Posted in Uncategorized on October 15, 2009 by nativecaucus
The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Petoskey) and the Bay Mills Indian Community (Brimley), two of the state’s strongest and most prominent tribes, officially notified U of M that they believe the U of M Museum of Anthropology is not in compliance with federal law. LTBB sent its notification on October 12, 2009, Columbus Day. Bay Mills followed a day later.
See PAGES link on the bottom right to view letters from both tribes.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) requires museums to conduct tribal consultation before declaring the cultural affiliation of human remains. Museums must pursue consultation with due diligence. If these things do not occur, according to personnel at the National NAGPRA Program in Washington, DC, the requirements of the law have not been met.
According to Michigan tribes, the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology did not fulfill this requirement. U of M archaeologists completed their inventories of the human beings in their “collection” more than a decade ago. Since then, 1,390 people have been denied proper spiritual care by visiting tribes–and denied the basic human right of a peaceful burial.
What is the Michigan Difference on this issue?? See what the tribes have to say about this situation in the attached letters and tribal council declarations.
NAGPRA was not created as legislation that pits science vs. culture. It was clearly articulated as human rights legislation. Returning these 1,390 “culturally unidentifiable/unaffiliated” remains is entirely legal–and entirely in keeping with the intent of the law and the nation that created it.
Every other major museum in Michigan–and many nationwide–have or are in the process of returning “unidentifiable” ancestral remains back to tribes.
Posted in Uncategorized on March 13, 2009 by nativecaucus
The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology holds the remains of 1,390 Native people in its archaeological “collection.” The vast majority of these people were removed from their graves in Michigan. Many were taken from or very near existing Indian communities or very recently abandoned Native communities. Some 200 individuals in this “collection” have been separated from the stories of their indigenous identity, location of their disinterment, or age.
In 1990, the NAtive American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act passed into law. Despite what the University of Michigan has claimed in media coverage, this law DOES NOT require that remains be proven “culturally affiliated” in order to return them to tribes. University officials seem confused about this fact (see links to the right).
The main purpose of this blog is to more fully inform the public, U of M students, and university leadership. We are currently reaching out to Pres. Mary Sue Coleman, the Board of Regents, and Vice President for Research Stephen Forrest.
The University of Michigan seem reliant on the first part of Article 3 of NAGPRA. Yet it seems to be ignoring the last part of Article 3, which very clearly articulates the legality of returning “culturally unaffiliated” remains. Article 3 says:
“Current regulations implementing the Act require museums and Federal agencies to retain possession of culturally unidentifiable human remains until final regulations are promulgated or the Secretary recommends otherwise. The disposition of funerary objects associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains is not specifically addressed in the Act. During deliberations over recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains, the Review Committee considered the intrinsic relationship of human remains to associated funerary objects and concluded that nothing in the Act precludes the voluntary disposition of these cultural items by museums or Federal agencies to the extent allowable by Federal law.
Dozens of universities and museums have followed both the spirit and the letter of this law to do what the law asks–facilitate the return of human spiritual remains to a peaceful grave. Stanford, Michigan State University and The Detroit Institute of Arts are but a very few of the museums that have used NAGPRA to send home thousands of “culturally unaffiliated/unidentifiable” remains. So has the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology! (See Precedent page to the right.)
The University of Michigan claims it must wait for proposed new federal regulations on returning “culturally unaffiliated/unidentifiable” remains before deciding what to to with Michigan’s “collection” of our ancestors. The Native Caucus, and the many attorneys and archaeologists we’ve consulted, feel this is a false and unethical position. U of M DOES NOT have to wait until the proposed new regulations have been finalized for the following reasons, according to our legal and academic experts:
1) NAGPRA as it currently stands creates a wide and clear path for returning “culturally unaffiliated/unidentifiable” remains. All that is missing is the will to do so. Many universities have used NAGPRA to return “unaffiliated” remains, including the University of Michigan on three occasions we know of.
2) The proposed regualtions are overwhelmingly in favor of more clearly mandating the return of culturally unaffiliated remains. The State of Colorado has, in fact, adopted the proposed regulations.
3) The new regulations have been in the works for over a decade and are expected to be in the works for another 3-5 years. This is far from breaking legislation that should hold up all proceedings.
4) In the meantime, the Museum of Anthropology’s outdated practices go against the spirit of the law, current museological practices, and the ethical standards of the University of Michigan. The UMMA is not accredited by the American Association of Museums, and the Native Caucus wonders if they could be given the ethical standards of that body. (See ethics page link to the right). The actions of the UM Museum of Anthropology inhibits the anticipation of many students and faculty from all corners of campus. This is not just “an Indian thing.” It is an institution-wide “ethical thing.”
How can we celebrate the renovation of two great museums on campus while a third is creating such controversy? More than any other people in Michigan or the United States, indigenous Americans have a foundational presence in the country’s museums. We also have a lot to say about how we are quite literally handled and portrayed by our public institutions of learning.
THE FACTS
According to the National NAGPRA register (see Blogroll link), U of M currently holds 1,390 humans’ skeletal remains and 9,840 burial objects.
In January of 2008, the University declined the disposition submitted by the Saginaw-Chippewas for some 400 remains taken from the their ancestral homelands.
While many sister institutions proactively and extensively collaborate with tribes, the University of Michigan continues to alienate and anger Michigan’s tribal communities with their practices concerning repatriation and “disposition.”
If you’d like to see what this issue looks like, check out Chuck Butzin’s powerful video on the U of M situation. Miigwetch to Chuck for making such a poignant statement. If you’re so moved, please take time to sign his petition!
