19th Century Identity Politics And The Collection Of Native American Remains

Last winter, as an elective in my Master's program, I took a course entitled, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): Realities of Repatriation.  During the course, I had the fortunate opportunity to read the PhD dissertation of Dr. Abigail Clouse entitled, The Social History of a National Collection: Anthropology, Repatriation and the Politics of Identity.  Clouse utilizes a multi-spatial biographical analysis to effectively argue that collecting Native American human remains in America in the middle-late 19th century was a behavior, committed by individuals and supported by institutions, which primarily developed as an expression of identity by both the individuals involved and the nation as a whole. To weave this tale of the historical interplay of identity politics Clouse chooses to focus on the sub-narratives of several soldier/surgeons and scientists.  Their stories, set against the backdrop of the macro-cosmic national narrative, demonstrate clearly that culture, history, religion, and philosophy are important, describable if-often unquantifiable variables, which must be considered when interpreting any multi-cultural interaction between human beings.

 Prior to, during, and particularly following the American Civil War of 1861-1865, the United States of America was badly in need of and desperately searching for a new national identity.  The catalyst for this new identity came in the unlikely form of James Smithson’s half-million dollar posthumous gift in 1836, and the diligent efforts of the Smithsonian Institution’s first director Joseph Henry, from 1846 – 1878.  It was determined by the powers that be that scientific research and innovation were to constitute the foundation of the new national identity, and the capitol city Washington, D. C. would exemplify this dramatically through the establishment of multiple scientific institutions; all of which existed in a spirit of sharing and cooperation.

At the microcosmic level, following the civil war, the American aristocratic old guard was also facing an identity crisis.  The end of the war brought with it profiteering opportunities and resulted in the rise of a new moneyed class of Americans.  The newcomers were not shy about throwing their recent fortunes around, much to the chagrin of the old elite.  To distinguish themselves amongst their peers, it became popular "to be deeply interested in Science” (p. 42) as a means to demonstrate one’s social and cultural refinement.  These intellectual soldier/surgeons and scientists recovered huge amounts of Native American human remains and artifacts for the capitol city’s scientific institutions, which overlapped perfectly with the goal of those institutions; to adopt a scientific national identity.

These developments also took place during a time when the philosophy of Manifest Destiny was alive and well.  Anthropologists enter the equation and use the collection and study of Native American human remains as a justification for white colonialist expansionist land-use policies. Among other things they genuinely believed that the Native American cultures were going extinct and were attempting to preserve as much as they could; initially for reasons of personal and professional prestige, and later out of a sense of professional responsibility, admiration, and even sympathy.

The “science” of craniology was utilized as the means of classifying Native Americans as “primitive” or “sub-human.”  This resulted in a high scientific demand for Native American skulls, and propped up the view that the Natives were examples of primitive man or “living ancestors.”  The concept of cultural relativity had yet to gain prominence within anthropological circles.

However, the belief in linear progressive evolution was popular.  Anthropologists genuinely thought they were helping Native Americans move “forward” and “progress” toward the evolutionarily “superior” white culture. Also, researchers were extremely interested in “pure” specimens, pre-contact specimens if possible, as they believed there was less “race-mixing” then.  This encouraged collectors to dig up prehistoric burials at an unprecedented rate.

Intellectual elites of the old guard, eager to distinguish themselves as separate from the gaudy materialism of the new moneyed elite and to establish themselves in the eyes of their peers, competed to obtain human remains and artifacts for the museums and institutions.  In return, the agencies were often willing to reimburse expenses, buy specimens, credit the collector/contributor on museum display labels as well as within scientific publications, which they would then circulate and distribute back to the collector/contributors.  The remoteness of frontier military postings made for ideal opportunities for the collection of mass amounts of Native American human remains by soldier/surgeons in particular.

 They were men of science by training, intellectuals by nature, and their dedication to the collection of Native remains was nothing less than obsessive.  They were not even beyond digging up fresh specimens consisting of former patients or acquaintances.  Their persistence is illustrated by the many accounts of Native Americans guarding burials and/or placing burials in remote areas, which were difficult to access.  This is all quite telling with regard to the true scope of the existential crisis facing both the individuals and the nation at the time.

Clouse’s dissertation answered many questions for me.  Before reading it, I was unable to fathom how so many thousands of Native American human remains had been unearthed and stored in various institutions or how and why the collection of those remains (grave-robbing) gained such sweeping social acceptance.  It was behavior practiced by the cultural elites and thus invariably destined for acceptance, promotion, and even emulation.

Clouse’s argument also reminded me that I am an anthropologist who specializes in archaeology; not merely an archaeologist.  It caused me to step back holistically and once again reconsider heuristic categories of cultural development and synchronic snapshot views of cultural change and transformation.  It has reminded me that change is a constant, continuous process affecting everyone and everything, that every new beginning tolls an ending, and that we are all inextricably connected.

Paradoxically, it was somewhat startling to me to initially realize that Clouse’s analysis of 19th century American social identity politics bears an eerie similarity to the current socio-political situation in America in 2016.  The conservative Christian old guard is threatened by a new generation of Progressives and their ideals.  After fifteen years of war against faceless enemies such as “terrorism” and “drugs,” amidst ever-mounting income inequality, and after decades of debacle-filled foreign intervention, Americans as individuals and America as a nation are both desperately seeking to establish an identity in a world that is racing rapidly towards globalization.

 The current racist backlash we are experiencing in the form of right wing tirades against immigration, adherents of Islam, and foreign refugees is one mechanism being used by the old guard today (much as the collection of Native American human remains was to the soldier/scientists of the 19th century) to separate themselves from the growing progressive wave with its policies like marijuana legalization, universal healthcare, and marriage equality.  Simultaneously, the left wing liberals, me included, are using the right’s racist rhetoric as a chance to speak out loudly and proudly against them, possibly accomplishing nothing but securely establishing their own social identity.

RM