Do Natives Peoples Today Invent Their Traditions?

User Generated

Nynfxn_1

Humanities

Description

Do Natives Peoples Today Invent Their Traditions? (Keesing vs. Trask) pp. 351-372

500 word essay this is for Anthropology class so take that into consideration on how you write the essay

The only resources to be used in this essay will be attached

Unformatted Attachment Preview

ISSUE 17 Should the Remains of Prehistoric Native Americans Be Reburied Rather Than Studied? pl p . hi YES: James Riding In, from "Repatriation: A Pawnee's Perspec- tive," American Indian Quarterly (Spring 1996) NO: Clement W. Meighan, from "Some Scholars' Views on Reburial," American Antiquity (October 1992) 21 1 Learning Outcomes After reading this issue, you should be able to: • Understand why Native Americans have fought so strongly for repatriation of human remains and other important cultural material currently housed in museums around the country. • Discuss why archeologists have strived to keep control of museum collections of skeletal material and why they feel repatriation often represents the loss of scientific data. Explain the dispute between some Native American groups and some archaeologists and anthropologists over when to excavate Indian sites and what to do with the artifacts and remains found in these sites. • Understand why Indians have made repatriation a political issue rather than just an issue of social justice, fairness, and religious freedom. • Consider some ways for Indians and archaeologists to collabo- rate over excavations involving the prehistory of the United States. ISSUE SUMMARY YES: Assistant professor of justice studies and member of the Pawnee tribe James Riding In argues that holding Native American skeletons in museums and other repositories represents a sacrilege against Native American dead. Non-Native Americans would not allow their cemeteries to be dug up and their ancestors bones to be housed in museums. Thus, all Indian remains should be reburied. 376 7 he IA The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 imposed severe penalties for disrupting any Native American archaeological site without permission from a state or federal agency. But it also required all public museums to return or repatriate to the tribes any skeletons or grave goods excavated with these skeletons if the tribes wanted to rebury these tained from their tribal group in each group was established and tribes were given the option of reburying these remains if they wished. A few groups have insisted on the return of all skeletal material, while a few others have wanted nothing to do with the remains fearing that more harm than good would come from reburial. But for archaeologists and biological anthropologists who work with skeletal remains reburial means that the data they have for their research is lost to science forever. This tension between Native American tribes the Am provisio to see t and en possess A now, so repatri ally. Ri the Na ogy. W dissim evolut beliefs gener of sec rowr Chris sites or cu grou infor shou inter who want to rebury their tribal remains and archaeologists who want to con tinue to study these remains persists. James Riding In, himself a Pawnee, argues that anthropologists and archaeologists have consistently desecrated graves by excavating and study- ing the bones of Native Americans. He begins his discussion by outlining the history of man public museum collections of Native American skulls . Many of these he maintains were war dead from the Indian Wars of the 1870s, and they should have been buried on the spot after these battles. Riding In says that Native Americans believe that the bodies of the dead must be reunited with "Mother Earth." Clement W. Meighan counters that the debate over what should be done with bones from archaeological excavations is a conflict between science and religion. In the case of very early prehistoric sites, there is usually no evidence that links living tribes inhabiting the surrounding areas with the early com- munity; many of these groups would either be unrelated to living tribal mem- bers or might even be the remains of enemy groups. For Meighan the requirement of science must be defended, and the unraveling of humankind's prehistory in the New World is of public inter- est to all Americans, whether Native or not. He contends that the public's right to know about the past is important, and any reburial of archaeological material represents the destruction of scientific data that can never be recov- ered. Arguing that political motives are at the heart of Native American claims to religious interests in archaeological remains, Meighan views reburial as an attempt to censor archaeological and anthropological findings that conflict with Native American legends and myths. Riding In, on the other hand, feels that any excavation of a Native Amer- ican grave site is a desecration in the first place, not science. He draws heavily on Pawnee understandings of what happens when people die, but frames his arguments around the worldwide oppression that all Native peoples have suffered at the hands of people from Europe who have seized and colonized their lands, taken their resources and pushed Native peoples to the margins of society. Studying the skeletons of Native peoples is simply another exam. has struggled to rebury all Native American remains was originally started by ple of oppression. He acknowledges that the repatriation movement which 378 C o en EDA ver 190 1990 ogical ed all grave these con- vere nave ted uld ho eir the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the early 1970s. The repatriation provisions in the NAGPRA legislation are a good beginning but he wants to see the scope of the legislation extended to all non-Indian organizations and entities, forcing them to repatriate whatever skeletal remains are in their now, several contentious concerns remain about just which bones should be Although NAGPRA has been the official law of the land for two decades repatriated and how should these bones be treated both legally and profession- ally. Riding In and Meighan raise a number of questions about the interests of the Native American community and the interests of the science of archaeol- ogy. We see here a tension between science and religion that is not entirely dissimilar to debates in fundamentalist Christian circles over the teaching of evolution in public schools, which they see as intrusion into their religious bes beliefs. d e f These selections raise questions of direct relevance to anthropologists generally. Are Native American religious beliefs more important than those of secular scientists? Can the concerns of science ever win out over the nar- row religious interpretations of one social community such as fundamentalist Christians or the Pawnee? Do archaeologists desecrate Native American sacred sites whenever they excavate? Should the religious concerns of one ethnic or cultural community override either the professional concerns of another group or the intellectual rights of the general public? Who should control information about the past, Native Americans groups or scientists? Who should control depictions of any ethnic group's past? And who should control interpretation of the past anyway? Smithsoni of Indians YES James Riding In repatriatic that prov remains a Des