| | ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE POSTCOLONIAL CRITIQUE, 20 | MATTHEW LIEBMANN AND UZMA Z, RIZVI ALTAMIA PRESS A Di of Rao & Liki Posie, taahon New Youu Phyo | ZAUTAMIRA Postcolonial Cultural Affiliation: 5 Essentialism, Hybridity, and NAGPRA Marritew Lipewany ao to de humanities and soc seiences over the past quarer-century hasbeen the critique of esentalsm in discussions of ental di ference. The identifston and rejection of eset dscourses—wherein social groups or categorie re presumed toposes universal ears excha~ sive tall embershave become cental to postcolonial notions of iden tity and cultural diference. Essentaist diconrses reduce complex heterogeneous stcttes to 4 sapposed ner wath oF essence and function vith colonial egies to enforce hegemonic conta oer ealnized peo= ple, imribing inferiority upon them hy contling the dominant modes bof representation, The postcolonial denunciation of exes hinges on {ejection of the simpli binary opposition upon which much of eolo- rinse and neocoloniatsedicoute i predicated, sich as cvized/svage, ‘entex/nasgin, Fist World/Third Wosd, and the clonal Selthe colo tized Other The ant-esentalt postion espoused by many postcolonial theorits hat informed contemporiy antopological seudies of identity, hich ave is contingent, Sexe, and discursively constructed nature “These du notions of Ment, termed "conseuetvt," emphasize the cen- trl oe of social interaction i the negation of ident (Bath 1969; Hal 199%:3-4; Borgtede 2006-38) and challenge eseniaist conceptions of sei, onitany and homogenous essences in the construction of eulural ifs ference, Constrictiit notions of identity have ha a partculaly signiiant inmpact om the Feld f schacology in recent yar, both in the inerprets- tion of past soietice and in an increasing recognition of the pobtia impli- ‘ations of the acliaeological past inthe constriction of modern identities (esl 2000279), O: Cf rig ronounntaL CONTRIBUTIONS of poco sacsRoughly coinciding with dix shi ay Grom essentialist notions of ‘emity, American archaeology ws forced co tke some of the Bt tnt tive steps toward the decolonzition of the dsipline in he te 19804 ad rly 19905 with the adoption of ste and federal repatriation legislation in she United Sues, embodied mos prominent inthe Native Amntica Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)! (Tope and Echo Hawk 2000), NAGPRA provides the fer lgal men oe Native Amer ‘cans to exercise + modicum of contol over human remains, Rincrry objects, sacred objec, ad objects of eoltral patrimony held by feral funded insiutons throughout the United States, a well a contol over sbjects excavated fiom or discovered on federal or eibal lands afer 1990, Im recent years, however, NAGPRA fs been cttlzed for promoting an seit model of idensy (Bray and Grant 1994; Bary 1996-443, [Natrges and Dobkins 1999:86-87; Clark 2001:3; Gouden 2001) incom tent and incompatible withthe growing body of contemporary scholarship supposting consitivist notions of cultural dieence. ln short hese ek ‘igoes maintain that NAGPIRA wlizes an untenable concept of identity {hat contacts contemporary social theory at, 8 esis ifficule f "ot impossible, to implemen a inellectally honest manner ‘While feo, endorse dscusve approach tothe vetgation of iden= ti, 1 do noc think tat posteolonal theory w unavoidably in one with LNAGPRA. In ict, constructive notions of identity need! not undermine Native Amesiin atempas to asere contol cver their cute heritage athe, eric! application of postcolonial theory in concert with else teadng of NAGPRA can be used to suppor eparaion and advance the ‘ruc decolonization of archaeology i the United Stites, Inthe proces, wchaeologists stand uniquely posidoned ta uke signiiantcontebutions to the development of postcolonial theory wll (Gowen 2001-248 49), cmmpiszing the importance of hitory and material cute in the conc tution of poscolona identi. Before ditcusing these issues in det fist oe a caveat. In Orca i, one of the fondational texts of pextcolonial studies, Edwand Si ites of the importance of "stalin hich isa way of deserbing ‘he autos’ postion ina text with regard to the. naterial he writes about” (aid 1978-20, emphasis original. My stetegc location eelative to the archaeology of Naive Americans scat of « non-Nativeachaeolost Who has worked as NAGPILA coordinator fora federally recogniel N= tive American ibe (he Pueblo of Jemez. support repatriation and see ‘vasa small but immpottane tp in redresing the inequities that have hereto. fore chaneterzed the relationships among ster scieties and indigenous pole, purely that of arhaeoogtsin elation to Native American, {ako find apects of poston theories tobe competing incadic ns ene erigue of esenalsm (Sid 1978, 195) and the emp eee vole of ybritiy in the constitution of cull difswene Writ 199434"Ths, havea vested interes i the convergence snd nora of postcolonial theory with NAGPRA—not a8 3. meats o anderen "epttiaton, bt in support of i In my