Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: Museums and Tribes - A Tricky Truce

Expand Messages
  • Popplestone, Ann
    ... From: Don [mailto:dbain@TELUS.NET] Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 1:38 PM To: ANTHRO-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Museums and Tribes - A Tricky
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      FW: Museums and Tribes - A Tricky Truce

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Don [mailto:dbain@...]
      Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 1:38 PM
      To: ANTHRO-L@...
      Subject: Museums and Tribes - A Tricky Truce

      Museums and Tribes: A Tricky Truce

      December 24, 2000


      ON a cold afternoon a little more than a year ago, members of several
      Tlingit Indian clans in southeastern Alaska gathered for a
      transcendently emotional ceremony that few of them had ever dared to
      imagine. An intricately carved wooden beaver that plays a central role
      in their history and culture was coming home after an absence of nearly
      a century.

       This carving once graced the prow of a war canoe that ferried supplies
      to these clans in the wake of a bombardment of their communities by the
      United States Navy in 1881. One clan member, acting on his own, later
      sold it to a traveling collector, and it disappeared.

       In 1998, a clan elder was visiting a storeroom at the American Museum
      of Natural History in New York when, he later recalled, he heard an
      "inner voice" calling him to one shelf. When he found the shelf, he was
      astonished to see the wooden beaver staring out at him.

       Under the provisions of a sweeping law enacted 10 years ago, Tlingit
      clans asked the museum to return the carving, and museum officials

       "The day it came back was something you couldn't even imagine," said
      Leonard John, a clan member who helped arrange the return. "The whole
      village was at the dock. People were crying and weeping.

       "This is not just art to us," Mr. John continued. "It's something far
      deeper, something with a healing and spiritual aspect. When our
      artifacts left us and were scattered across America, they left a void.
      We lost our honor and our value system. We were overwhelmed by social
      problems like suicide and alcoholism. Now that they're coming back,
      people look at them and feel their honor and their self-respect coming
      back as well. There are still a lot of festering wounds, but the process
      of healing has begun."

       The law under which the beaver prow was repatriated, the Native
      American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, was signed by President
      George Bush in November 1990 after years of discussion among scientists,
      museum curators and Indian groups. It seeks to reconcile two profoundly
      different value systems, one based on the primacy of reason and science
      and the other revolving around spiritual and religious values.

       In the decade since the law was passed, it has had a profound effect on
      museums and the philosophy on which they are based. At the same time, it
      has had incalculable emotional and social impact on Indian tribes across
      the country that have recovered long-lost artifacts, many of which have
      enormous spiritual significance, as well as the remains of thousands of
      their ancestors.

       When the law was first enacted, some Indian leaders feared that they
      were about to begin a period of bitter clashes with defiant museum
      curators. Some curators feared that their collections would be gutted as
      they were forced to return huge numbers of artifacts. Ten years later,
      however, both sides agree that their fears were exaggerated, and many
      say the law has actually increased understanding between tribes and
      museum administrators.

       "I've visited quite a few museums and generally found them to be very
      friendly and welcoming," said Dorothy Davids, who directs repatriation
      efforts for the Stockbridge-Munsee band of the Mohican Nation, now based
      in Wisconsin. "It was rough going for a while because museums really
      kind of hate to give up what they have, but now there's a law. Most of
      them respect that."

       There are still some areas of conflict, especially over efforts by some
      tribes to recover remains that are many thousands of years old and that
      scientists say should be studied for vital clues about the history of
      human migration to the American continent. But many curators have come
      to agree that Indians have a right to recover their sacred artifacts and
      the bones of those they can legitimately claim as ancestors.

       Indians involved in the reclamation process have also come to respect
      the role museums have played in preserving and displaying artifacts that
      might otherwise have been lost.

       In some cases, museums have reached agreements with tribes under which
      the museums keep artifacts but agree to treat them in special ways. Some
      have been taken off public display, others are stored in rooms that face
      in a particular direction, and still others are periodically sprinkled
      with chopped tobacco or ground corn.

