This researcher presents a case study about the repatriation claim for two sets of human remains discovered at the University of California, San Diego.  The repatriation controversy existed between the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, which represents twelve federally-recognized Native American tribes.  Mayes explores the significant scientific interest in the skeletons by University researchers.  He also explains how determining the origins of the remains was vital to determining if they could be classified as Native American.  Interestingly, Native American tribes have a variety of cultural beliefs surrounding the treatment of human remains.  Some cultures strongly oppose any invasive investigation of a human remain.  Other cultures have evolved their cultural beliefs to allow for DNA analysis in order to aid in their repatriation process and provide evidence.  The Kumeyaay requested a noninvasive investigation of the remains.  Mayes argues that cultural miscommunication between tribal and scientific communities was the key issue in the repatriation of the La Jolla skeletons.  Paleoindians and archaic human remains are often classified as culturally unidentifiable which sparks controversy and clashing beliefs between the two sides.  He also explains how osteological analysis provides crucial information for determining a skeleton’s origin.  He analyzed the physical data of the skeletons and argues how they qualify as Native American.

I found this case study to be extremely detailed regarding the physical data of the skeletons.  He argues from the perspective and expert knowledge of a physical anthropologist with information about forensics and osteology.  He used qualitative data that he obtained through reports of the scientific studies of the remains.  It was helpful to me to learn more specifics about DNA extraction and the controversy it can pose.  It was interesting to consider how some tribes desire a human remain to be repatriated, but certain methods for determining cultural affiliation do not align with their customs.

Mayes, Arion T. “These Bones Are Read: The Science and Politics of Ancient Native America.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, 2010, p. 131., doi:10.5250/amerindiquar.34.2.131.

In this research journal, the researcher compared two famous cases of repatriation of indigenous human remains.  She compared the Kennewick Man and the La Jolla Skeletons, because the two cases involve “ancient human remains and contemporary injustice.”  Both sets of skeletons are radio carbon dated at around 9,000-10,000 years old, which has made them of great scientific interest for researchers.  Tsosie compared how in both cases researchers argued that the human remains are Paleo-Indian and cannot be linked to a modern tribe.  They argued that since cultural affiliation is impossible, the remains could not be repatriated to any tribe under NAGPRA.  However, after both sets did eventually end up being repatriated, groups of scientists attempted to repeal the decisions and were unsuccessful in this.  She outlined the lengthy legal processes and battles that the Native Americans had to endure for the remains to be repatriated.  In the case of the Kennewick Man, the significant amount of time caused by the appeals court allowed scientists to perform extensive research on the skeleton.

The researcher, Tsosie, used a comparative case study research logic, which was helpful for me to examine, since I am utilizing a similar method for my own research.  She utilized reports of acts, behaviors, and events and collected them through public and private records.  She analyzed the data of the La Jolla skeletons and the Kennewick Man cases in a qualitative analysis.  This was an interesting case study since the two cases are extremely famous in the archaeology world, and I think the researcher provided thorough analyses of the data.

Tsosie, Rebecca. “Indigenous Peoples and Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, and Human Rights.” Washington Law Review 87, no. 4 (December 2012): 1184-190.

The researcher pursued a case study on the Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. Dalton repatriation case in which 1,582 Native Hawaiian human remains were excavated and relocated from a Mokapu burial site to the Bishop Museum.  This site in Oahu is known as the most disturbed burial site in Hawaii due to the mass relocation.  After the passing of NAGPRA, the U.S. Marine Corps Base Hawaii assisted the museum in the inventory and repatriation of the remains.  A Native Hawaiian tribe filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Department of Navy and the Bishop Museum, claiming the Navy “failed to return expeditiously the Mokapu remains.”  They also claimed that illegal scientific research was conducted on the Mokapu remains.

The researcher, Greer, used a case study research logic.  She utilized reports of acts, behaviors, and events and collected them through public and private records.  Greer analyzed the data in a qualitative analysis.  Her research question was, “How did the Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. Dalton case reveal a disconnection between the intent and the process of NAGPRA?”  Her broader research topic was the repatriation of Native Hawaiian remains.

This was an interesting case study, and I think the researcher provided thorough analyses of the data.  She provided historical research on other Native Hawaiian cases of repatriation.  She evaluated how the repatriation process can be laborious or even humiliating.