work st NAGPRA coontnnea heard repeated sitcoms of US. cll resource leishtion men eet monly NAGPRA) by tbl members who suggested that thee le de ne 10 far enough in llortng Native America a deiee of contol sera ancestral human remains ad objets of cultural heritage (Akers, ‘ches have made the argument hat these bs goto fr ring cae trl to Native Americas, , Meighan 200) However fed the leg Lation say be, NAGPRA curently provides the best opportuni continue the decolonization of archaeology in the United Statens procen [lieve to be consructive al vital tothe Fre of archacolageal se seach Gee ao Fergwion 20043), For this reason, I present the flowing analysis as «schol rejoinder «6 the argument thit the aplieation nf [NAGPRA isnot intellectual viable in postcolonial wot While NAG PRA i eotuinly not perfect (cll the ld analogy regain laws aed sages its beter not to se them being mide), Ht does nae neces the propagation of exentialise discourses, ether ‘The Essentialist Critique of NAGPRA ‘Ache center of many repatriation debate is the determination of cult sfiiation, a process chat has been elle "the cornerstone of NAGPRA (ovis ea. 2004:177) Cull ofton she tevin vosned to deter the connections that mst be made beeween federally recognized ies nd the acfacs and/or human temas dey wish fo repatriate, NAGPRA sates orl afiliion” meas that ere i etonship of skued group ienty which canbe exonably tad hitoralyw pchitorealy be toes prteneday Ian be or Native Havaan oan aa ‘eval evr group. Call alton eased when the pe. Pondenice ofthe evdence—hasd ob geogrpial, ham bilo chicos, igus, flor, ofl faion, hr evidence oe ‘ates information or exper opinion —nenooaiy lal to sich sconce, on, @5 USC 6§ 3001, Secon 22} 43 CER. 1028p ‘This definition thus entails cre clea icernable components 1) je ‘nteday tribe, 2) an identifiable eer group and 3) 3 teltonship of sare‘g10up identity. The fs of dese eaegoves i relatively staightforvard in thatthe lw applies to federally recognized tribes @5 USC. §5 3001, See- sion 2[7, 1}: Lovis et al 2004:177). NAGPRA is unambiguous on this point (be sce Gosden 2001:252), While I do oe deny that contemporary [Native American ident (that, who is and is noe Native America) is 2 complex, oflen conte, and highly negotiated isu, forthe purposes of this dscsson the point is moot. Only members of fray recognized [Native group (nd lineal descendants) can lao human renting ad fie rnerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony under NAGPRA, Problems arise when atempring to apply the [ter tivo components of the defsiton of cull afliation, however. The ecogntion of "identi- fable eater groups” has boen a point of contention. While maicunss of ten tly upon the cuture-hstorcl tadition of “archaeological cultures” ‘defined by complexes of material sit in an mzempe t etablh an iden table eater group (Lovie al 2004177), thie practice hasbeen inca ‘ingly questioned in recent yeas (Dongorke etl. 1997; Ferguson 2003140, 200428). The problem stems in part om the fat tae maseums rypicaly| ‘scalsh cultural aiition working fom the past (represented by thet colections) to the preset, while ees tend to work from thee present to {heir pat (Anyon and Thomton 2002192; Ferguson 2003140). fe any ‘ie, the etablidhnet of an ideale eater group mut be carved out fon 3 cxe-by-cate bss ais extremely contexe dependent Teisthe tind component of the definition of cultural afiiton, "a ve- lationship of share group identi” upon which the most vociferous de- bute as focuted, Critics of NAGPRA asert thatthe notion of cultil affiliation is fundamentally awed because i employs an estentalst model ‘of ident forcing tribe nd museums) to adopt the untenable poscon ‘hat Naive American ientiies have not changed throug dine (Bray and Grane 1994:154; Bray 1996443; Naiger and Dobkins 1999:86-87: Gos- ‘den 2001-241), at lent in certain fndamental categories that ae stamed to define thea ss authentic lias. There i long history behind this ype of exentsie dcoure; non-lindians have ofen portrayed Native Areti= ‘ans in opposition to Euro-American society ax simple, primitive, techno Togieily inmate, ad (aye met damaging ofa) wate in conta the complex, modern, technologically advanced, and dynamic West Ace conling to this view, Native Americas authensty is rooted ia an an ‘hanging pre-Columbian esence, presuming thatthe only “ea Indians" alive today are thoe who look, spesk ad act ike the indigenous popul- tions fis encountered by Europeans inthe New Wodld. Popular poreay- sls of thexeSctionaiood Native Amica inthe mis di have lent cre ‘ence tothe romantic fantasy tat ehee so-called “rel Inns stil exis Somewhere, snafeced by colonitation, ‘These imaginary Indians uli imately prove mote desirable to muimiream sacity than modern Native ‘Americans, who suffer by compariton and are offen ignored or magial- ‘aed when they atempe fo explain thee difrences through complex hi tories of dynamic adaption (McMullen 2004-270). "This station it ‘ypical of colonial