       The 1990 law affects every museum and federal agency that owns "Native
      American human remains and associated funerary objects" as well as
      "unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural
      patrimony." It requires each museum and agency to compile an inventory
      of its holdings, identify them by tribal origin and notify existing
      tribes of objects that appear to come from that tribe's tradition.

       Under the law, museums must return all remains and artifacts to any
      tribe that requests them and that can prove a "cultural affiliation"
      with the tribe from which they came.

       American museums hold the remains of an estimated 500,000 Indians as
      well as millions of Indian artifacts, many of which come from graves. In
      the 10 years since the law was enacted, according to the National Park
      Service, museums and federal agencies have returned about 20,000 sets of
      human remains and more than 385,000 funerary objects, sacred objects and
      "objects of cultural patrimony."

       Specialists say the number of objects is misleadingly high because it
      includes every bead and pottery shard found in an Indian grave. But
      among the returned objects are also hundreds of important and beautiful
      artifacts that have been prizes in museum collections.

       Some scientists and curators say the return of these artifacts has hurt
      their ability to explain the American past to visitors and researchers.
      Many concede, however, that their fear that the law would result in the
      wholesale dismantling of museum collections has proved unfounded.

       Debate over questions that the 1990 law raises has remained intense.
      "It's a big issue that's very important for museums, for scientific
      researchers and for Indian tribes," said Keith Kintigh, an
      anthropologist who is president of the Society for American Archaeology.

       "Native Americans have interests in the past and in the material
      remains of the past," Mr. Kintigh said. "Some people argue that this is
      religion trying to assert itself over science, but we don't see it that
      way. Our position is that there are Native American rights, but that
      science and research are also legitimate. They have to be balanced.
      That's exactly what the law tries to do, and I think it's been pretty

       "Take these beautiful pottery vessels that were interred with Indians a
      thousand years ago," Mr. Kintigh said. "On the one hand, there are
      people who think those objects should be underground beside the people
      they were buried with. But most museums with Indian collections display
      funerary objects. They're enormous cultural achievements and have a lot
      to tell us. In many cases, they've even been used as models for the
      revival and continuation of traditional artistic styles.

       "People's feelings on questions like this are evolving. My guess is
      that to the extent tribal people get together with curators and
      scientists, pressure on existing collections is going to lessen. We
      don't see their claims as illegitimate, but they come to see that there
      is value to learning about the past in a systematic way."

       The recognition by some Indian leaders that funerary and sacred objects
      can serve a positive purpose if they remain in museums is only one of
      several factors that have moderated their demands for repatriation.

       Indian tribes receive little financial support for offices that
      organize claims for sacred objects. As a result, many objects that might
      be claimed have not been.

       In some parts of the country, especially in Western states, Indian
      cemeteries are being found regularly as roads are built and flood waters
      recede during droughts. Indian tribes often work vigorously to protect
      those remains. Since much of their energy is devoted to these urgent
      cases, little is left to deal with objects that are safely in museum
      vaults or display cases and will still be available to be claimed years
      or decades from now.

       According to several museum curators, it was common practice for
      curators in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to treat masks and
      other Indian artifacts with strong chemicals, including arsenic, to
      protect them from decay and insect infestation. As a result, they are
      now toxic and cannot be used in the ceremonies for which they were made.

       At public meetings, tribal leaders have criticized federal agencies,
      including the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management,
      for what they say are failures to devote enough money and energy to
      processing repatriation claims. They have also complained that while
      some museums are evidently committed to complying with the 1990 law,
      others seem less than enthusiastic.

