Chapter 12 Changing Tides: Tribal Engagement in Oregon's Coastal Archaeology

Kassandra Rippee, Stacy Scott
{"title":"Chapter 12 Changing Tides: Tribal Engagement in Oregon's Coastal Archaeology","authors":"Kassandra Rippee,&nbsp;Stacy Scott","doi":"10.1111/apaa.12178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Archaeology on Oregon's Coast has been largely limited in scope and has lacked the holistic viewpoint of Indigenous coastal history. Investigations began in earnest around 1930 with avocational archaeologists like Marcus Seale interested in expanding their “trophy item” collections. The male dominated field of professional archaeology began to evolve in the 1940s and 1950s with investigators from varying backgrounds, like Luther Cressman who began studying the material culture of the Oregon Tribes as if they were an extinct group. The 1970s push for federal recognition brought increased Tribal involvement and collaboration with archaeologists such as Richard Everett “Dick” Ross. Unfortunately, Tribes remain largely uninterested in archaeology as Indigenous individuals and communities continue to be left out of the narrative. Cultural resource professionals at major institutions continue to curate “cultural material” under the aegis of science and resource protection while arguing against the repatriation of material based on either lack of skeletal components, or a misguided understanding of “affiliation” and of Native views of sacredness. We explore the legacy of our predecessors and how we as archaeologists must take a more comprehensive Tribal perspective approach to understanding Oregon coastal history and more respectfully manage legacy collections.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100116,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association","volume":"34 1","pages":"145-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apaa.12178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Archaeology on Oregon's Coast has been largely limited in scope and has lacked the holistic viewpoint of Indigenous coastal history. Investigations began in earnest around 1930 with avocational archaeologists like Marcus Seale interested in expanding their “trophy item” collections. The male dominated field of professional archaeology began to evolve in the 1940s and 1950s with investigators from varying backgrounds, like Luther Cressman who began studying the material culture of the Oregon Tribes as if they were an extinct group. The 1970s push for federal recognition brought increased Tribal involvement and collaboration with archaeologists such as Richard Everett “Dick” Ross. Unfortunately, Tribes remain largely uninterested in archaeology as Indigenous individuals and communities continue to be left out of the narrative. Cultural resource professionals at major institutions continue to curate “cultural material” under the aegis of science and resource protection while arguing against the repatriation of material based on either lack of skeletal components, or a misguided understanding of “affiliation” and of Native views of sacredness. We explore the legacy of our predecessors and how we as archaeologists must take a more comprehensive Tribal perspective approach to understanding Oregon coastal history and more respectfully manage legacy collections.

第12章潮汐变化:俄勒冈州海岸考古中的部落参与
俄勒冈州海岸的考古在很大程度上范围有限,缺乏土著海岸历史的整体观点。调查始于1930年左右,像Marcus Seale这样的业余考古学家对扩大他们的“战利品”收藏感兴趣。男性主导的专业考古领域在20世纪40年代和50年代开始发展,研究人员来自不同背景,比如Luther Cressman,他开始研究俄勒冈部落的物质文化,就好像他们是一个灭绝的群体一样。20世纪70年代推动联邦承认带来了部落更多的参与,并与Richard Everett“Dick”Ross等考古学家合作。不幸的是,由于土著个人和社区继续被排除在叙事之外,部落在很大程度上仍然对考古学不感兴趣。主要机构的文化资源专业人员继续在科学和资源保护的支持下策划“文化材料”,同时反对基于缺乏骨骼成分或对“附属关系”和原住民神圣观的错误理解而遣返材料。我们探索了前人的遗产,以及作为考古学家,我们必须如何采取更全面的部落视角来理解俄勒冈州海岸历史,并更尊重地管理遗产收藏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信