conditions the world aver: asa measure of cont, cole onizersofen attempt to fx the identity of the colonized, employing es ‘envalsm in oer to astert a petcived supetionty. CCuscs of NAGPICA contend thie the In continues this egy of = senting Native Americans by ignoring postcoloniel theories of identi. Cvs Gasden (2001:241-42) ser dt: ‘he Ip Bt fr cine (ander NAGPRA] some frm of cll in- tery and contnity wi the peistove cles wich produced the tun, onder ancetl ones sd ojos, indicun eopks round he wo! hve to pove ct they ae not rele bid eo (ees, bt ave mainte sme nel ety ugh ie ad he resent. Posen ehoory, which in tne wth er cee of west scare hog moving ay fom ay ented noson of cle runsin eect condition to ses of ele which need be developed Uy indigenous people athe sor hpi ates he pee Scholars of a more posit bent have offered 9 similar critique, G. A. (Clark (20013) argues aginst NAGPRA on the basis tae hn or ienty-comsiusnes, i Beting, want Hing con sun changing, conan being reneged, wre onthe wind, At ‘hropoogis have known fr decades a dsctete ene groups, gy tounded in pac aod to, leno execs beyond a few emis ad ve dnt age, Too bd his de mgt lade moe Areca a= ‘colo! ln orions pletion and ater pie fa ve eed to make theese hat, Beets antec, NAGPILA i ao f= Alncaaly an acence; tot grounded in spi, ees, ‘ypoogil nations of human varton by arin tht pation be rte to federal recognized tribes” [NAGPRA] se tabs" ge reer tht dey ae bounded td duct, ht hey pei ooh 2B ete over pee and ne, ‘Both Gosden and Clatk focus on what they see a8 cental aw of [NAGPRA the promotion ofan esentilit concept of identi, However,although they share 4 common etc of the law, chese critiques arse fiom evo very diferent intellects! perspectives, Goslen’s argument 8 ‘made inthe context of + dicusion of postetonalisn in archaeology in which he expreses his support for contract models of identity, his Criticnm of NAGPRA ie not an atempe to undermine Naive American ecese to control over hums femans and setifis, buc is beter sen asa Gisinterested asesment of the law fom an outsiders perspective (dat of [Bish academe). Clark, onthe other hand, isan American scientist wim ing consracivatehcories of identity for reasons of intelectual polis, seeking unrestited aeces to hunnan sane fr academic sudy (Meskell, 2002290), In 30 doing he seeks to dlegitimize che marginalized persons who currently aeceie power though NAGPRA. The appropriation of Constructivist notions of ident by historically dominant colonia elites forthe continued subjugation of sublerns has unfortunately Become in~ ‘rensingly common in recent year (Hale 1997, 1999; Ficher 1999). This inan ionic and unintended consequence for postcolonial, whose &x- piel tated poical aspirations Gequend seek to promote indigenous Access power Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: Strategic Essentialism versus Radical Constructivism In practice, most rbes an mascumis have avoided the thorny cheoretia] thicket of modern identity dies atgether in the implementation of INAGPRA, In my experience eputsationfequendy proceeds chrough the application of an implicly ewensalst notion of call afiliation ‘Whether conscious of the logical inconstenies hat inher in concepts of ‘unchanging cle exencet oF ot, many museums and tribes have cho~ fen to simply maintain che satus quo and asume a relavely sraightfor~ ‘wand link between modern tides and the “identifiable exer groups” in question. “This approach pall a tactic Fo enabling subulera acess wo power that has previously been endorsed by Gayatd Chakeworey Spivak, one of| the luminaries of postcolonial stds, Spivak has advocated the accession ‘of power by margnalied groupe through what she terms sae sential lin (Spivak 1987-20), the ualization of (knowingly faved) categories rooted in natitl and callectve homogeneity for polities gains, The use of the concept of unchanging Native American identities to establish cle afiition san example of ate ewes, and indeed this tactic has ‘been Feguendy employed by tribes and mucus i the implementation ‘of NAGPRA ever the past two decades. ‘While the wse of strategic eset by Native American may be ef fee in asining shor-term goals such 5 the epateation of particular individnls or objet, this tac is wlimely problematic because of the dangerous legal precedent i esablshes IF ebesaset that their modern “altral formations da not ifr fom those of ele ancestors, they sk perpetuating Western nvions of Native American cultre as unchanging Ed fxd in she past. That, by maining ee state nature of thelr iden tty when establishing cltwal sftiation, Native America isk rifore- ing he expectation tht Indian-nes (and all senda ights and privileges) ine inthe pon othe elms as well This could cause el legal prob- lems if applied in other arse of tba polis, for example, in ataining Fedetl recognition of eneting previously established erent right. If Na~ tive Americans at equied to maintain an changing, static identity then ‘ny innovations