Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T02:04:57.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Complicated History

Collaboration with Collectors to Recover and Repatriate Indigenous Human Remains Removed from Spirit Eye Cave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Bryon Schroeder Open the ORCID record for Bryon Schroeder [Opens in a new window]  and
Xoxi Nayapiltzin
Bryon Schroeder*
Affiliation:
Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX, USA
Xoxi Nayapiltzin
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar, TX, USA (xochipixqui@yahoo.com)
*
(Bryon.schroeder@sulross.edu, corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a case study detailing the difficulties and results of collaborating at a privately owned cave site. For many years, Spirit Eye Cave—a privately held cave system—was a pay-to-dig site, with detrimental effects on the archaeological deposits. The pay-to-dig chapter had impacted this important site, but professional archaeologists had not tried to piece together this destructive history. After months of sleuthing, it was determined that some of these pay-to-dig patrons had recovered and owned or sold Indigenous ancestors from the cave. This discovery was unexpected and shocking, but it focused the efforts at the site on the recovery of these ancestors from private collections. These conversations have been uncomfortable but have demarcated responsible and responsive stewards (RRSs) from bad actors, resulting in the recovery of multiple artifact collections and ancestors that have produced significant research results and opened previously nonexistent dialogues with modern descendant communities.

Este documento presenta un estudio de caso que detalla las dificultades y los resultados de colaborar en un sitio de cueva de propiedad privada. Durante muchos años, Spirit Eye Cave, un sistema de cuevas de propiedad privada, fue un sitio de pago por excavar con efectos perjudiciales en los depósitos arqueológicos. La era de pagar por excavar había impactado este importante sitio, pero los arqueólogos profesionales no habían tratado de reconstruir esta destructiva historia. Después de meses de investigación, se determinó que algunos de estas personas que pagaban por excavar habían recuperado y poseído o vendido a ancestros Indígenas de la cueva. Este descubrimiento fue inesperado e impactante, pero centró los esfuerzos en el sitio hacia la recuperación de estos antepasados de colecciones privadas. Estas conversaciones han sido incómodas, pero han demarcado a los administradores responsables y receptivos (RRS) de los malos actores. Lo que ha resultado en la recuperación de múltiples colecciones de artefactos y ancestros que han producido resultados de investigación significativos y han abierto diálogos previamente inexistentes con comunidades descendientes modernas.

Keywords

private landLate Archaic maizemultiple stakeholderspay-to-digrecovery of Indigenous ancestorsconservationpropiedad privadamaíz Arcaico Tardíoel tenedor de apuestaspago por excavarrecuperado ancestros indígenasconservación
Type
Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 10 , Special Issue 1: Professional–Collector Collaboration: Moving beyond Debate to Best Practice , February 2022 , pp. 26 - 37
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