       Some Indian leaders maintain that all objects from all non-European
      cultures in North America belong in the hands of Indians, regardless of
      whether those alive today can claim kinship with the cultures that
      produced the objects. The 1990 law, however, rejects that so-called
      "pan-Indian" argument. It requires that the claimant tribe prove it is a
      "lineal descendant" of the tribe from which the artifacts or remains

       As a result of this provision, the law has served some tribes better
      than others. Southwestern tribes like the Hopi and Navajo, for example,
      have maintained cultural continuity over centuries and therefore have
      strong claims to objects in museum collections. Other tribes, including
      many in the Eastern United States that were decimated by successive
      waves of European settlement, have more trouble proving their descent
      from tribes that existed long ago.

       "It was never the intent of the legislation to bring in trucks and haul
      away museum collections," said Jonathan Haas, a curator at the Field
      Museum in Chicago, which has one of the country's richest collections of
      Indian artifacts, and which has returned about a dozen important
      artifacts in recent years. "It was intended to provide a mechanism for
      the return of a very small number of very important pieces that never
      should have been taken from their place of origin in the first place.

       "One very positive result of the law is that museums have become much
      more consultative with tribes about our use of objects," Mr. Haas said.
      "It has made us more sensitive, and it has also shown the tribes that we
      are becoming better keepers of this material and indeed have been good
      keepers in terms of the physical well-being of the pieces."

       Although Mr. Haas and many other curators say tribes have good reason
      to reclaim some artifacts, that opinion is not unanimous. Curators who
      are unhappy with the law and its implications, however, normally speak
      only if assured of anonymity. They fear appearing anti-Indian or drawing
      attention to their collections.

       "The language of the law is very loose," said a curator whose museum
      has grudgingly returned several artifacts to Indian tribes. "In effect,
      it says that museums have to return anything of religious or cultural
      significance, which arguably covers everything we have. The standard of
      proof is very low. It doesn't matter how we got it. If it's in a public
      collection and claimants want it back, we have to enter into

       "This contravenes the whole notion of us being able to assemble objects
      from different cultures," the curator said. "It assumes that we did
      something wrong and that we should give back what we have collected. But
      a lot of people think museums display cultural artifacts better than
      anyone else. That's our mission. And as this process proceeds, many
      tribes are starting to agree."

       The debate over the law and its implications has involved not just
      curators but also scientists and Indian advocates. It has been a hot
      topic at many conferences and has filled reams of paper in specialized
      newspapers and journals.

       G. A. Clark, a professor of anthropology at Arizona State University,
      staked out one side of the debate in a recent article in the Society for
      American Archeology Bulletin that has attracted much attention. He said
      laws like the one passed in 1990 reflect a "paroxysm of national guilt"
      and "strike at the heart of a scientific archaeology because they
      elevate the cultural traditions and religious beliefs of Indians to the
      level of science."

       "I think archaeology is, or should be, a `sciencelike' endeavor as
      opposed to a political enterprise, an industry, a platform for promoting
      a social agenda, or a public relations exercise," Mr. Clark asserted in
      the article. "We all lose if, for reasons of political expediency,
      Indians rebury their past. One of the many ironies in the situation is
      that many Native American groups who favor the preservation and study of
      archaeological and skeletal collections are being co-opted by the
      actions of small but vocal activist minorities in cahoots with ignorant
      legislators willing to sell the profession down the pike for the sake of
      short-term political gains."

       In response to views like this, other scholars and Indian advocates
      assert that according to Indian theology, disturbing the remains of the
      dead threatens not only tribal spirits but the harmony of the whole
      world. "To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their final
      resting place is sacred ground," Chief Seattle of the Suquamish tribe
      told an interviewer in the 1850's, "while you wander far from the graves
      of your ancestors, and seemingly without regret."

       One apparently unintended consequence of the law has been that Indian
      tribes have laid claim to several sets of very old human remains that
      have been found in the United States since the mid-1990's. Indians claim
      these as remains of their ancestors, since their religious tradition
      tells them that they were always present on the North American
      continent. Many scientists say that claim is dubious at best, and
      complain that potentially thrilling discoveries about the early peopling
      of the Americas may never be made if they do not have the chance to
      study the remains they unearth.