or tansormations thie have occurred since 1492 make them somehow les Indian, sents promoted statically inthe im= plementation of NAGPRA exrry the danger of backfiring in other con- texts ane proving detrimental to fre legal eases. "The case of Anishinsabespeafahing in northern Wiiconsin provides a uefil example (Nesper 2002, 2004). Treaties signed in 1837 and 1842. tated Anishinanbe people (alo known as Chippewa or Ojibwe) the right to fh a night ing cotehes and spears (cal species of fish have highly reflective jes andthe vie of an external source of light aids in Toeating ‘nd speating then}. Throughout the course of the nineteenth and ewent- sth cencris, ming torches wee replaced fist by laters, chen by ash light, and filly by ausounobile eadights taped to eonsaucton helme's Sima itch bak canoes were aupereded by rowrbons, which ere dhe supplanted by etfs with motored outboard engines, ll of which sed in ncreasing the yield offs harvested annually (Nesper 2004230) Loca rnon-Indansproted tha thease of these technological advances granted tn unfair advantage and that Anshinaabe sng under the protection of ‘oeaty rights should ute only the technologies svlble tthe nine teenth- century signatories ofthe weates. OF course, Anshinabe support fr correctly pointed out the inconsizeney inherent in hese argument ‘why should Native Americans be bound to static, unchanging forms of Inaterial-cultre while non-indians are ot? Anbhinaabe writer Jim [Northrup suns p the paradox suecincty:"Some people opposed to spear~ ‘ng sy we should do i ike ie wa done a eeaty signing times. Go back to the bitch bark eanoe and famingeorc, Why shold we be stck inthe ast‘cntury?. go backs. bitch bark canoe when you go back toa horse fin boggy” (Northrup 1997: 141 “Anshinabe teat right could thos be wadermined by events con ceptions of "tadional” ie, unchanging) clare. This cseilleates the ‘importance of taking constructive rtgues of identity seriously. As Sai (1993) notes, any use of aie essentalisn—srategic or othenwise—even= tually condemns suibjgate peoples to continued margnay and oppres- sion. Were the Anishinssbe to maintain that they had not changed in feueace over the past two centuries for the purposes of NAGPRA, this, onl be tarned agains them i thet bade over weary tights. Henee, he ontinned use of ewentat model of Nacve American identity by Suis and tribes i the implementation of NAGPRA isnot only itll tually imperial but also eglly precarious. "The aerate o thee went conceptions tha is eypilly pt forth by antntopologists today is the embacing of possmexirn/poscolonal ‘movil of identity, emphasizing i vid, exible, and stutionally coating {ent nature, Hever, scent asentnensof postcolonial decry, both pro= {Gouden 2001258) and con- (Disk 1995), have noted that his emphasis fon the socially constructed nature of identity cou ukimately prove desi mental eo Native America interests. Cleat the adoption ofa ruiel con Structivis stance wherein “eitons ae invented subjective re slippery {ite exis aaa cultural denies are mye" Disk 1999-7) woold prove deren to tribes claiming right Based on euler aflaion, Rather than stengthening native cans to coneol over cultural heritage, pstolonnl concepts of identrysppeae to provide the means by which FRegemonic powers are able to contin to repress subse peoples. By siesing the probes of extents and the Nui and exile aspects of “dent, postcolonatsm ha been (ois) to asere the impos of = tabishing share group identity between modern tribes and sci groups in the paste tmning NAGPIRA iat a erelieeectaist erick that pil the rug ut fom ur the Fe of the Native Americans rom che perspective fotmodeen bes, thi appeas to be one mow instance ina longline of bo ken treaties bythe US. government. Once again Indians were promised = mowicum of contol only to have that right saatched away a ew years ate, this ime though a aac sleght-o-hand that claims tat is impose "ble to prove that they shire a common ideaty with eeir ancestors, OF Course, this is in dtect opposition to the explicitly tated pola goals of ‘ay posteolonaiss who endorse subalers acces power. Ths, the combination of postcolonial theory and NAGPRA would seem to place Native Antica in no-win situation. On the one hand, the use of eens categories (ao matter ow srateic) condemns Nas tive Americans to ols of stati theres in whic legal clams ae undet= mined by any vation fons ee cual formations ofthe thee pre-1492 eestor nthe other band, ce adoption of radical constructivist weak ‘ih any notion of eur ine, Ths, Indians ae aught beeween dhe ‘Soy and Chaya oficdenety sad chaeinga course chat ers on the fide of stategic event seus in acutiont tha elt ation i intellectually untenable, wile teeing too cose to radical constructivism, Condemns even the mete existence of iba ene to nothing more than contemporary politi fibrcation, Routes Rather than Roots: Closer Readings “The reduction of cll ainion to either ental oF ead con- svetvan ia fe dichotomy however In my red