A New and Different Archaeology?

American Indian Quarterly, 1996

American Indian Culture and Research …, 1992

AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURE AND RESEARCH JOURNAL 76:2 (1992) 37-56 Archaeology, Reburial, and the Tactics of a Discipline's Self-Delusion A 1992 discussion of how archaeologists develop rationales--tactics, really--so that they don't have to repatriate human remains.

Archaeology is Anthropology, edited by Susan D. Gillespie and Deborah L. Nichols, pp. 111–127. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 13., 2003

Glasgow Archaeological Journal, 1996

In "Politics, Practice, and Theory: Repatriation as a Force of Change," T. Killion (ed.), pp.79-90. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM., 2008

Archeological Papers of The American Anthropological Association, 2003

This afternoon I am going to present what I take to be the major issues and problems confronting American archeology at the turn of the century. I do this as an outsider, since I am an Old World prehistorian and paleo-anthropologist. However, I am also a product of the American university system. I teach in a six-fields department with a large and nationally-ranked graduate program, and thus, interact daily with American archaeologists of all kinds, of which we have more than a dozen (including Keith Kintigh, the current president of the Society for American Archeology-SAA).

1987

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Review of Anthropology, 2005

Archaeology has been linked to colonialist attitudes and scientific imperialism. But what are the perspectives of Indigenous groups concerning the practice of archaeology? Numerous organizations recognize the distinctive needs of Indigenous communities throughout the world and have adopted agreements and definitions that govern their relationships with those populations. The specific name by which Indigenous groups are known varies from country to country, as local governments are involved in determining the appropriateness of particular definitions to populations within their borders. This paper begins with an examination of the various aspects that have been used to determine whether or not a group of people might be considered "indigenous" under various definitions, and then uses the history of the relationships between North American archaeologists and Indigenous populations as a background for the examination of some of the political aspects of archaeology that have impacted Indigenous populations. It then proceeds to discuss perspectives on archaeology offered by members of various Indigenous populations throughout the World.