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]