of the NAG PRA des no, in fc, olige tbe or mums Yo alop events tude of entity Prthernoe,eqlngposestons notions of entity ‘ith ail condractivm mics the agents of many posclo- al hors y "aeons gon of key int onesie teal modal of extreme contrive, es (eg, Dit 1994) lo ower trial lement of potoloialan andthe proce of dey construction. Ties soul nih be forced omnia at they hae reed eae thse ve the couse ofthe pat 58 yea noe be egued to promote 3 ion of sent ts Het, eben hng—consany changing con ‘indy beng reneged, witen 0 the win?” (Clk 2013). Much ofthe nella hand-wringing surrounding che dickies in- teseacin the aplication of NAGPRA neglect py lint tention fore actual went ofthe vs A love examiaion of the relation an is lege history swe ha the legal dfnition of elem aliaon uti led by NAGPRA docs not necete 2 sate noon of sagan furl contimiy (cotes Gouln 2001261), Rather, NAGPRLA defines shu aiiaton st ltioip of shared group identity” Q5 US.C. 55 3001, [emphasis mine). Ar with many lea coors, the ickaion of 2 ine words thie, *reaomsip"—iake al the deren. nan cry dof NAGPRA legion, sce deinition of cut filaton wan prpored, one tit woud ave reuied that“ einai of troup Key fon he eat othe priser dy ou” be resonable thlaed (ope and Esto-Havk 2000162 50 emphasis added. How tver the authors of th egiltonulkinately recogni ha the cotinty Seénion would prove proberai. The equiement of wochnging andunbroken call idensity hat repeatedly proven detrimental to Native ‘American groups atempting to atin federal recognition (Cliford 1985:336-44), ict of wich dhe dar ofthislegation were well vars Ian tempt to avoid he il cht have plage ial groups in the past, the mecesiy of “continuity” was changed to the les stringent elationsip™ requirement, As Gntenblits (2002:176) notes, "both the wording of NAG PRA and mach oft lgiative history seem intended to change the way call eoninaty was defined” Ieodicing the concep of a rearnship of Shared group identity ths makes space fora tightly more Bud, Meable, and socially comsructed notion of ident to be employed inthe implement tion of NAGPIA, ane close to thi endorsed by contemporary athropak- ‘ogiss and postcolonial heorss. Furthermore » loser reading of portolonal scholaihip reveals that some ofits most prominent proponents do no, infact, endorse a notion (of cultural ideotty cut rom whole cloth, Stas Hall (989-29), for exam ple, explicitly acknowledges “ee place of history, lnguoge, and culture in the construction of subjectivey and identity” Likewise, Bhabha notes that, curl ident is enced bythe power of tition eo be rinsed” {Dhaba 19942). Modern identities are neither simple continuations of ppt identies nor ested out of thin ais aher, identities daw on hisory for thee legacy, restaging the part inthe cresion of dhe present. Iden ‘iy consrction i always im proces and never complete (Hall 199222; [Bhabha 1994:1-2) this doce not mean that tional practices ae forgot ten or dissed, but are renseibed and given new meanings. In other ‘word, modern identities may not represent» srsghtforwar, one-to-one correlation with che past, but there i clash between the past and Imodern groups. Furthermore, the acknowledgment of the socal con serction of identity should noe be ken as 2 nepation of ts importance. is true that cultural ide, ike rce, does not ext 35 an independent cig in the word. ensity i dsursely constructed. Bot this does not ‘uae identity any ee socially significa. Cultural sdeniescreae salient, soci diinetions and, es, must not be discounted as mere epiphenom- ena of, wore, inconsequential Cleat, then, the concept of cull afition isnot quite as rigidly ‘eens tts have made i¢ out to be. In adion, not all postcolo~ nalts endorse an extreme constructive postion on idemtty, qvalifying ‘he dt of ethnic conscioamen as mediated and constructed oUt of his torial reais, In bok cultural aiation andl postcolonial theory, it sems ‘ore weil eo conceive of identity i ters of mes athe than Ws (CHE ford 1997; Friedman 2002). With this esablshed, ie becomes powsible to cate “third way" for dhe implementation of NAGPRA in dhe poscolo- rial er, one tht is nether rigidly esentilst nor radially comsricivi, ‘One postcolonial concept that may prove weil in etablhing rates ‘hat ae bot effective for tribes and academically viable in the contempo= tary intlleteual climate ic eh of euler hybridity (Hall 1990; Bhabha 1994; Young 1995), Between Either/Or: Postcolonial Hybridity “The corolary to postcolonialsm’s ejection of esata i recognition of the conta role of hybridity in the comstiation of cultre (Bla 1994.38). The Osjrd Eiglish Diconry deine bid a sything derived Jom heceogencous sources, oF compesed of diferent of incongrvos el ‘ments In pesteolonal theory, hybridity commonly refers to the complex ‘eansculturl forms produced through colonization thie cannot be neatly lnsied into single cultural or ethnie category. Ie callenges the tradi ‘on view of colonia a4 meeing between dicrete entities, coloizer and colonized, who msintain separate cular foesatons through time. Instead, che concep of hybridity posts dat dhe interaction of ral groups produces new ell forms that ate nether wholly immigrant nor wholly Indigenous but are stead inerdependene sd mutallycontiting. This texm does not connote benign and innocuous combizations, however, 3¢ used by many postcolosialts, hybridity ean imply dsption and» fone ing together of unlike things (Young 1995-26), calling atendion tdi junctions as well as conjanetions (Kapehan and. Seong. 