32 · origins of community-based research in archaeology

archaeological practices, but that archaeologists were fi nally truly forced to listen to these complaints through such powerful voices as Deloria’s and through such violent tactics as the invasion of fi eld camps” (2009, 180).

Native American activist groups, such as the American Indian Movement, and activist scholars and public intellectuals, such as Vine Deloria Jr., raised awareness of these issues both within an academic context and in the public eye. With the aim of reaching a very public albeit predominantly male audience outside of the academy, Deloria fi rst published the chapter “Anthropologists and Other Friends” from Custer Died for Your Sins in Playboy Magazine in 1969 (Deloria Jr. 1969). In both this early piece and in his later work, Deloria’s critique of anthropology not only rejected the rights of archaeologists to excavate Native American graves, but also called into question the motivations and benefi ts of archaeology and anthro-pology more broadly. He maintained that anthropological studies conducted on Native Americans were done only for the benefi t of the researchers and did nothing to address issues of importance to Native communities.

Fine-Dare (2002) details how discussions of research and cultural property took center stage twice at major Native gatherings: for Native American scholars at the “Second Convention of Indian Scholars” held in Aspen, Colorado, in 1971, and for students of the American Indian Student Association at the University of Minnesota in 1970. Activists who participated in “The Longest Walk,” from San Francisco, California, to Washington, DC, between March and July 1978, worked on the national scale to bring attention to Native American concerns about archae-ological excavations.

Native activists also challenged research and museum practices, forming the American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD) project (Hammil and Cruz 1989). In AIAD’s statement before the World Archaeological Congress, Native American activists lambasted those who made a living conducting research on Native Americans’ lifeways, bodies, and sacred places, stating, “As the most stud-ied peoples on the face of the earth, the American Indian is well acquainted with the ‘Indian Expert’ as found in the anthropological, archaeological, paleopathological, physical anthropological associations” (Hammil and Cruz 1989, 196). AIAD mem-bers questioned whether archaeologists have “the legal and moral authority” to interfere with the relationship that Indian people have to the Creator. They asked:

Could it be that the “Indian Experts” didn’t care that their acts were interfer-ing and affecting traditional religious practices, or did they justify the genocide of Indian religion by placing a higher priority on their objectives? Just as the

6480016_CH0002.INDD 326480016_CH0002.INDD 32 12/06/12 7:44 AM12/06/12 7:44 AM