively constructed notions of return continued to imply that an upper middle-class standard of living remained attainable for those returning 'home', the majority found that they had to settle in (lower) middle-class suburban locations. In considering such changes I am also able to examine the ways in which geographies and experiences of return were influenced by a specifically imperial identity over a period of imperial decline.     

Conflicts Over the Repatriation of Sami Cultural Heritage in Sweden

Abstract

More than 400 years of colonization and assimilation policy by the Nordic states has created a new situation for Sami culture. Over this long period the Sami heritage has become thoroughly marginalized, but today the more overt conflicts that we find elsewhere in the world between colonizing states and indigenous peoples have diminished. Such conflicts are, perhaps, more characteristic of an earlier stage of the colonial frontier, and they have been replaced by post-colonial forms of consensus. Despite the shared experiences of the Sami in their recent history, some important differences have emerged between Nordic states in how the Sami heritage is perceived and how it is managed. Much more than in Norway, the dominant attitudes of the Swedish state continue to echo the discriminatory attitudes of the past, but in a more restrained way. This continuity of attitudes is demonstrated here using examples of current policies and practices. Particularly in Sweden, there are continuing conflicts between nationalism and the Sami world view, but I argue that these old conflicts are no longer the main problem in Scandinavia. Instead, scholars, Sami leaders, and others concerned with heritage in the north are finding common cause in opposing what we might call the ‘wilderness assumptions’ of policy makers in the south, especially within the neo-liberal Swedish state. These assumptions have been reinforced by the restructuring of state finances, and they are now leading towards neglect of northern cultural heritage and its associated institutions, particularly museums. These assertions are supported using examples from various museums and through case studies of the repatriation of Sami cultural objects such as drums and siejdde-stones, and the continuing problems with Sami skeletal remains.     

Algerian routes: Emancipation,deterritorialisation and transnationalism through suitcase trade

This paper explores the relationships between a particular photographic archive, Indigenous Australians and early ethnography. Colonial ethnographers, Spencer and Gillen, travelled throughout Central and Northern Australia in 1901 and 1902. Their experiences in the town of Borroloola with the local Indigenous peoples, in particular the Yanyuwa people, are contrasted to their experiences in other regions that they travelled through. While at Borroloola, Spencer and Gillen photographed a number of Yanyuwa men and women. In 1981, the repatriation of those images back into the community facilitated discussion about the appropriate positioning of each individual in Yanyuwa systems of kinship, and debate around the ceremonial details recorded, informing new layers of social memory. Yanyuwa elders expressed joy at viewing, naming and positioning the long deceased kin but when the identity of the person could not be recalled, responses conveyed a deep sense of loss. This paper explores the response to one of these photographs and explores in detail the resonances that this one photograph holds for the Yanyuwa community.