1999:249), “Hiybity foregrounds the issues of power and inequalc inherent in olo- ial societies, highlighting the empowering natire of hybrid fr that of ten make space for antcolonal restance through the challenging of binary categories. This emphasis on power can be traced though Bhabha ‘wkng back to the work of Mikhail Bakhsin (198135861), whose foun= dhtionl use ofthe term id in ngs sewed the nse and tenaigoring capetyof these new cult formations. ‘A clear example of hybridity can be found inthe eon of gun among the contemporary Lakota (Sioux) af the northern US. Pits, Be Binning in dhe Inte nineteenth century, Lakota wonien adapted the ee niques ad syes of gui production that wee forced upon den thraxigh contac with Euro-American misionaries and ediatos to prod 36, Inbrid clas of material culture (Albers and Medicine 1983:127-28), They quickly esablshed innovative designs, with the majority of qu incor Ponting variation on 3 sng ental tr pattern, know logically enoughssa quits (ig. 5.1). Today heir production and exchange are anim portant sig of comtemporary Lakota identity. They ae frequently wed to ‘mark signifiane occasions and important iva, including graduations, tera, wedding, tional edistibative ceremonies, and Native basket bull tournament, among many other occasions (Albers and. Medicine 1983:129-34). As one contemporary Lakota author noes, “In ee tventi- «th century, quils—especally thowe inthe ser patern—have become one fof the defiiive cultural syzbols of the Sioux peopl” (Anderson 19971101) The sar quik, then, has become 2 ew sign of identity for ge on Sa hy os te Hig sR Pb Lakots people, cited out of the“in- betwen spaces” created by colonal- ism (Bhabha 1994:1-2)-—in thie ete, out ofthe boarding schools and ie sions that mediated the Indian and Euro-American wos “Conrenona anthropological interpretations of tis Lakotsappropia- tion of qiking might view dis phenomenon a relatively staghtforward cxample of accultration (Redeld etal, 1938), syncretism (Herskovits 196; Stewart 1999), or beicolge (Levi-Suauss 1971), in which a cls of foreign mattialcultare is appropriated by colonized peoples. A poscalo- nial imerpretaton emphasizes the fact Ut hese quits are not simply epi {3 of imlestons of a Enro-Ameriean crf rather, ehey area new, hybrid hss of material culture eeulng fiom a fasion of Westem eochnolgy ‘with Lakotsaethetis, Hybriditydifers fom acculturation, synerecisn, ann briclage not only in the cently ie places on power relations but also in thie ie resis representing cultures st Bounded wholes Stewart 1999:40-41). The postcolonial concept of hybridity reemphasizes the fice ‘hat al clr forte pariciating i colonization are bride and eects the idea chat any “pure” or esencial cultures have ever exited (Said 1993000), Furthermore, hybridity sexes the interdependence and mt ‘val construction of colonger and colonize, acknowledging the mulii- sectional cbb and How of evlral nfuences in colonial contents and ‘encouraging focus not an synchyonie structures but on dicronic pac- ‘es (Kspehan and Strong 1999-250), Hybrid is thas an appealing concept forthe realm of contemporary [Naive American legal concer, a6 ie offers a "Third Space” (Bhabha 199433) in che areulstion of Went chat doesnot force modern Indians to choote between ether esentalim or radical consraciim (Young 1985:26). However, snehropoloists uliing this term must be cael not to confit this interpretive framework with an external realty. Hybriity ‘snot an ethnographic abject in and of ivel bu, ater, a theoretial ens that can prove weil for viewing familiar ethnographic objects in a new Highs. As Gregory Bateson (1972:454-55) noes, we ave to be careful here otto confie the anthropological map with the triton. Hybrid aoe a panacea, however, and itis ot without its cis ce Ana 1995; Friedman 1997), Some of thi cricion stems ow it eck ‘re politcal history; in the nineteenth century, hybrid forms were thought to be weak and sere, providing evidence tht pe ail eyes wer spe= tior and should not be mixed (Young, 1995:6-I9). Over the course of the past century, however, genetic studies demonstrated hybrid species to be parte eit an relent, mibuing the rem with more postive con notations (Srewart 1999-45) Hower, many, dhe concept of hybriditypresi «peeing purity inthe socal formations tha are ltercom= bined fas does aecultntion,syncetm, and ricolge). While postealo- slits epicaly answer these crite by sjeting any notion that “pr ‘seal cures