Projects
American Indian Community Data Profile, 2002
Namadji Youth and Elders Project Report, 2001
Forum Reports
1997 Fall: Tribal Sovereignty and
American Indian Leadership
1996 Fall: Tribal Governments: What will they look like in the year 2010?
1996 Spring: The Threatened State of Tribal Sovereignty
Who owns the dead?
In addressing repatriation, Dr. James RidingIn, Arizona State University professor, says that Native Americans do. He stressed that Native American were buried with the intent to stay buried and that hunting for bones, skulls and artifacts for display purposes is extremely disrespectful.
The process of returning and reburying sacred objects and human remains is known as repatriation. Anthropologists and archeologists became involved in the repatriation process in the late 1960s by urging that remains and sacred items be returned to Indian tribes to be reburied, not displayed in museums. This process of return and reburial of sacred objects is known as repatriation.
Burial bundles containing sacred items are often times opened and the items are exhibited to the public. The result of this display of disrespect is very negative. RidingIn made reference to the fact that the least these facilities could do is properly educate the public about the bundles and remains if they insist on exhibiting them, although he feels that the bundles should not be broken or displayed.
In this repatriation process, Indians must submit claims to Indian remains that been excavated by non-Indians. RidingIn discussed the frustration involved with this process, as the remains should have never been disturbed in the first place. Now that the remains have been excavated, it is frustrating to repeatedly explain the culture and traditions that accompany Native American religious practices to a culture that is often not understanding, he said.
Anita Fineday, Cass Lake attorney, discussed two statutes that affect repatriation. The first, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, protects artifacts (pottery, baskets, etc.) more than 100 years old if they are found on public or government land. To excavate these artifacts, permits must be obtained from the federal land manager.
After excavation, the objects remain the property of the U.S. Government. If there land or physical items are destroyed in the excavation, the tribe must be notified and then becomes involved. There are both civil and criminal penalties for the destruction and marketing of items removed from a site.
The problem with this statute is that if the item is not from Indian land, it is not necessary to notify the tribe.
The second statute, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, requires an inventory of all human remains, religious items and artifacts in federal possession (museums for example). Tribes are able to request more information to further identify items, and they may obtain access to records, catalogs and scientific studies done regarding the item in question. The policy for this statute, Fineday said, is that tribes have the right to know which remains, artifacts and religious items the federal government, museums and agencies temporarily possess. There are civil penalties for failure to comply with NAGPRA.
Fineday addressed a third statute in less detail. The Private Cemeteries Act is a Minnesota statute that preserves burial mounds on private property. This act finally give tribes access to burial mounds on private property. However, it is extremely difficult to document and enforce such an act.
Leech Lake archaeologist, Rose Kluth, explained the process established at Leech Lake to address repatriation. A council of elders was assembled to review the summaries received from museums and decide what to repatriate. There were several concerns among the elder council. The first was that the objects returned to Leech Lake must be Leech Lake Anishinabeg--not other Anishinabe items from other bands. The second concern was how to repatriate the items. The elders worried that they may not accurately remember everything their elders told them because the repatriation ceremony has not been done for some time.
Once the process was established, a documentation grant was obtained to visit museums and itemize the objects. More than 220 summaries were received by the Leech Lake Anishinabeg, all claiming to have Anishinabe items, so the visits had to be concentrated within Minnesota. Kluth participated in these visits to look at the records, take photos and report to the elders. If there were many items, the elders accompanied Kluth.
Kluth encountered many problems. The first was that the museums couldn't and shouldn't in many cases decide what is and is not sacred, as they are not always educated in that capacity. She said that museums would often classify an item as a toy when it was not. Another problem is that many museums have not sent summaries of their inventory of Indian remains and artifacts.
After the items have been photographed and documented by Kluth, they are examined by the elders, who decide how sacred the item is.
Human remains will not be addressed in this process. They will require their own examination, which will follow the documentation and repatriation of sacred items. One thing Kluth is concerned about is the requirement of lineal descent before human remains can be repatriated. Kluth emphasized that lineal descent should not be necessary for human remains to be reburied.
Many people hope that repatriation will bring closure to some of the abuses to Native American remains and sacred objects. It is with that in mind that Kluth and others continue to strive for repatriation of all Native American objects, artifacts and remains.
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home
© Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved.
1463 Hewitt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55104 • tel: 651-644-1728
aipc@cpinternet.com
Last updated:
Tuesday November 1, 2005