Does anything ever change?

Okay, we've been quiet for over 5 years, and the latest news is-- https://www.dailycal.org/2020/12/05/grave-robbing-at-uc-berkeley-a-history-of-failed-repatriation/

Of course there is a UC tie

A grisly reminder of the way archaeology was done in Califronia at times: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324683/The-strange-mysterious-Dr-Glidden-Callousness-archaeologist-raided-hundreds-Native-American-graves-set-macabre-museum-remembered-California.html

Will the incoming Chancellor to UC Berkeley change the Hearst's stance on repatriation or maintain the status quo?

More on the Kumeyaay repatriation case: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/24/dispute-erupts-over-ancient-human-remains-found/

Now the Irish came to America 8500+ years ago: “These are not Native Americans,” said James McManis, the San Jose lawyer for the professors. “We’re sure where they’re from. They had primarily a seafood diet, not the diet if any way of these tribes. They were a seafaring people. They could be traveling Irishman who touched on the continent. “The idea that we’re going to turn this incredible treasure over to some local tribe because they think it’s grandma’s bones is crazy.” Read it all at: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/24/dispute-erupts-over-ancient-human-remains-found/ (And who does this guy represent in Federal court???)

Michigan works on coming clean

Alrighty, the Univ. of Michigan is working on coming clean, what about UCB?

Check out:

http://www.energypublisher.com/a/UPOVCFIWLE46/66624-University-of-Michigan-to-comply-with-law-on-Native-American-remains

or


http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-sets-formal-policy-for-returning-remains-to-native-americans/

Smithsonian in the news

GAO Finds that Smithsonian Institution May Still Take Several More Decades to Repatriate Native American Remains and Objects


WASHINGTON, June 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Smithsonian Institution's process to repatriate thousands of Native American human remains and funerary objects in its collections is lengthy and resource intensive and it may take several more decades to return items to tribes under its current system, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

This GAO report is the second of a two-part, three-year effort to examine how publicly funded institutions are complying with the two federal laws that direct repatriation to Native Americans. Last year the GAO examined the repatriation work of eight key Federal agencies and the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

According to the GAO report, Smithsonian Institution: Much Work Still Needed to Identify and Repatriate Indian Human Remains and Objects, examiners suggested that Congress should consider ways to expedite the repatriation process and that the Board of Regents considers four administrative changes.

In 1989, Congress passed a law that created a repatriation process for the Smithsonian Institution; two of the institution's 19 galleries and museums hold important collections of Native American human remains and sacred objects. The law also created the National Museum of the American Indian. Though not certain of the exact number, the Smithsonian states it has about 20,000 catalog records of Native American human remains plus many more catalog records of cultural objects held at the National Museum of Natural History and the American Indian museum. Only a quarter of these have been repatriated to the rightful Native Indian owners, according to the GAO report released in May.

In addition to not regularly reporting to Congress, federal auditors said the repatriation process is lengthy and resource intensive. Both museums use a two-step repatriation process that starts with a printout from an electronic catalogue system that lists human remains and cultural objects that is sent to the tribe. The Indian tribe is then required to file a claim to either museum indicating their interest. Only then does the museum begin a lengthy process of using the "best available information" to build a case report that may or may not recommend repatriation. This process requires an Indian tribe to review thousands of electronic records, which, many times do not contain all relevant information.

rest at

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gao-finds-that-smithsonian-institution-may-still-take-several-more-decades-to-repatriate-native-american-remains-and-objects-123738549.html

Kenniwick Man

Any surprise??? And really, what has come out of the Hearst's collection the last 5 years? Earthshaking research?

##########################

“Has there been any new information gained from human remains known as Kennewick Man or the Ancient One?”

Prior to any court rulings, a thorough examination of the skeletal remains was conducted by independent scientists contracted by the government in 1998-2000. The complete results of their studies are available online. This report includes the physical examination of the remains, radiocarbon dating, and initial attempts to extract DNA from the remains, which failed.

In 2002, Judge Jelderks ruled that the remains did not fit the definition of “Native American” under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This decision was primarily based on the fact that the human remains, based on their antiquity, could not be clearly connected with any present day Native American tribe. This decision was appealed by the government and later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2004. The scientists who took part as plaintiffs in the case have since studied the remains on three separate occasions between 2004 and 2006. Other than popular articles, the recent research conducted by the plaintiff scientists has not been published in scientific journals.

rest at

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/07/09/what-has-kennewick-man-taught-us-so-far/

More on the UCSD situation

Ever since the remains of three ancient humans were unearthed in 1976 on property owned by the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), the Kumeyaay people have been engaged in a complex battle to have the remains repatriated to them. This would be against the wishes of many University of California (UC) scientists, who want to keep them for further study, a stance that is now opposed by UCSD administrators. But after decades of wrangling, recent actions by UCSD and the scientists who oppose repatriation have brought the remains once again into the spotlight.

