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