American anthropology as a science was founded upon the study of American Indians with their cooperation and sometimes collaboration. In some instances American Indians, watching the transformation of their societies, guided the research of anthropologists, who could record cultural practices in danger of extinction. In the late nineteenth century the sense that American Indian cultures were likely to be totally lost in the process of assimilation was shared by anthropologists and many Indians. That this prediction proved to be false does not alter the fact that thousands of cultural experts from the tribes cooperated with anthropologists, some of whom were themselves Native Americans, to record for prosperity information about their lifeways. In a period when American mainstream opinion saw little or no value in native culture, anthropologists were among the appreciative few who documented them for an unknown future.
———American anthropology as a science was founded with the publication of League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois in 1851 by Lewis Henry Morgan. It remains the best description of the Iroquois, but what is not often appreciated is the fact that Morgan had an Iroquois collaborator who provided him with much of the information that appeared in this work. Ely S. Parker (1828-95), a Seneca from the Tonawanda Reservation, became acquainted with Morgan while still a teenager and provided him with information about the structure and workings of the Iroquois League. Morgan acknowledged Parker's contributions in the preface to League, and in its dedication referred to the book as "the fruit of our researches." However, in keeping with the notions of authorship at the time, Morgan did not list Parker as coauthor, in contrast to what is sometimes the practice today. By all indications Parker found his collaboration with Morgan to be personally satisfying and politically useful. Parker was charged with helping the Tonawanda Senecas retain their land, which was threatened by a dubious treaty, and his relationship with Morgan (an attorney) enabled him to call his services as an expert witness. That Parker did not feel slighted by Morgan's claim to single authorship can be surmised by the fact that both men continued their mutually beneficial relationship after the publication of League.
———By 1879 — the year of the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Indian cultures — American anthropology was developing a body of basic concepts about culture that was to be its principal contribution to international scholarship. Kinship, cultural development, and culture areas are but a few of these abstractions; almost all of the basic research that underlay this conceptual development was done in Indian communities with native collaborators who were interested in the investigation for their own reasons. Over the next fifty years thousands of native individuals were involved in some fashion with the ongoing study of their communities by a relatively small number of professional anthropologists, some of whom were themselves Indian. Indian people were hired as translators and as cultural experts, and were paid for their time. The income was probably an important rationale for their cooperation, but it is an insult to the collective intelligence of these men and women to claim that they cooperated only for the money, an assertion that has been made by some contemporary critics of anthropology.
———By 1920 anthropology was in the process of becoming a university-based discipline, and Franz Boas was its acknowledged leader. The great majority of professionally trained anthropologists worked in North America studying some aspect of American Indian culture, although there were already anthropologists working in other parts of the world as well. Museums were funding fieldwork to gather information and material objects for their permanent collections, and there were a small but important number of professional Indian anthropologists who were publishing their own research. Francis La Flesche (1857-1932), an Omaha, began as an assistant to Alice Fletcher and J. O. Dorsey about 1882, learning linguistics and research techniques from them. He developed a close relationship with Fletcher, ultimately being adopted by her as a son, and was her collaborator for the rest of her life. He was publishing his own research by 1885 and continued his research and writing for the rest of his career. Another Indian anthropologist was Author C. Parker, (1881-1955), a Seneca, a grandnephew of Ely S. Parker, and eventually the director of the Rochester Museum in New York State. He published, was active in Indian political affairs, and was an important museum professional of his time. A third native anthropologist was Ella Deloria (1889-1971), a Yankton Sioux and a student of Franz Boas at Columbia. She spent her life actively researching and publishing, and was deeply involved with Lakota education and community affairs. These three are representative of a large number of American Indians who participated in numerous ways in anthropological research in their own communities. There were many others. People like J. N. B. Hewitt (Iroquois), Jesse Cornplanter (Seneca), Essie Parish (Pomo), John Joseph Mathews (Osage), William Jones (Fox), James R. Murie (Pawnee), and George Hunt (Tlingit) all contributed to the documentation of their societies as part of a shared vision that their cultures be preserved for future generations.
———By World War II anthropology had shifted its primary emphasis from examining U.S. Indian cultures to studying the cultures of Africa, Asia, and Hispanic America, which included native communities. Paradigms had changed, and the faithful recording of cultural details was no longer fashionable. Indian anthropologists like Deloria and Parker continued to be active in the profession, but there were few to take their place when they retires.
———In 1906s and 1970s were a time of intense public scrutiny and criticism of virtually all American institutions, and anthropology was no exception. There were many critiques generated from within and outside the discipline, and exploration of native people was a frequent charge. There is no doubt that much explanation by anthropologists has occurred in some cases, but to characterize all fieldwork and publications as exploitative is to deny the ability of native peoples to make their own judgments about their self-interest. Simultaneously many American Indians began to redefine their relationship to anthropology and to question whether "outsiders" — non-Indian anthropologists and other researchers — should have the right to interpret native culture. The dialogue has been acrimonious at times and is still evolving. Control over access has been secured by some tribes, who have instituted a policy requiring all researchers to secure permission from a tribal committee before proceeding with their work, but for the most part individual researchers will make their own arrangements.
———Since 1960 the number of non-Indian professional anthropologists whose geographical specialty is North America has declined in three of the four subfields of the discipline (cultural, physical, and linguistic anthropology). Only the fourth subfield, archaeology, has witnessed a growth in practitioners as a result of laws passed that safeguard archaeological resources. In contrast, the number of professional anthropologists who are of Indian descent has increased from less than twenty to eighty, most of them concentrated in cultural anthropology with a strong applied focus.
———Simultaneously there has been a substantial increase in Indian interest in museum and archival collections of original materials as they relate to history and cultural practices. Many tribes have established their own museums and archives, and have secured copies of original documents first collected by anthropologists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These documents, often rich in linguistic and cultural detail, are proving to be treasure-troves for Indian people eager for such information. There are numerous examples of tribes that have rediscovered cultural practices described by anthropologists in archival or museum collections and have subsequently incorporated the information into current usage. Some professional Indian anthropologists are using these materials for their own scholarship. Work done by earlier generations of anthropologists and their Indian collaborators is finding a new audience today in the collaborators' descendants — the best evidence of the enduring value of anthropology for American Indians.

JOALLYN ARCHAMBAULT (Standing Rock Sioux)
National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution