>>> [log in to unmask] 11/26/03 12:46PM >>>


>I don't think it's right to say that things
>should be "cleared out" in one way or another just because it hasn't
been
>touched in years.

Not what I was suggesting at all; rather, I was making a counter-point
to the claims that reburying human remains in museum collections
represents a loss of scientific knowledge.  That claim makes a weak
argument when a set of remains has been with an institution for 150
years without being studied, and as yet there are still no foreseeable
plans to study them.  The rationale for "clearing out" such remains
would be that they were questionably obtained in the first place, and
that a request has been made to return them.

>And a museum might not have plans to do research, but a grad
>student or independent researcher may want to study it in the years to
come.

That's cold comfort to someone making a repatriation claim; "Oh, we
haven't studied your great-great grandfather in the 150 years we've had
him, and we don't have any plans to, but a grad student or somebody
might want to study him in the years to come...."  I know I wouldn't be
happy with that...

>But the key in this article is the question of "who is related" and
"how long
>does that go back"? If I read it correctly, not only could direct
decendants
>claim ownership of human remains (and if the recommendation is to go
back to
>1500, that could mean hundreds if not thousands of people), but people
who are
>also of the same belief or cultural association. That would mean that
I, as a
>Quaker, could claim the remains of early Quakers who I'm probably not
the least
>bit related to.

My opinion certainly differs from yours on whether or not this is the
key point of the article; nevertheless, it is a valid one.  These
questions have to be answered on a case-by-case basis, depending on
available evidence and documentation.  And, there are many who would say
there is a relationship between you as a Quaker and early Quakers
(though not necessarily a blood relationship), even if you don't
recognize it yourself.  Bloodlines are only one model of establishing
kinship; it would be "cultural elitist" to suggest that other,
non-Eurocentric systems are in any way less valid.

>And not to open a can of worms, but here in America, I get really
irked about
>Native Americans laying claim to anything Native American.

Just imaging how irked the Native Americans must feel about Europeans
laying claim to anything Native American!

>Obviously, artifacts
>and remains from the existing tribes should be returned if requested

I'd have thought that was obvious too, but the writer of the article
that sparked this debate certainly didn't make allowance for that.

>but there's a lot of controversary over items and remains from tribes
that haven't
>been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Granted, Native
Americans today
>are the decendants of these tribes but how far back do you go to make
a claim
>of direct decendant? Since my family was originally from England,
could I make
>a claim on one of the bog men or even Viking remains that were found
in
>England?

Again, this is going to depend on how one defines kinship, and whether
or not one agrees that different kinship systems are equally valid.

>Another example of "mass repatriation" that irked me: One archaeology
day at my
>university in Virginia, a man came in with a box of artifacts that he
had
>bought off of a Navajo man out West. He said that this Navajo was
sitting by
>the side of the road selling things and he bought this box of
miscellaneous
>artifacts which were mainly projectile points and pottery shards, all
of which
>were probably picked up willy nilly off the ground for anyone to find.
There
>was a local Virginia Native American lady also at the archaeology day
who took
>a great interest in this box of "stuff" and strongly suggested that
this man
>turn it over to the local tribes to be reburried. Now wait a minute,
this man
>had bought these artifacts legitmately from a Native American, who was
from a
>tribe all the way across the country that had no relation to the local
tribes
>in Virginia. What right did the local Native American lady have to
suggest that
>he couldn't have Native American artifacts that were acquired in a
legitimate
>way from another Native American of a completely different tribe?

Exactly why such situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case
basis.  The man bought the pieces from a Navajo--was the Navajo the
legitimate owner of the pieces, and therefore able to legitimately sell
them? (there are many examples of pieces in museums that were "sold" to
collectors, that are in fact communal property, that no one person had
the right to sell to a museum).  The pieces were bought "out West"--did
they originate from "out West?"  Perhaps the Virginia Native America
felt more kinship to Native America than the Navajo man did, just as
some Quakers feel more kinship with the Quaker community than others, or
that some McShanes feel more kinship with other McShanes than I do.
There is much to be considered, even in the seemingly simple example you
provided.

>So while I'm very supportive of returning artifacts and remains to
their owners
>or cultures if they were acquired in a less than scrupulous way (Nazi
loot from
>WWII for example)

Franz Boas collected human remains from the Pacific Coast by breaking
into graves under cover of night, and 19th century U.S. Army personnel
sent remains of Native Americans to the Smithsonian after killing them
in the so-called "Indian Wars."  Surely, these are example of "less than
scrupulous" means that various museums have used to acquire human
remains.

>I fear that people are going overboard with this and being
>cultural elitists" by saying that no one outside of an ethnic or
cultural
>group can own anything from a group that is not their own.

>     Deb

That's just the way the pendulum swings--for a long time, aboriginal
communities were told by outsiders that they (the outsiders) were going
to take from the communities whatever they wanted.  Now, First Nations
are in a position to be able to assert that they'll take back whatever
they want.  Somewhere in the middle everyone will find common ground.
The Nisga'a in British Columbia recognize the value of having their
culture represented in the Royal B.C. Museum, and negotiated with the
RBCM to ensure the pieces the Nisga'a felt should come back to their
communities were returned, while a representative collection of Nisga'a
material culture remained with the RBCM.  But, that kind of negotiation
can only come about when museums and aboriginal communities come to
table as equals, and sadly, that's not universally the case.  Museums
still have the upper hand, and in too many cases are loathe to share.



------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McShane, Assistant--Cultural History
Medicine Hat Museum and Art Gallery
1302 Bomford Crescent S.W.
Medicine Hat, AB   T1A 5E6
(403) 502-8587

Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the
addressee and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged
material.  Any unauthorized review, distribution or other use of or
the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is
prohibited.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete or destroy this message and any copies.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).