At 03:01 PM 11/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:28 AM 11/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>If someone dug up your aunt Mary from the church cemetary, would not only
>>question their motives but wonder that manner of human being they were to
>>require enforcement of a law before they would return your aunt Mary?
>
>I think this is a moot point when talking about repatriation.
>
>Digging up Aunt Mary or anyone else who has been dead for less than 100
>years and still has direct ancestors is one thing.
>
>Digging up ancient peoples who have no direct decendants (as in someone can
>create a family tree back to a prehistoric person) alive today is a
>completely different story.
>
>No one bats an eyelash when a Roman, Egyptian or Celtic site is dug up and
>human remains are excavated even though there are probably decendants still
>living in the area today.  But when a prehistoric Native American site is
>excavated, people everywhere start talking "repatriation."
>
>Now before the flames start read on to allow me to clarify.
>
>I believe that artefacts that can be linked to an existing tribe or taken
>off of land belonging to an existing tribe should be offered to be returned
>to the the tribe.  If the tribe does not want them, then I think whoever
>excavated them should get to do whatever they want with the artefacts and
>no one else has a claim to them.  If the artefacts cannot be linked to an
>existing tribe or are clearly of a prehistoric tribe no longer in existance
>today, I think that those artefacts cannot be claimed by any existing tribe
>unless they were taken off of land that the tribe currently posses.
>
>An example of this is from an archaeology open house I was working at.  A
>man came in with a box of artefacts he had purchased from a Navajo man in
>the Southwest and wanted help in identifying what they were.  A
>Cherokee/Algonquin lady was also at the open house and looked at the
>artefacts.  She immediately suggested that they be turned over to a local
>tribe to be reintered and wanted to perform a blessing on them.  Why should
>an East Coast tribe have any say in what is done with artefacts from a
>Southwest tribe that were sold by that tribe in the first place?
>Furthermore, why should they even suggest such a thing when clearly they
>have no connection with these artefacts other than that they came from a
>Native American tribe in North America?
>
>Another example is that my ancestry is Celtic peasant stock from the
>British Isles.  Being of Celtic decent, do I have a right to go into the
>British museum with fellow Celtic brothers and ask that everything that has
>been excavated from Celtic burial mounds be returned to us so that we can
>ceremonily reinter them?  Or does a native Egyptian have a right to go into
>the British museum and ask that all the mummies and tomb artefacts be
>returned to the burial chambers they were taken from?
>
>I'm also curious to know if the South American Indians have a say in the
>excavation and handling of all the pre-historic sites down there.  Has any
>South American tribe voiced concern about excavations of any of the Inca,
>Mayan or Aztec sites?  Is repatriation purely a North American thing or
>have other peoples like the aborigines of Australia or Africa voiced
>opinions about what is being done with their ancient ancestors?  Should
>there be a limit to repatriation as in artefacts that were collected within
>100 years or so can be repatriated but older ones cannot?
>
>As a last note, I do not condone archaeologists being allowed to wantonly
>excavate whatever they want and think that Native Americans do have a
>legitimate claim to some objects that they are requesting to be repatriated.
>
>Stepping off my soapbox for the time being.  :)
>
>Deb
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Staples &  Charles Ltd.
>225 N Fairfax St.
>Alexandria, VA 22314
>USA
>703-683-0900 - voice
>703-683-2820 - fax
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
For the last eight years as a human osteologist I have analyzed the human
remains of several Native American groups and consulted in several human
identification medicolegal investigations.  What is the deal with 100
years?  Is the argument that after 100 years the skeletons we excavate are
no longer human?  The NAGPRA or "repatriation" issue is about human rights.
 I do not believe that intentional desecration of a grave has a time barrier.

        As an anthropologist I have often juxtaposed the cultural differences
between North European and Native American views on human remains issues.
North Europeans historically have enjoyed the display of their ancestors in
museums.  The Iceman is a perfect example of this.


Jered Cornelison, M.S.