Reburial of artifacts happens routinely in Arizona as CRM organizations are
complying with the state's human burial discovery laws, A.R.S. § 41-844 and
A.R.S. § 41-865. These state laws, which are administered by the Arizona
State Museum (a division of the University of Arizona) and can be accessed
at the links below, state that Indian tribes or other groups who claim
descent from, or cultural affiliation with, human skeletal remains, grave
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony found in Arizona archaeological
excavations and other land-disturbance projects get to decide what is done
with these discovered materials. Most Indian tribes who claim them ask that
they be repatriated to designated tribal representatives. Therefore, in
these repatriation situations archaeologists usually are not the ones doing
the reburial, but rather designated members of the Indian tribes or other
claiming groups accept that responsibility.
Some tribes allow in-field analysis of burial-associated artifacts. Some
allow the materials to be transported to archaeological examination
facilities (labs) temporarily for more thorough analysis before the skeletal
remains and artifacts are repatriated for reburial. I don’t know of any
tribes that allow destructive analyses to be performed on human skeletal
remains (e. g., C14 or DNA sampling) or burial-related artifacts (e.g.,
taking thin-sections of sherds for petrographic analysis), although some
tribes might allow such studies. Sometimes there are no opportunities for
either in-field or post-fieldwork analysis, depending on tribal preferences
or reburial-ceremony schedules.
The repatriated materials that often get reburied normally include the human
skeletal materials and artifacts that are directly associated with human
burials and therefore are, or are very likely to be, funerary objects.
However, many archaeologists in Arizona err on the side of caution and also
repatriate all artifacts found in the immediate vicinity of a burial on the
chance that some of the repatriated objects might possibly have been
directly associated with the graves at the time of interment but have since
become displaced after burial.
Here are the links I mentioned above:
A.R.S. § 41-844:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/00844.htm
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/00844.htm&Tit
le=41&DocType=ARS> &Title=41&DocType=ARS
A.R.S. § 41-865:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/00865.htm
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/00865.htm&Tit
le=41&DocType=ARS> &Title=41&DocType=ARS
Regards,
Allen Dart, RPA, Executive Director (Volunteer)
Old Pueblo Archaeology Center
PO Box 40577
Tucson AZ 85717-0577 USA
520-798-1201 office, 520-798-1966 fax
Email: [log in to unmask]
URL: www.oldpueblo.org
Disclosure: Old Pueblo Archaeology Center's Executive Director Allen Dart is
a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service cultural resources specialist
who volunteers his time to Old Pueblo. Views expressed in Old Pueblo
Archaeology Center communications do not necessarily represent views of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture or of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ashley
Long
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 8:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Catch-and-Release Archaeology
Hello everyone,
My name is Ashley Long, and I am a graduate student in archaeology at the
University of Nevada, Reno. I have been working with Dr. Sarah Cowie and
local tribal members and organizations on a collaborative archaeology
project, and am extending this to some of my coursework. I am currently
working on a paper reviewing the shift towards "catch and release"
archaeology in CRM today, where artifacts such as lithics are reburied at
the sites as soon as possible. This involves minimal recording in the
field and precludes more in-depth analyses like sourcing. There are
certainly trade-offs for this practice. My particular interest is in how
these methods are changing the relationships between archaeologists and
local communities.
Does anyone know of any other published or gray literature that addresses
this practice? From what I understand it happens occasionally in California
and is becoming more common in Nevada.
Any references or keywords you can point me toward would be most
appreciated, as would any additional contacts that you think might help.
Here is a list of what I have found so far:
Gonzalez, Sara L. and Darren Modzelewski, Lee M. Panich, and Tsim D.
Schneider
2006 Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. *American Indian Quarterly*
30(3/4): 388-415
Lightfoot, Kent G., Rob Q. Cuthrell, Chuck J. Striplen, and Mark G. Hylkema
2013 Rethinking the Study of Landscape Management: Practices Among
Hunter-Gatherers in North America. *American Antiquity* 78(2).
Maldonado, Doris Julissa
2011 *Reconfiguring Archaeological Practice: Lessons from Currusté,
Honduras*. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Berkeley.
Modzelewski, Darren and Sara Gonzalez.
2007 Creating Trails Through Traditions: An Update on the Kashaya Pomo
Interpretive Trail, Fort Ross State Historic Park. *Proceedings of the
Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 20: 23-26.*
Todd, L.C. and P.C. Burnett
2003 Archaeological Catch and Release: Expanding Data Capture for
Archaeological Catch and Release: Expanding Data Capture for Non-Collection
Survey. Poster Presented at the 61st Plains Anthropological Conference.
Voss, Barbara L.
2012 Curation as Research: A Case Study in Orphaned and Underreported
Archaeological Collections. *Archaeological Dialogues* 19(2): 145-169.
Best,
Ashley M. Long
Graduate Student
Department of Anthropology
University of Nevada, Reno
http://www.unr.edu/anthropology/people/graduate-students/ashley-long
|