Achilli, Alessandro, Perego, Ugo A., Lancioni, Hovirag, Olivieri, Anna, Gandini, Francesca, Kashani, Baharak Hooshiar, Battaglia, Vincenza, et al. 2013 Reconciling Migration Models to the Americas with the Variation of North American Native Mitogenomes. PNAS 110:14308–14313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous, 1968 The Indian Mummy. Manuscript on file, Marfa Public Library Junior Historian Collection (1967.30), Marfa, Texas. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth39983/m1/2/?q=%22indian%20mummy%22%20marfa, accessed December 2, 2021.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2021 OxCal 4.4. Electronic document, http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal, accessed March 20, 2019.Google Scholar
Fernandes, António Pedro Batarda, and Maia Pinto, Fernando 2006 Changing Stakeholders and Community Attitudes in the Côa Valley, Portugal. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, edited by Agnew, Neville and Bridgland, Janet, pp. 136–142. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flores-Huacuja, Marlen, Garcia-Ortiz, Humberto, Snow, Meradeth, Contreras-Cubas, Cecilia, Matinez-Hernandez, Angelica Graciela, Cid-Soto, Miguel Angel, Piñero-Dalmau, Daniel Ignacio, Leblanc, Steven A., and Orozco-Orozco, Lorena Sofia 2021 Whole Mitogenome Sequencing in Indigenous Populations from Mexico. Paper on file with the University of Montana Molecular Anthropology Laboratory.Google Scholar
Goebel, Ted 2015 Grave Consequences: Crossing the Line with Collectors. SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):29–32.Google Scholar
Gover, Carlton, Johnen, Connor, and Ian Howe, David 2020 Meanwhile, in Texas: A Conversation with Dr. Bryon Schroeder. A Life in Ruins (podcast), February 10. https://www.archaeologypodcastnetwork.com/ruins/15, accessed September 18, 2021.Google Scholar
Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie 2003 Digging in the Dirt Ethics and Low-End Looting. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Zimmerman, Larry J., Vitelli, Karren D., and Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie, pp. 45–56. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Ives, John W., Froese, Duane G., Janetski, Joel C., Brock, Fiona, and Ramsey, Christopher Bronk 2014 A High Resolution Chronology for Steward's Promontory Culture Collections, Promontory Point, Utah. American Antiquity 79:616–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolie, Edward 2014 Analysis of Perishables. In Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An Introduction, edited by Sutton, Mark Q. and Arkush, Brooke S., pp. 123–140. Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
LaBelle, Jason 2003 Coffee Cans and Folsom Points: Why We Cannot Continue to Ignore the Artifact Collectors. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Zimmerman, Larry J., Vitelli, Karren D., and Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie pp. 115–127. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Leneave, Rochelle J. 1988 The Shotgun Magazine Ad Letter to Thomas Hester of TARL. Manuscript on file, Center for Big Bend Studies, Alpine, Texas.Google Scholar
Mallouf, Robert J. 1996 An Unraveling Rope: The Looting of America's Past. American Indian Quarterly 20:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, Jim I., Schroeder, Bryon A., and Yost, Chad L. 2021 Late Pleistocene Shasta Ground Sloth (Xenarthra) Dung, Diet, and Environment from the Sierra Vieja, Presidio County, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 73(1):Article 3. DOI:10.32011/txjsci_73_1_Article3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2014a How Archaeologists and Artifact Collectors Can and Should Collaborate to Comply with Legal and Ethical Antiquities Codes. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2:338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2014b An Argument for Ethical, Proactive Archaeologist-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):14–17.Google Scholar
Reimer, Paula. J., Austin, W. E. N., Bard, Edouard, Bayliss, Alex, Blackwell, Paul G., Ramsey, Christopher Bronk, Butzin, Martin, et al. 2020 The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62:725–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Bryon 2017 The Mark of a Looter: The Progression of Fieldwork and Research at a Looted Cave Site. SAA Archaeological Record 17(5):33–37.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Bryon 2021 Evidence of Late Archaic Maize Use in the Big Bend Region of West Texas, Manuscript on file, Center for Big Bend Studies, Alpine, Texas.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Bryon, Blohm, Tre, and Snow, Meradeth H. 2021 Spirit Eye Cave: Reestablishing Provenience of Trafficked Prehistoric Human Remains Using a Composite Collection-Based Ancient DNA Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 36:102798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setzler, Frank M. 1931 A Prehistoric Cave in Texas. In Explorations and Fieldwork of the Smithsonian Institute in 1931, edited by True, W. P., pp. 133–140. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Shelbourn, Carolyn H. 2014 Operation “Cerberus Action” and the “Four Corners” Prosecution. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 20:475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Walter W., Demerath, Nicholas J., Kennedy, Mary C., Watson, Patty Jo, Quilter, Jeffrey, Brownman, David L., and Adovasio, James M. 2003 Sandals from Coahuila Caves: With an Introduction to the Coahuila Project, Coahuila, Mexico: 1937–1941, 1947. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 35. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe 2003 Archaeological Ethics and American Indians. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Zimmerman, Larry J., Vitelli, Karen D., and Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie, pp. 129–141. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe 2015 Private Property Rights Versus Heritage Ownership: The Conflict between Individual and Collective Rights. SAA Archaeological Record 15(5):14–16.Google Scholar