(There is a link to his YouTube video on out Blogroll, too.)
CONCERNS re: UM’s MUSEUM PRACTICES
Let’s compare! Following are but a very few comparisons of UM’s Museum of Anthropology to sister institutions.
University of Michigan—holds 66% of Michigan’s unidentifiable human remains
Michigan State University—holds 5% of Michigan’s unidentifiable human remains
There are 2,117 culturally unidentifiable human remains in Michigan
U of M holds 1,390—–MSU holds 112
MSU established proactive repatriation procedures They followed the spirit and the letter of the law. MSU’s Native American Institute faculty worked in conjunction with university archaeologists to proactively seek input from tribal leaders and foster repatriation and “disposition” of ancestral remains.
Unlike many other leading museums and universities, the University of Michigan did not establish a repatriation committee or vibrant collaborative relationships with Indian communities before declaring the cultural affiliation of remains in its “collection.” No such committee or collaborative policies currently exist in the museum’s public policies.
Stanford University—holds 0% of California’s human remains
University of Minnesota—holds 5% of Minnesota’s unidentifiable human remains
There are 1,249 unidentifiable human remains held by Minnesota’s public institutions. The University of Minnesota and other state museums turned over several thousand ancestral remains to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council.The majority of the remains were deemed culturally unidentifiable by these institutions.
We do not want to end up like UC-Berkeley!!
“It’s hard to think that when we die we’ll be buried, not in the ground, but we might be buried at UC-Berkeley…. When is it going to end? 30 years ago I was here asking the same question to this university. Why do you have to keep those bones here?
“It’s sad to realize there are more dead Indians at this university than there are lives ones.”
Legendary Indian activist Dennis Banks speaks out a major rally protesting UC-Berkeley’s obstructionist repatriation policies at:
U of M has set a precedent of “dispossessing” “unidentifiable” remains. In 2006, they returned “unidentifiable” remains from Whitefish River, Ontario. According to repatriation officers at Michigan’s Little River and Little Traverse Bay bands, the university added “unidentifiable” ancestors when they handed over “affiliated” remains.
Stanford University, Central Michigan University, the Detroit Institute of Arts, the American Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum, Yale’s Peabody Museum, and Cranbrook are just a few of the institutions that have returned “unaffiliated/unidentifiable” remains and burial objects, as well as culturally affiliated remains to indigenous groups outside the U.S. (NAGPRA does not require institutions to return remains to groups outside the U.S.)
JUST ASKING…
If the remains are deemed “unidentifiable,” are they of any research value under the constraints placed by NAGPRA re: research on human remains? What can scholars say about bones that are claimed to have no identifiable cultural affiliation?
VAGUE CLAIMS of “FUTURE RESEARCH VALUE”
NAGPRA explicitly prohibits denying the return of remains of any classification because an institution thinks they might be valuable down the road. (See link to how NAGPRA facilitates and blocks return of remains to the right.)
Under the law, remains may be kept for future research only if:
a well-developed and specific study has been thoroughly articulated for a specific group of remains, and
a proposal outlining such a project is submitted to and approved by the National NAGPRA Program, and
the remains being withheld have been determined by the National NAGPRA Program as being “indispensable for completion of a specific scientific study, the outcome of which would be of major benefit to the United States. Such items shall be returned by no later than 90 days after the date on which the scientific study is completed.”
According to the National NAGPRA Program, in the 18+ years since NAGPRA passed, zero research projects have been approved as justification for withholding Native human remains of any classification.
NAGPRA WAS CREATED TO FURTHER HUMAN RIGHTS
“When human remains are displayed in museums or historical societies, it is never the bones of white soldiers or the first European settlers that came to this continent that are lying in glass cases. It is Indian remains. The message that this sends to the rest of the world is that Indians are culturally and physically different from and inferior to non-Indians. This is racism … The bill (NAGPRA) is not about the validity of museums or the value of scientific inquiry. Rather, it is about human rights.” –Senator Daniel Inouye, co-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, in a speech supporting the passing of NAGPRA (136 Cong. Rec. S17174, October 26, 1990)
THIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM
The Tseycum First Nation on Vancouver Island, Canada, also is trying to retrieve remains taken from their graves by an early University of Michigan archaeologist. Harlan Smith was one of the first two archaeology students at U of M. Starting in 1892, Smith studied with Prof. Francis Kelsey, for whom the University later named its archaeology museum. Smith went on to “collect” human beings out of their graves for the Field Museum and the American Museum of Natural History, to name two.
The Tseycum First Nation tell another story of one of the University of Michigan’s lauded early archaeologist. It is very worth taking a few moments to learn about the experience of archaeology from this community’s perspective.
The world community has spoken, even if a few refuse to join contemporary global thinking on the issue of returning human remains. In 2007, the United Nations passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 12 states:
1.Indigenous peoples have the right to …the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.
OUR PLEA
The Native Caucus plea to its university leadership:
please take the time to learn more about how easily NAGPRA can be used to “disposition” or otherwise return “culturally unaffiliated” remains
please take time to meet with the Native Caucus, and the faculty and other student groups who will be contacting you soon
please uphold the ethical standards of the University of Michigan
please hold the Museum of Anthropology accountable to current museological practices, the ethical standards of the American Association of Museums, and the spirit of NAGPRA
The Native Caucus plea to fellow students and others who care:
read this blog and inform yourself in other ways on this issue
email us, post your comments, and question everything
write President Mary Sue Coleman, the VP for Research Stephen Forrest, and the Board of Regents (see link to How you can help at right)