Greer, E. Sunny. “Na Wai E Ho‘ōla i Nā Iwi? Who Will Save the Bones: Native Hawaiians and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” Asian-Pacific Law and Policy   Journal 14, no. 1, 34-52.

This case study examines the repatriation of three Native American shields discovered in 1926 in Utah. The shields were eventually acquired by the Capitol Reef National Park. After the passing of NAGPRA, the question was raised if these shields would qualify as sacred or ceremonial objects. The national park began consultations with local tribes and it soon became apparent that there would be competing claims for the shields. The shields were eventually repatriated to the Navajo Nation because of proof of cultural affiliation through storytelling evidence. This case study examines how multiple claims for repatriation can cause an increase in tensions between local tribes. It also examines the relationship between law and archeology.
The researcher’s research question was, “How did the disconnection between legal and anthropological determinations of cultural affiliation effect the dispute over the Capitol Reef National Park shields?” The topic of the article was repatriation disputes of cultural objects post-NAGPRA. She used a case study research logic. She utilized reports of acts, behaviors, and events and collected them through public and private records. Threedy analyzed the data in a qualitative analysis.
This was an interesting case study, and I think the researcher provided thorough analyses of the data. She compared the shields case with the famous Kennewick Man case and explained how competing tribes differ than a tribe competing against scientists for ownership of an object or human remain. Threedy provided historical evidence of division between the Navajo and the Utes and how this case further intensified their relationship. She also gently critiqued some sections of NAGPRA.

Threedy, Debora, Claiming the Shields: Law, Anthropology, and the Role of Storytelling in a NAGPRA Repatriation Case Study (2009). Journal of Land, Resources & Environmental Law, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 91, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1531700

The journal article “Curating Secrets” contains a case study that evaluates the institutional processes in museums and its power structures when handling cases of repatriation.  The author focuses on cases of sacred objects that are returned to Native Americans tribes.  He argues that repatriation serves to shift power back to Native Americans by the return of their sacred objects, but the actual result is the reinforcement of colonial power through museums.  Chip focuses on a specific repatriation case of Zuni War Gods from the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.  The War Gods are statues that are transformed into gods through ceremonies and are placed in shrines around the Zuni Reservation to protect the land and help hold the universe in balance.  The DMNS returned the statues to the Zunis promptly after the passing of NAGPRA.  He suggests that the museum was anticipating a claim from the tribe and acted proactively in order to control the returning process.  He also suggests that the museum retuned the statues without a claim to hide information about how they were acquired in the museum’s collection.  Chip applauds the thousands of repatriated objects since the passing of NAGPRA, but suggests that the process is still flawed by the significant amount of control museums have in the process of determining cultural affiliation.  He argues that there is a lack of transparency in the ways in which a museum collects and manages its collection and he urges for a better system of accountability.  The author relied on cultural knowledge, expert knowledge, and reports of acts, behaviors, and events to cultivate this case.  He accessed this information through research of public records about repatriated cultural objects.  He used a descriptive analysis of this data.

Colwell, Chip. “Curating Secrets: Repatriation, Knowledge Flows, and Museum Power      Structures.” Current Anthropology 56, no. S12 (2015).

This journal article contained historical research about the repatriation of human remains, discovered in Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico, to the Jicarilla Apache and Ute Mountain Ute Native American tribes.  The researchers wanted to discover if the human remains were erroneously repatriated.  They explore whether a better course of action could have been taken during the evaluation process.  The remains were discovered as part of a mass burial in 1958.  The researchers explain that during their initial analysis by a physical anthropologist the remains were declared to be four adult males who died as a result of gunshot trauma.  The anthropologist wrote that the remains were of “American Indian, Spanish, and possibly Negro,” descent.  “They would be called ‘Mexicans’ in the sense of multiple racial admixture characterized in the Southwest.”  In 1990, the Fort Union National Monument museum began a process of evaluating any indigenous cultural affiliation of the remains as a result of the passing of NAGPRA.  The remains were reexamined and two were declared to be Native American and the other two as “admixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid.”  After further examinations, their heritage was determined to be culturally inconclusive but all four sets were repatriated to the local tribes due to the geography of the grave.  The authors argue that at least one human remain was not Native American and was in fact a New Mexico citizen.