Repatriation: A Pawnee's Perspective Indian re informat of six sk quent re ing the y opposition to scientific grave looting developed partially through the Like other American Indians of the time (and now). I viewed archaeology as birth of the American Indian repatriation movement during the late 1960s. after U. who ha had col shipped Si at a party in New Mexico in the late 1970s. After hearing him rant incessantly junctic atives from i ation remai an oppressive and sacrilegious profession that claimed ownership over many of our deceased relatives, suppressed our religious freedom, and denied our ancestors a lasting burial. My first encounter with an archaeologist occurred about the knowledge he had obtained by studying Indian remains, burial offer- ings, and cemeteries, I suggested that if he wanted to serve Indians he should spend his time excavating latrines and leave the graves alone. Of course, he took umbrage at the tone of my suggestion, and broke off the conversation. While studying history at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in the mid- 1980s, I became committed to pursuing the goals of the repatriation movement, which was gaining momentum. Like other reburial proponents, I advocated the reburial of all Indian remains warehoused across the nation in museums, uni- versities, and federal agencies. I also promoted the extension or enactment of laws to protect Indian cemeteries from grave looters, including archaeologists. While working to elevate the consciousness of the UCLA campus about the troubled relationship between archaeologists and Indians, a few of us, including students, staff, faculty, and community members, took advantage of opportunities to engage in dialogue with the anti-repatriation forces. During these exchanges, tempers on both sides often flared. Basically, the archaeolo- gists were functioning on metaphysical and intellectual planes that differed from ours. We saw their professional activities as sacrilege and destructive, while they professed a legal and scientific right to study Indian remains and burial goods. We wanted the university to voluntarily return the human remains in its collections to the next-of-kin for proper reburial. They desired to protect excavation, research, and curatorial practices. Asserting profound respect for Indian concerns, beliefs, and values, members of the archaeology group offered a host of patronizing excuses for refusing to endorse our calls for repatriation. In this sense, the UCLA struggle mirrored the conflict over human remains ensuing throughout much of the country. In 1989, as the UCLA battle ensued, I accepted an offer to assist the Pawnee government in its efforts as a sovereign nation to reclaim the remains of its ancestors held at the repati tions the c man sage and espc con pre imp sity ecc fou res cre to a T f From American Indian Quarterly by James Riding In, Spring 1996, pp. 238–244, 246-249, Copyright © 1996 by University of Nebraska Press. Reprinted by permission. 380 YES / James Riding In 381 the 60s. Smithsonian Institution. Being a citizen of this small and impoverished nation of Indians, I welcomed the opportunity to join other Pawnee activists in the repatriation quest. Earlier that year, Congress had enacted a repatriation bill that provided a legal mechanism for Indian governments to reclaim ancestral remains and burial offerings held at the Smithsonian. Despite the law, obdurate Smithsonian personnel sought to frustrate Indian repatriation efforts with such tactics as stonewalling, deceit, and mis- information. Although Smithsonian personnel claimed that the true identities of six skulls classified as Pawnee could not be positively established, subse- quent research on my part uncovered a preponderance of evidence confirm- ing the authenticity of the accession records. This research also showed that, after U.S. soldiers and Kansas settlers had massacred a party of Pawnee men who had been recently discharged from the U.S. army, a Fort Harker surgeon y as any OUT shipped them to the Army Medical Museum for craniometric study. had collected some of the victims' skulls in compliance with army policy and Since that report, I have written articles, given presentations, and, in con- junction with others, conducted research on behalf of Pawnee repatriation initi- rred ntly ffer- puld ook hile mid- ent, the uni- it of Sts. bout us, atives at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. I also have written a report from information found in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatri- ation Act (NAGPRA) summary letters showing the location of additional Pawnee remains, sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and cultural artifacts. This essay offers some of my views concerning the reburial aspect of the repatriation struggle. It seeks to show the intellectual and spiritual founda- tions behind the movement as a means for understanding the complexity of the controversy. It also attempts to demonstrate how repatriation advocates managed to effect discriminatory laws and practices. Finally, it conveys a mes- sage that, although old attitudes continue to function within the archaeology and museum communities, a concerted effort brought to bear by people who espouse cooperative relations is in place to bring Indian spiritual beliefs in te of ring olo- ered tive, and man conformity with non-Indian secular values. At another level, I write with the intent of creating awareness about a pressing need to disestablish racial, institutional, and societal barriers that impede this country's movement toward a place that celebrates cultural diver- sity as a cherished and indispensable component of its social, political, and economic fabric. Despite the tone of skepticism, caution, and pessimism found within this study, I envision a society where people can interact freely, respecting one another without regard to race, color, ethnicity, or religious creed. Before this dream becomes a reality, however , America has to find ways S ired und logy calls Over to dissolve its racial, gender, cultural, and class barriers. Pawnee Beliefs, Critical Scholarship, the nits the and Oppression -249. hul, effects on the living. Therefore, as an activist and historian, I have had to The acts committed against deceased Indians have had profound, even harm- The foundation of my perspective concerning repatriation is derived from a develop a conceptual framework for giving meaning and order to the conflict.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

i am done with paper. please have a look at it and if need for any revision arise please inform me. thank you goodbye

Running head: ANTHROPOLOGY

1

Name of the student
Institution
Tutor
Date

Running head: ANTHROPOLOGY

2

Traditional anthropology is a branch of anthropology that is concerned with the study of
tradition development variation and human societies. Roger Keesing, a renowned
anthropologist paints cultural anthropology as a tool of identity. He equates cultural
anthropology to an exploration of the past comparing to the present. Keesing, R defines
anthropology as “an excavation of the cumulated, embodied symbols, of other peoples, a
search for meanings, for hidden connections, for deeper saliences than those presented by the
surface evidenc...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags