http://jsa.sagepub.comJournal of Social Archaeology DOI: 10.1177/1469605303003001101 2003; 3; 99 Journal of Social ArchaeologyKatherine M. Dowdall and Otis O. Parrish A meaningful disturbance of the earthhttp://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/1/99 The online version of this article can be found at: Published by:http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at:Journal of Social Archaeology Additional services and information for http://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://jsa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/3/1/99 Citations at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2009 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded fromJournal of Social Archaeology ARTICLE99Copyright © 2002 SAGE Publications (London,Thousand Oaks,CA and New Delhi)Vol 3(1):99–133 [1469-6053(200302)3:1;99–133;030101]A meaningful disturbance of the earthKATHERINE M. DOWDALLCalifornia Department of Transportation,USAOTIS O. PARRISHPhoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology,USAABSTRACTIn this article, we provide an example of what we consider to be aproductive archaeological collaboration between a State Agency anda Native American tribe that we believe has both theoretical andmethodological implications. Our work implements and extendsHodder’s reflexive method (1999) through the use of inclusivity,reciprocity and mutual respect. We describe how coupling our mutualregard for knowledge of the past with our respect for the spiritualsignificance of the Kashaya landscape necessarily led to the breakingdown of boundaries between the scientific, the sacred and thepersonal. A 1997 excavation provides a case study of our collabora-tive process. We conclude by suggesting that the space between theusual oppositions of secular and sacred, science and religion, expla-nation and understanding, holds promise for Native Americans andarchaeologists to participate with each other in non-dichotomous andmutually beneficial ways.05 Dowdall (JG/d) 9/1/03 1:55 PM Page 99 at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2009 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded from100Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1)KEYWORDSCalifornia ● ceremony ● collaboration ● hybrid methods ● inclusivity● Kashaya Pomo ● mutual respect ● reciprocity■ INTRODUCTIONRecent archaeological theory has highlighted the importance of multi-vocality and pluralism as a means of transforming archaeological practice.Shanks and Tilley (1987: 245), for example, have argued for a radical plural-ism that recognizes that multiple pasts are actively produced by differentethnic, cultural, social and political perspectives. Hodder (1999: 160)regards multivocality as central to the interpretative project since dialoguebetween diverse perspectives on the past yields a ‘morally and politicallyaware archaeology’. Nowhere are these issues foregrounded morecompletely than in collaborations between archaeologists and indigenouspeoples. And yet, there have been very few well documented examples ofmutually beneficial collaborations (but see Cohen and Swidler, 2000;Dongoske et al., 2000; Ferguson et al., 2000; Kluth and Munnell, 1997;Swidler et al., 1997). Documenting these kinds of studies, therefore, iscrucial if the profession is to develop culturally appropriate methods in anew climate of respect.In our article,1we provide an example of what we consider to be aproductive archaeological collaboration between a State Agency and aNative American tribe that we believe has both theoretical and methodo-logical implications. Specifically, we discuss the collaboration between theCalifornia Department of Transportation and the Kashaya Pomo tribe in a1997 excavation of an archaeological site known as Chitibida•qalli2(CA-SON-1661) on the Sonoma coast of California (Figures 1 and 2) and locatedin traditional Kashaya Pomo territory. This work simultaneously used twocontrasting regulatory frameworks: the legal framework of Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended and the cere-monial framework of the Kashaya Pomo. Our commitment to interminglethe concerns of regulatory historic preservation and Kashaya Pomo culturalpreservation motivated us to think and participate with each other in waysthat were non-dichotomous. Not apart from this was our common goal ofcombining the processes used to conduct archaeology with those used tomaintain the Kashaya Pomo cultural landscape. The result is a theme ofinclusivity, reciprocity and mutual respect in our collaborative work thatholds to the principles of shared authority and hybrid methods suggestedby Hodder (1999, 2000, 2002: 5).05 Dowdall (JG/d) 9/1/03 1:55 PM Page 100 at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2009 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded from101Dowdall & Parrish A meaningful disturbance of the earth■ RECENT COLLABORATIONSAlthough collaborations between archaeologists and Native Americans arenot new (see Downer, 1997), the nature of collaboration has dramaticallychanged in the past two decades due to three factors. The first of these isthe impact of aspects of postprocessual archaeology upon North Americanarchaeology. It is now commonplace to see discussions of agency, genderand identity that are structured by a new recognition that ‘ethnographicvariables’ are not epiphenomenal, but rather a vital part of a holistic under-standing of the past (see Pauketat, 2000; Shackel, 2000; Warburton andFigure 1 Project Area on the Sonoma Coast,California05 Dowdall (JG/d) 9/1/03 1:55 PM Page 101 at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2009 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded from102Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1)Duke, 1995). These theoretical developments have inspired some archae-ologists to initiate collaborations with native tribes. Lightfoot and Parrish(Lightfoot et al., 2001; Parrish et al., 2000) are currently pairing academicarchaeology and Kashaya spiritual practices in the investigation of theKashaya village known as Metini, at Fort Ross in California. Similarly,Preucel has been working closely with Cochiti Pueblo to understand thehistorical significance and ongoing meaning of their ancestral village knownas Hanat Kotyiti, which was built and occupied immediately following thePueblo Revolt of 1680 (Preucel, 1998, 2000).The second of these is the growing use of archaeology by Native peoplesFigure 2 Locations of Chitibida•qalli and