have ever exited, concept hybridity a5 dhe histor ica welt of to previously separate cules cling seems somewhst es troubling when focsing om the cnterl Formations dae ese from dhe ‘eaunter of Native Americas and the peoples ofthe Ol) Word ‘Other ject tothe ambiguity ofthe tr, peceving a rhreat eat will soe cultura ieencss into 2 poo of indisngushable homogeneity, de- ‘ener culture to the pon of vsestnes (Kapen and Suong 1999240) ‘According to thine of thinking, lity undermines the rights of sable term groups ithe sme way dha xtques of the Biologia concept of race Inve been xed against tealiinally matginazed ethnic groupe. (Face dart ext dhe anguint goes, then no group should recive distinctive ‘weatment) In other word, because hybiity doles dhe rig boundaries betwee group, ets of tis comeeptheleve ie makes everyone the sme— ‘we ae all hybrid ciizens of one taneational word. Again, tis etique sen unfounded poteoonilies sich as Bhabha ses the need for “forms (of dlectial chinking ht do no disavow or sblae the otherness keri) that conus the symbolic domain of payee and socal idetieations” {Bhabha 1994173). We need not conceive of ctrl identity 2 ether ‘bounded and ese “cltre or an ended hybrid mas the, 2 ‘noe sei notion sgt bet conceive of hybridity aa site of distinctive clu formations somewhere berween the tte To parapse the words of BBhabhs, we shoud! focus not onthe exon othe dveatyof ete but ‘on the insxiption and aticltion of clea Inbidcy Bhabha 199438, The rising populaiey of hybrid in anthropological eheory has re~ sulted in cats that NAGPRA requis tribes "eo prove that they a not ‘relied or hybrid cults” (Gonden 2001:242) in onler to eas cul ‘url aiiation, I disigree with cis aversion, arguing that in fe, ebes do rot have to prone that ehey maintain pure” eles; othe contrary, with, 2 ote maced understanding of hybridity fnd a recognition of the n= portance ofthe word ltl) i becomes pone fortes to demon ite tht dheircontemporry cull formations are infact, hybrid Forged out of pss cls practices melding with those of sacceeng tine pets and other social group. Hybridity and History Hybrid fs not predicated on the idea of the dsappearince of previous culfral formations bu, sither, on thei continual and mutual develop tment: it does not deny the tiditons Fs whic i springs bur aknow!- fces them in new ways (Asherot eal, 199518), However, a8 Gosden {001.243 notes, sgnieast problem of postcolonial theory for archac- logit is lick of any “real theory of hatory” or attention tothe im portance of material culture in the production of hybrid _culaal Formations, Ths, ne ofthe challenges for archacaogy st elucidate the roles of history and material culture in the development of hybridity, teackng cultural formations a they change dough time. Vitae this proces is recognition ofthe subd vations that exit among lene y= bd forms Hain lings aes denied two primary varies: un- conscious (ongnic)hybvie vers thor that ae intentional and conscious (@ilhktin 1981358) The dtinction i eral for examining euler afil- Jaton, as ongnic hybridization function» tabxing fore, without dis- ruptng senses of cultural order and eonsinty- Unconscious hybrids are fresent inal cuore, which evalve historicly through mimetic appro- Drations and adaptations (Werner 1997:4-5; Ahmad 1995:18), maintin- Inga ean with the past i tnses of radical change. (Aernativly, Jnetional hyve function co jarringly set elements of diferent culos puns cach her in 3 confictual structure, creating 2 dnleeie space of ‘ontestaton.) Onc hybridity is hus a necessary component of identity, Slowing cultural formations to change through time, even while main taining a sense of contnuiy The iltsion of incompatibility between the conceps of hybridity nd curl alfiition i largely an artic of the lack of tention ce role (of history paid by many contemporary postcolonial theorists. BY dre {ong the crcl temporal aspect of hybridization, postoloniaiss have Produved Ingely synchronic sudies that daproportionstely emphasize hwy adopeed churacteriice while siltncously underestimating and lishing the sguicance of previous cultural tis inthe constinion ‘of hybrid for, In other wor, the concept af hybridity has been widely Insinterpreted to stgest that ently ange culksal Formations result fiom colonization, with litle tno recognition af the cena role of the past inthe consitaon of ew cular forms, In Ft, hybridity should not be taken to suggest cit postcolonial identities are wholly novel innowa- tions ther, they ae aalgamated constructs that renegotiate, wets, sad remeber the pst bt, a the sme Hime, ate unavoidably influenced by the previows cultura forinations fom whic they develop. ‘To rezurn to the example of Lakoe star quis, the appropriation of quing among Lakota women ilstrates the crcl role of power and his- tory in the proces of hybridiation. The adaptation of the str qui did hot occur ina historical vc thee are speifiehisovial reasons chatqiking fourished among northern Pins ibs inthe