University committee to review holdings of 1,400 Native American remains
The ethical and scientific concerns surrounding the storage of ancient Native American remains held at the University of Michigan will get a deeper look, the vice president for research announced Thursday.
At the U-M Board of Regents meeting in Flint, Vice President of Research Stephen Forrest said an interdisciplinary committee has been formed in response to anticipated changes in federal laws governing the repatriation of Native American remains and artifacts.
The U-M Museum of Anthropology has about 1,400 remains in storage that are 800 to 3,000 years old. The 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, known as NAGPRA, requires museums to inventory holdings of human remains and identify their affiliations. Native groups can then claim the return of remains deemed to be culturally affiliated with them.
The continued storage of the remains has been a major sticking point between Native American groups and U-M, but the move to form a committee isn’t a response to pressure, Forrest said.
The U.S. Department of the Interior recently asked for input from the community about what to do with culturally unidentifiable remains. Ongoing discussions at the federal level indicate the act will change, but Forrest said he wasn't sure how or when. He said U-M wants to be prepared for these changes.
"It's figuring out how to do this in the absence of pressure," Forrest said after the meeting. "We can understand what our principles are, our ways of going forward that balances all of the competing interests - the community in general, research and the Native American community."
In November 2007, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan wrote U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, requesting the return of 405 people excavated in the 1930s and 1960s from sites in Lapeer, Macomb and Saginaw counties.
U-M responded that the remains at issue were culturally unaffiliated, and they could not, by law, return them.
This year, student organizers moved the Ann Arbor Pow Wow, a two-day event of traditional dance contests, exhibitions and other cultural elements, from Crisler Arena to Saline.
Though the U-M Museum of Anthropology states on its Web site that the federal laws are being followed, native groups disagree. In a blog entry, the student activist group Native Graduate Caucus writes the U-M Museum of Archaeology didn't consult tribes with due diligence before categorizing the remains as required by NAGPRA.
The new committee will include faculty from math, medicine, Native American studies, philosophy, museums and public policy, among other disciplines.
"The laws provide us for some room and some ambiguity as to how to treat things," Forrest said. "We're really trying to find the right balance between the legal framework and the needs of community and the needs of our researchers and so on. We want to have a deeper look and a deeper appreciation for all of the various ethical as well as scientific concerns that exist."
Juliana Keeping covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
Native Caucus
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:42 p.m.
DennisP, right again. In our years of researching this issue, the Native Grad Caucus has never encountered a single tribe that turned around and conducted research on its ancestors. They merely returned them to the sort of burial or funerary rite they received the first time around. As soon as you say something like that, you're bound to find someone with an obscure fact. But it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of remains are simply reinterred in whatever fashion is appropriate for that tribe in the appropriately sacred fashion.
DennisP
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:29 p.m.
HanksMom, Good point. I'm not assuming that there are no Native American scientists. However, I did assume that the purpose of the law requiring repatriation of remains was to allow tribal representatives the means to return them to a proper state of burial in keeping with their cultural mores. But, you are correct, I don't know if those who rightfully receive the remains in return would rather choose to engage in more research or study of such remains. I made an assumption about "losses to science" and appreciate your correction, but I do believe that whatever choice is to be made should remain with the Native Americans and, if they choose to not make the remains available for more study, we can live without some of that science.
Native Caucus
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:59 p.m.
Miigwetch (thank-you) Dennis P, for the clear articulation of the facts. All law is open to interpretation, and every law has gray areas that can be exploited. But the spirit of this law is clear, as you say. Robust debate surrounded the creation of this law, and in the end our country passed one of the most forceful pieces of Indian law to date. The letter of this law also allows museums and universities to return "culturally unidentifiable" remains to tribes right now. It's called a disposition and many museums in the state and nationally have done just that. Check out the Native Caucus's understanding of the issues, including support information: umgraveinjustice.wordpress.com
Juliana Keeping
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:57 p.m.
Thanks for the notes michela. I fixed the link and am looking into your other question-Juliana
michela
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:08 p.m.
Also, the link to the blog entry doesn't work.
michela
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:06 p.m.
Could future coverage of this also include a description of who is on the committee? I know there is one graduate student on the committee, but I haven't found any news coverage that says if they have included anyone of Native American heritage and/or if anyone on the committee is an activist for Native American rights. Thanks.
HanksMom
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11 a.m.
Dennis P, Do you assume that if returned to a particular Native American tribe the remains will not be studied, either by them or others? Colleges and Universities are not the only source of anthropologists, historians and archaeologists.
DennisP
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4:55 a.m.
This may be anathemic to the scientist, but American society--in passing the Native American remains law through its Congress--basically has made its social choice. By passing this law, our government concluded that the scientific value of these artifacts is secondary to their cultural importance to Native Americans. Whether one agrees with Congress' opinion isn't relevant any longer. I'm not sure where the UM is going with this committee, but it should make every effort to culturally identify these remains and return them. Will there be some science lost from laws like this? You bet. Will we learn less about the history and prehistory of all of the western hemisphere and humanity generally? Very possibly. But, the debate was had and the law passed. We'll need to forego that knowledge or glean it from some other means.
eagleman
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 7:32 p.m.
Just return the remains. Why does the University need the remains of centuries old indian bones anyways? Return them to their rightful owners.