Now wait a minute! Let's not get back into the rumor mill on
repatriation again!
        Repatriation does not apply "to anything claimed by a Native
American group as sacred or religious, within the definition of NAGPRA, as
well as the skeletal remains and funerary objects." Nor is repatriation "a
threat to the future of museums."  These are specious arguments that were
laid to rest several years ago, and current practice among museum
officials who have participated in the process totally denies these
allegations.
        NAGPRA applies to federally funded agencies and institutions that
possess cultural materials related to graves (human remains and
associated funerary objects), or that can be identified, in consultation
with Native American groups, as sacred objects or objects of cultural
patrimony. These terms are explicitly defined in the law, especially the
phrase "sacred objects," which refers only to those objects necessary for
on-going religious practices by modern adherents. Applicability of these
categories to any particular object or collection is determined in a
process of consultation among museum officials and recognized
representatives of the associated Native American group.
        In my three years of experience in dealing with NAGPRA, I have
found the process to be an immense benefit to the museum and to my
understanding of the collections I manage. The threat to museums comes not
from repatriation but from a closed-minded, parternalistic attitude toward
the Native American people from whom these objects were "collected."
        Indeed, each repatriation claim is considered as a unique case
and evidence presented by both sides is considered in determining the
suitability and the outcome of the claim. The process of repatriation is
not automatic; consultation, deliberation and the preponderemce of
evidence determines the ultimate outcome in each particular case.
        If any on the list have any questions about the actual experince
of repatriation in the museum context, I would be pleased to address them.
        Michael A. Lewis


On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Adrienne
DeArmas wrote:

> In a message dated 95-12-04 10:02:08 EST, [log in to unmask]
> (Karen Anderson) writes:
>
> >Anita & Adrienne: repatriation applies to anything claimed by a Native
> >American group as sacred or religious, within the definition of
> >NAGPRA, as well as the skeletal remains and funerary objects.
>
> Thank you Karen. I must have missed Anita's reply. For those of you who don't
> know, repatriation is a threat to the future of museums. I am not saying that
> it is a bad thing, but everything in moderation. And let's face it,
> repatriation is only about Native Americans today. How long do you think it
> will take for other countries (including us) to go after *their stuff* in
> other museums and demand it back? I think each repatriation case should be an
> individual case with BOTH sides bearing the burden of proof.
>
> - Adrienne
>