Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:34:16.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Up for the Past

How the Oregon Archaeological Society Addresses Its “Collector” Origins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Patrick O'Grady Open the ORCID record for Patrick O'Grady [Opens in a new window] ,
David L. Minick  and
Daniel O. Stueber
Patrick O'Grady*
Affiliation:
Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
David L. Minick
Affiliation:
Oregon Archaeological Society, Portland, OR, USA
Daniel O. Stueber
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Portland, OR, USA
*
(pogrady@uoregon.edu, corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2015, the Oregon Archaeological Society (OAS) presented statements to Oregon tribes and the Oregon Legislative Commission on Indian Services acknowledging the troubling history of OAS collecting activities and steps taken to transform the OAS, and sought guidance to address continuing tribal concerns. Tribes encouraged both the return of collections and increased public outreach efforts. Their guidance fueled increased effort by the Collection Recovery Committee (OASCRC), which has facilitated the return of five collections to tribal museums and university curation facilities and coordinated digital preservation of documents. The OAS may be the only avocational society in the United States actively engaged in such efforts, accomplished by a small group of volunteers. Case studies of collections, considerations involved in disposition, and the potential for repatriation and research are highlighted. The OAS seeks to halt dispersal and commodification of cultural objects and encourage academic research. Quick action can assure that the original collectors or descendants provide key site and location information. Educational opportunities can be rendered to the heritage community, and we are uniquely positioned to contribute to that service.

En 2015, la junta de la Sociedad Arqueológica de Oregón (SAO) presentó una declaración a las nueve tribus reconocidas a nivel federal de Oregón y un testimonio público ante la Comisión Legislativa de Servicios para Indígenas de Oregón. Reconoció la historia preocupante de las actividades de recolección de la SAO, identificó los pasos dados para transformar la SAO y buscó orientación para abordar las continuas preocupaciones tribales. Las tribus fomentaron la devolución de colecciones de objetos culturales y un aumento del esfuerzo de divulgación pública de la sociedad. Su orientación impulsó un mayor esfuerzo por parte del Comité de Recuperación de Colecciones (SAOCRC), formado en 2014. El SAOCRC ha facilitado la devolución de cinco colecciones a los museos tribales y las instalaciones de conservación universitaria y la preservación digital coordinada de documentos. La SAO puede ser la única sociedad vocacional estadounidense que participa activamente en tales esfuerzos, logrados por un pequeño grupo de voluntarios. Se destacan estudios de caso sobre los tipos de colecciones, la gama de consideraciones involucradas en la búsqueda de su disposición más adecuada y el potencial que ofrecen para la repatriación y la investigación. La SAO busca frenar la dispersión y mercantilización de los objetos culturales y fomentar la investigación académica. Actuar rápidamente puede asegurar que los coleccionistas originales o descendientes proporcionen información clave sobre el sitio y la ubicación. Se pueden brindar oportunidades educativas a la comunidad del patrimonio y estamos en una posición única para contribuir a ese servicio.

Keywords

tribal relationsrespectcollectorcurationrepatriationcultural objectscommodificationpublic serviceheritage preservationpublic outreachrelaciones tribalesrespetocoleccionistaconservaciónrepatriaciónobjetos culturalesmercantilizaciónservicio públicoconservación del patrimoniodivulgación pública
Type
Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 10 , Special Issue 1: Professional–Collector Collaboration: Moving beyond Debate to Best Practice , February 2022 , pp. 101 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Arnold, J. R., and Libby, Walter F. 1951 Radiocarbon Dates. Science 113:111–120. DOI:10.1126/science.113.2927.111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, Virginia L. 2007 Relic Hunting, Archaeology, and Loss of Native American Heritage at The Dalles. Oregon Historical Quarterly 108:624–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, Robert 2015 Avocational Archaeologists and the Designation of a World Heritage Site. SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):20–23.Google Scholar
Cressman, Luther S. 1951 Western Prehistory in the Light of Carbon 14 Dating. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:289-313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, John L. 1988 Clovis and Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition Lithic Technologies at the Dietz Site in South-Central Oregon. In Early Human Occupation in Far-Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by Willig, Judith A., Melvin Aikens, C., and Fagan, John L., pp. 389–416. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.Google Scholar
Goebel, Ted 2015 Grave Consequences: Crossing the Line with Collectors. SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):2932.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Jerry N., Garfinkel, Alan P., Rodgers, Alexander K., Carpenter, Tim R., and Skinner, Craig E. 2016 Further Studies of Ancient Black Glass: Obsidian Tracing and Hydration Dating Tulare Lake Widestem Points. In Unique Tools and Widestem Points from the Tulare Lake Region, edited by Hopkins, Jerry N. and Garfinkel, Alan P., pp. 1–25. Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology VII, Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.Google Scholar
Martinez, Kelly Prince 2019 Examining Human Behavior and Tool Use through Experimental Replications and a Technological Analysis of Ground Stone in the Lower Columbia. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
O'Grady, Patrick, and Boettcher, Bob 2012 Oregon Archaeological Society/Museum of Natural and Cultural History Archives Project. Screenings 61(3):1–4.Google Scholar
O'Grady, Patrick, Taylor, Michael W., Steuber, Daniel O., Minick, David L., Hill, Doug, Grant, Don, Dorset, Elaine, Dolan, Terry, and Chaivoe, Karen 2015 The Oregon Archaeological Society: Sixty-Four Years of Progress and Service. Presentation for the Legislative Council on Indian Services Meeting, State Capitol, Salem, Oregon, February 18, 2015.Google Scholar
Oregon Archaeological Society 1974 OAS Board Affirms Excavation Policy. Screenings 23(4):8.Google Scholar
Oregon Archaeological Society 1997 The Formative Years of the Oregon Archaeological Society: Screenings Newsletters 1951 through January 1955. Publication No. 10. Oregon Archaeological Society, Portland.Google Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2014 An Argument for Ethical, Proactive, Archaeologist–Artifact Collector Collaboration. American Antiquity 79:385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L., Shott, Michael J., Brosowske, Scott, Butler, Virginia L., Cox, Jim, Espenshade, Chris, Neller, Angela J., et al. 2018 Process and Outcomes of the SAA “Professional Archaeologists, Avocational Archaeologists, and Responsible Artifact Collectors Relationships Task Force” (2015–2018). SAA Archaeological Record 18(5):14–17Google Scholar
Steele, Harvey 2011 The OAS: Sixty Years of Public Service. Screenings 60(3):1–2.Google Scholar