Ite nineteenth eons over other Euro-American etfs, A majo fictor in the adoption ‘Gf ths new, hybrid cls of material euleoe in Laka life ws dat i n= todo roughly coincided with the elimination of wild bison hess (Medicine 1997111), Bion hide robes hd plyel an integral rle in the {nisaon te, honoring ceremonies, fnerary rituals and ceremonial p= Ig chiracteratie of indigenone Plats groops prior to the hunting of the ‘ito to ner extinction. These robes were known asap shine, oF Sa" robes (Pi, 5.2) after the sta or buss designs with which they were fe= “quently adorned (Medicine 1997:113) As bison hides became increasingly ‘Tile w stain though the couse of dhe nineteenth eoneury, Lakota ‘Women began to produce quiet take the place of the star robes instal wikis practice that continees to the present day. Thus, the adoption the sar or aunbust pattern among Lakota quite is noe + andom 3c~ ‘dent, but the direct result of historical circumstances, and dei impor~ tance in. Lakota identity formation continues today becuse of the {elaioosip i minis with previous design uations (Fees 199215}, Teta remembering of the pat and continuation ofthe practice of but filo hide painting through moder bri fms. However, iis ao im poraane to note the cracial role of power reasons in thi change it fechnoogy aswell, Quilting was not benign adopsion of the tools of the Colonizer by dhe Lakota, but wat foreed upon them ehrovgh dhe smak= ‘romged attack of confining tribes to reservations, “eivilzing” the Lan {by ecaching them Euro-American crf in boarding schools admissions), tnd the elimination of wild blo herd. "Ths, through the production of hybridived star quits, the modern Lakots maine etal afiiation with their ancestors. This exasple ‘Semonsrtes the importance ofthe historical contextualizaton of hy ing at cuenta step in the application of postcolonial cheory to maceil {Caleare eal ilstates that an acknowledgment of hybridity does not fnecely undermine indigenous claims to at afliaton with the past. fact, when ctteally applied, pesteolonial theories of ybridity an strenghen Native Atuticn claims to cultural afiation Conclusion Cites of NAGPRA hive drawn upon postcolonial theory to suggest at {bis aw requires an impractical and unviable concept of Naive American {deni to maplement the repatriation of human rensins, fanerary objects fered objec, and objes of cut patimony. These critiques ate Poe Fes Wp sti Brann athe ‘mirely without merit. However, they sem angely from two peripheral i tet that hive peviowly been utdetexanined 1) the importance of the ‘erm ronshp in the definition of cule afin, which allows con- temporary Natve American and museuns to ackoowledge the Bid and exible nature of identity formation, particularly the hybrid cultural forms‘of postolnial societies; and 2) che cruel rales of history an poste in ‘the formation of hybrid clewal forms. alia notes that hybviy often subverts the narratives of colonial power tan be wed to critqae the serie of inlusions and exelsions on ‘which dominant cultural formations are premised (Bhabha 1994:112-20), Tha, richer than seeing hybridity a antithetical to the esablishment of cultural afiation, we should view NAGPRA aan opportunity to com tinse diamanting the exentslie notions of indigenous cure tht have ‘contributed to the subjugation of Native Americans For s0 Tong. Too of- fen, indigenons peoples hive been characterized a static and unchanging, ‘with cokes xed "liom tne immemorial” contribating to thee contin: ‘sed exoticim and marginalistion. By embracing hybrdity~abeit by- bry grounded in historical specfciier—the dynamic nature of Indian ‘leneies canbe emphasized. Ao, as Tveatempted to demonstate here, this concept of hitoricized hybridity an be wed to etablsh the relation ‘hips of shared group Hentty necestated by NAGPRA to implement repatriation, Archacologie sand poised co play a crucial role in this process, documenting hybridity not only in recent cultural formations but to in the ditane pe. By emphasing the ubiquity of bybeiy in al pase of Native American hitory—precontac, colonial, and contempo- ary contexts—archcology can help to deconstruct the concept ofa pure, tunchangng Native exence. In the proces, we have the opportnity 0 forge 4 new understanding of cura hybidity—a contribution tha wil benefit not only postcolonial dheory but ako the sbjogated Others who hive long suffered winder te siumption tha the real Indian dsappeared when the white peopl asved Acknowledgments ‘Thanks to T. J Fengson, Mastin Galvan, Aledo Gonmler-Ruitl, Cis Gosden, and Bo Preucel for tet though comment on hi chapter am ako gael to the sal of the Pucbo of mez Departnent of Reiouree Protection, Culsial Resource Advisory Commitee, and ‘TiialAdnisration Fr allowing me to lear te inrcacies of NAGPIRA ebrough my work with them, Note 1 Repti legion preceding NAGPRA inldes the National Museum ‘ofthe American Inn Act and te fepssnion sts pedi Cari, iva, Kani, Neb, nd Arizona (Ire and Echo Hawk 2000 138-37.