The authors of this article relied on expert and cultural knowledge to perform this historical research.  They utilized reports of acts, behaviors, and events and their form of analysis was descriptive and qualitative.  The article raised an interesting topic of cases of erroneous repatriation and examining how historical cases leave room for error in their process.  However, the researchers’ tone comes off as slightly anti-NAGPRA in their rhetoric.

Spude, Catherine Holder, and Douglas D. Scott. “NAGPRA and Historical Research: Reevaluation of a Multiple Burial from Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico.” Historical        Archaeology 47, no. 4 (February 13, 2013): 121-36.

Jamie Nord

The article I discovered in the current periodicals section, titled “Integration of Tribal Consultation to Help Facilitate Conservation and Collections Management at the Arizona State Museum,” illustrated the action research process of updating a museum’s conservation efforts of its cultural objects.  The Arizona State Museum contains 20,000 pottery pieces, but their preservation has proven difficult and concerning for the collection managers.  Therefore, their research question was “How can the Arizona State Museum assess and execute the preservation needs of its Native American pottery collection?”  The museum submitted a grant proposal to the NAGPRA Grant Program, since approximately 5,000 of the ceramic works of art were potentially eligible for repatriations.  The proposal funded the consultation efforts with members of the local tribal communities.  The goal of these consultations was to reevaluate the museum’s curation and preservation practices and to facilitate any repatriation requests that arose during the process.  They also conducted a condition survey of the pottery and compiled it into a database.  It allowed them to determine the different needs of the objects on a large scale, such as failing adhesive joins and required storage supports.  Thus, their data took the form of expert and cultural knowledge and shallow opinions and attitudes, which incorporated both categorical and respondent-centered data analysis.  The collection was moved into its new climate-controlled storage facility with greater visibility and access to the public.  However, the NAGPRA-eligible objects did not undergo any adhesive repairs, based on the opinions voiced in the tribal consultations. These objects were placed in archival storage until any official repatriation claims are processed.

Moreno, Teresa, Chris White, Alyce Sadongei, and Nancy Odegaard. “Integration of Tribal Consultation to Help Facilitate Conservation and Collections Management at the Arizona State Museum.” Society for American Archaeology 9, no. 2 (March 2009): 36-40.

Jamie Nord

Since I am interested in antiquities and repatriation, the Society for American Archaeology scholarly journal in the Current Periodicals section of the library appealed to me.  I discovered a research article titled, “The Inuvialut Living History Project” that related to my research topic.  It appeared in the September 2012, Volume 12, Number 4 issue.  The contributing authors of the research article were Natasha Lyons, Kate Hennessy, Mervin Joe, Charles Arnold, Stephen Long, Albert Elias, and James Pokiak.  The article details the 2009 collaborative project between the Smithsonian Institution’s Artic Studies Center and the Inuvialuit indigenous community in the Canadian Western Arctic.  The team of anthropologists and museum officials sought a way to make the MacFarlane Collection of Inuvialuit ethnographic objects available to the tribe without physically returning them.  The collection was not “eligible for repatriation” under NAGPRA, since the community resides in Canada.  The cultural objects were acquired by Hudson Bay’s trader Roderick MacFarlane while operating a fur trade post in the 1860’s.  The team collected data of cultural knowledge, expert knowledge, and deeply held opinions and attitudes through in-depth interviews with Inuvialuit elders.  As a result of the process of this action research, the team launched a website www.inuvialuitlivinghistory.ca as a form of “digital repatriation.”  The article concedes that a limitation of this project culmination is that internet access is not universal.  However, the project included a trip for a few Inuvialuit community members to the Arctic Studies Center, so they were able to view and reconnect with their cultural objects.  The team expressed that they believed the outcome to be an overall success but reported another challenge was obtaining meaningful feedback from the Inuvialuit community.  I found the results of this research to be less than inspiring.  In my opinion, a “virtual exhibit” does not offer the same cultural significance or value in a community.  It is difficult to believe a  website could compensate for the lack of repatriation of their cultural objects.

Natasha Lyons, Kate Hennessy, Mervin Joe, Charles Arnold, Stephen Long, Albert Elias, and James Pokiak.  “The Inuvialut Living History Project.”  Society for American Archaeology.   September 2012, Volume 12, Number 4 issue.