Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday Feb. 20, 2002
|
Illustration by Josh Hagler
|
The Arizona State Museum is in the process of repatriating thousands of items to American Indian tribes, which consider those objects sacred. Repatriation, according to the dictionary, means "compensation for war damages." Yet, in this circumstance, it refers to the legal "giving-back of objects" from federally-funded repositories to American Indians. Objects in question include all human remains, sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony and funerary objects.
In 1990, the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, requiring that all repositories, including public museums, return objects to specific American Indian tribes that claim the artifacts have spiritual, ceremonial, sacred and genealogical value.
In addition to NAGPRA, July 1990 saw Arizona pass a similar law concerning the repatriation of sacred objects from burials of the 21 tribes of Arizona that are more than 50 years old.
In the last 11 1/2 years, the Arizona State Museum has been involved in 406 cases that resulted in the reburial of thousands of artifacts.
But for others, the law is cause for worry. How can one be sure that the artifacts, once returned, will be handled and preserved properly? Is it better to return the objects than to have them on display for educational benefits? What happens, for instance, if a returned object finds its way onto E-Bay?
Although the purpose of the law is clear, is the process defined and monitored? Do these artifacts belong in museums or to those who claim their cultural worth? And, is Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act reasonable?
Help American Indians preserve their history and culture
"They took the whole Indian nation. Locked us on this reservation."
Every promise the American government has made to American Indians so far has been broken. The result of the NAGRA, however, remains to be seen. This law was well-intentioned, and is likely to enable American Indians to regain control over some of their history.
"Took away our native tongue. And taught their English to our young."
Unfortunately, as sacred objects and human remains are returned to American Indians, funding and facilities to preserve and educate people about these artifacts have not been included. It seems that American Indians wishing to preserve their culture are facing a double-edged sword. If such artifacts are not returned, they will not be a part of their culture. If they are returned, they are likely to deteriorate due to poor facilities.
Hopefully, the federal government will realize that merely returning the objects is not enough and will address the situation appropriately.
"But maybe someday when they've learned, the Cherokee Nation will return."
- Paul Revere and the Raiders
Kendrick Wilson is a political science freshman. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Forget the details ...
This is an issue of ownership. If I find something that belongs to you, I am obligated to return it to you - even if you were not looking for it. Furthermore, I must still return the object if I disapprove of what you intend to do with it. If you don't want it, and you have no plans for the object, then I am free to do with it as I please.
If I find an object and, despite my efforts, I can find nothing that identifies the original owner, then I may keep it, provided no one comes forward with a reasonable claim of ownership. If someone claims ownership, but can provide no evidence - historical, physical, or otherwise - then I may keep the object.
If I find an object that once belonged only to your great, great, great grandfather, then I must assume inheritance and regard you as the rightful owner, even in the absence of a written will.
If several people come forward with reasonable claims, but I cannot give it to them as a group, I must give the object to the person with the strongest claim. If all claims are equal, then I must give it to the first person to make a claim.
If a group of people makes a sufficient, concerted claim, then I must hand over the object to the group. Or tribe.
Daniel Cucher is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Return their stuff - and make them cupcakes
This NAGPRA law was made out of guilt. People feel bad about the displacement of American Indians but not bad enough to give them any land back.
Not that I'm saying we should. But at least giving artifacts back to their rightful owners will make everyone feel a little better.
American Indians are already doing fine on their own these days. They finally learned to make the white man's - or more specifically, the old white lady's - greed work for them by building casinos on their land. And good for them.
But the return of museum objects isn't about money - or at least, it shouldn't be. It's about showing a basic amount of respect for other cultures who, in this case, want that respect in the form of getting their stuff back.
If they turn around and sell the items at a garage sale, so be it. They're theirs. They can do what they want.
And afterwards, those who still feel guilty about America's treatment of American Indians can do something else nice, like make them cupcakes or something.
Problem solved.
Shane Dale is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Exceptions to the Rule
The Repatriation Act justly supports the rights of American Indians to claim ancient funerary items when the modern tribe is culturally related and identified. This act is a successful step in paying American Indians the justice they have been unfairly denied for the past few hundred years, and hopefully, there will be more steps taken in this direction.
However, the Act has left gray areas that are causing a problem within the scientific and education communities. If the remains are younger, then it is easier to identify the tribe to which they are related. But, there is a specific case that proves the act to be less than sufficient.
In September 2000, former Secretary of Interior Babbitt's decision that the 9,500-year-old remains of Kennewick Man are culturally related to five modern tribes - whose members currently reside near the Kennewick discovery, Wash. - is not fair to the educational community. Usually it is difficult to say whether where a tribe lives now is the same as 9,500 years ago.
Thus, the anthropological societies would be more deserving of these remainging for educational purposes, than for a private group that may or may not be related to a 9,500-year-old man.
Mariam Durrani is a systems engineering junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
The Non-Issue of the Week
As far as I can tell, the debate over returning sacred tribal artifacts is about as dead as an issue ever gets; it died twelve years ago when the NAGPRA was passed. That it is being resurrected now on the pages of the Wildcat baffles me.
However, since we're all here - wherever that may be - and since I'm contractually obligated to put my two cents in, here's my opinion in all its glory.
The fact that it took an act of Congress to institute the reforms demanded by NAGPRA is in itself offensive. Put plainly, returning artifacts and remains would have never been an issue were they those of white settlers. They never would have been taken in the first place.
For a shamefully long while, archaeologists plundered the graves of American Indians, extracting objects of extraordinary cultural and religious significance that included human remains. Thankfully, because of NAGPRA, and the outstanding cooperation of museums, most of them were returned a decade ago.
And that's the way it should be.
Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy freshman. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Apples and Oranges
It appears that the issue of American Indian artifacts can be divided into two objects, so to speak: cultural remnants and remains. There can be an argument made for making sure important cultural artifacts are preserved properly and displayed for each generation to view and enjoy. Museums have an advantage when referring to specific objects that have been excavated by state-funded archaeology projects. The motives to keep and display objects for further learning are hopefully pure.
Remains present an entirely different conundrum. No matter how they might have been excavated, where they were found or by whom, remains should be documented, traced and returned for proper burial.
Within each culture, religion and ethnic group, funeral rites are important and sacred and should be kept that way. Any remains found should be returned if at all possible, and luckily, it appears that the Arizona State Museum is attempting to do just that. Not an easy feat with a state of 21 different native tribes.
Laura Winsky is a senior majoring in Spanish and political science. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