       This issue has come into public view largely because of an intensifying
      legal controversy over the skeleton of a man, apparently about 9,000
      years old, that was found in 1996 in Kennewick, Wash.

       Five Indian tribes in the Northwest have collectively claimed Kennewick
      Man as an ancestor and want to rebury his remains. Scientists are
      protesting. They say the skeleton has features suggesting that it may be
      of Japanese or Polynesian origin, and that in any case no tribe or
      ethnic group in the world can trace its ancestry back 9,000 years.

       In September, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit ruled in favor of the
      tribes, saying he believed they were "culturally affiliated" with the
      Kenewick skeleton. A group of anthropologists, however, has filed a
      lawsuit seeking to block the reburial.

       "When the law was passed, no one had any idea that we would be
      discovering remains this old," said Cleone Hawkinson, an Oregon-based
      physical anthropologist who is president of Friends of the American
      Past, an organization that is fighting Indian claims to Kennewick Man
      and several other sets of ancient human remains. "Native Americans are
      putting in requests for things that go way beyond the intent of the law,
      which says that an existing group has to prove cultural affinity with a
      prior group before it can make a claim.

       "It's nonsensical to say that one group which is in the geographical
      area now is the only group that ever got here, and it negates the
      complexity of our past," Ms. Hawkinson said. "The whole issue has become
      extremely political as Indian movements have gained power and political
      clout. There's a desire to reach politically correct conclusions that
      will take us an extra mile toward righting the wrongs of the past. We're
      pulling a dark curtain that's as bad as what happened during the Middle
      Ages in Europe. To be human means to ask questions about ourselves and
      our origins. We're so inter related that it's a shame to have one narrow
      slice of humanity take so much control over what is becoming a really
      fascinating branch of scientific study."

       Despite this debate and a handful of others like it, many scientists,
      museum curators and tribal leaders, more than a few of whom had expected
      to be locked in bitter battles over ownership of valuable artifacts, say
      the opposite has happened.

       "We were told that there was going to be terrible conflict, but instead
      we're holding hands with them and it's been great," said Diane Palmer,
      an official of the Cape Fox tribe in Alaska who has worked to repatriate
      artifacts and remains from several museums. "A lot of our people had
      wrong ideas about museums, and museums had wrong ideas about some of the
      tribes. This has been a really positive experience. Until the law was
      enacted we had no way of even knowing where this stuff was, and now we
      can not only find it but have it returned."

       Many scholars consider the collection of Native American artifacts at
      the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of the American Indian in
      New York City to be the finest in the world. Over the last decade, the
      museum has returned about 2,000 objects to Indian tribes across the
      United States, in Canada and in several Latin American countries.

       "We have a collection of 800,000 objects, so in a quantitative sense
      the law has had a very small impact," said Rick West, the museum's
      director, who is a Cheyenne Indian. "But from a qualitative standpoint I
      do think it has an impact, and that impact is absolutely positive.

       "As institutions of culture, museums that house these materials have a
      vital interest in buttressing those cultures and supporting them into
      the future," Mr. West said. "To the extent that we believe maintenance
      of these cultures is important, and I think it is, museums have an
      obligation to support that cultural diversity. And secondly, this
      process has directly benefited museums themselves. Even a collection as
      great as ours is very spottily documented, and through this process of
      repatriation we've had people from native communities visiting our
      collection who can inevitably tell us a great deal about objects that
      are not subject to repatriation.

      "When the law was first enacted in 1990 there was practically hysteria
      in some parts of the museum community about what was going to happen,"
      Mr. West continued. "Now most of that has faded away. Both sides have
      been deliberate and thoughtful, and it has ended up benefiting both the
      native and museum communities. We're talking about a huge paradigm of
      cultural authority. This is not just words. It has real impact."

      The New York Times on the Web

      Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

      >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the command <<<<<<
      >>>>>> UNSUB ANTHRO-L to LISTSERV@... .  <<<<<<

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.