The site of UCSD, on the bluffs of La Jolla in north San Diego County overlooking the Pacific Ocean, is some of the world’s prime real estate, but for the 12 bands of the Kumeyaay Nation, it has been part of their ancestral territory for at least 10,000 years, and likely longer. In 1976, three unusual burials (two adults and a child) were exposed by erosion at the university chancellor’s house (also known as University House)—unusual for how well-preserved they were, and how old they are. Archeologists estimate the remains at between 9,000 and 9,600 years old, making them possibly the oldest uncovered human remains in the continental United States. To archeologists like Eske Willerslev at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, they are the “crown jewels of the peopling of the Americas.” For the Kumeyaay, the “find” was yet another in a long line of desecrations at the site. The house has since been declared unlivable due to a variety of code violations, and recent plans to renovate the house have been hampered, in part because a draft environmental impact report revealed more burials on the site, causing it to be declared a “sanctified cemetery” by the state in 2008.

rest at

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/08/burial-site-battle-pits-kumeyaay-against-scientists/

Glen Cove settlement reached

Vallejo compromises on park at Indian burial site

Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 16, 2011
Print E-mail Share Comments (30) Font | Size:
278

Brant Ward / The Chronicle

Spiritual leader Fred Short emerges from his teepee at Glen Cove Park, where protesters had camped, on Thursday. The city agreed Friday to share development rights with two tribes.

Vallejo officials agreed this week to dramatically scale back plans for a park on an American Indian burial ground, in response to protesters who have been camped on the site for three months.

The Vallejo parks board and City Council agreed to share development rights of Glen Cove park with two Northern California tribes whose ancestors likely lived there. The deal means the tribes must agree to development of the site, including restrooms, trails and other amenities protesters have been fighting.

The agreement caps a 12-year battle over Glen Cove, a 15-acre plot along Carquinez Strait. The park district planned for picnic tables, a parking lot, bathrooms, benches, an extension of the Bay Trail and the replacement of nonnative plants with natives.

The district planned to break ground on the $1.3 million project in April, but before the bulldozers rolled in, American Indians and their supporters erected teepees, tents and a campfire, claiming the ground was sacred.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BA2A1KB72R.DTL#ixzz1SWR8FDGp

More on Glen Cove

Heard Around the West


A Just West
Paving over an ancient burial ground
Document Actions


Marc Dadigan | Jun 09, 2011 01:00 PM

15-acres of undeveloped landscape sits as an oasis among the undulating, cookie cutter housing developments that crowd the edges of the Carquinez Strait, a natural tidal channel in Vallejo, California.

At this spot, known as Glen Cove Waterfront Park, a swath of yellow grass, dappled with the woody stems of wild fennel, leads to the water’s edge where Eucalyptus trees tower above marshy banks. The occasional clatter of trundling trains across the strait is the only sound that breaks the peace.

For many local residents, it’s a calming place away from the sprawled-out landscape that expands from the Bay Area.

rest at

http://www.hcn.org/greenjustice/blog/paving-over-an-ancient-burial-ground

UC vs. the Kumeyaay

Science letter co-author Tim White, a prominent paleoanthropologist at UC Berkeley, told Wired.com, “Administrators are doing everything they can to ignore the scientific value of the specimens. They are trying to illegally repatriate them to a lobbyist for a dozen San Diego County tribes.”

UC officials are seeking to provide the skeletons to the Kumeyaay Nation east of San Diego under a complex process guided by the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). But critical scientists say NAGPRA requirements aren’t being followed properly, setting the stage for a potential legal battle over the bones.

“This is Kennewick Man II,” White said, referring to the long federal court battle in 2004 when scientists won the right to study bones found in Washington.

In a May 11 letter, Mark Yudof, president of the 10-campus UC system, authorized UCSD chancellor Marye Anne Fox to dispose of the bones — after clarifications are made to a report done under NAGPRA requirements, and other tribes that may be interested in the bones are consulted.

Steve Benegas, the repatriation spokesman for the Kumeyaay nation’s 12 tribes, said they are entitled to the bones and to decide about future analysis. Some Native Americans believe scientific research amounts to desecration of remains, and Benegas said he personally is against studies.

full article at:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/ucsd-skeleton-fight/

UC Santa Cruz's turn???

weeping a People’s Past Under the Rug
The UC continues government crimes against Native Americans
By City on a Hill Press
City on a Hill Press
Published May 12, 2011 at 3:52 am

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

Native Americans have a long history of oppression in this country. Their land was taken, their people murdered and their sacred sites corrupted, all for the sake of building the United States. A new form of this old oppression is still happening, and the University of California is playing a role.

In this issue’s feature story, “Forgotten but not Gone,” it is confirmed that the University of California, and UC Santa Cruz in particular, is in possession of Native American artifacts and burial remains. The question of where and what those remains are is left unanswered.

Keeping Native American remains is problematic for a number of reasons. It means that graves were disrupted to obtain these remains, which is disrespectful to any culture. And to make matters worse, many Native American tribes believe that disruption of burial sites can cause spiritual trouble.

rest at


http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2011/05/12/sweeping-a-peoples-past-under-the-rug/

Glen Cove Protest

This battle has been going on for awhile, but its ramped up in recent weeks. For details, check out--

http://protectglencove.org/

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/15/native-american-activists-occupy-contested-vallejo-park-site/

One university comes clean

At least Weselyan University comes clean and tries to comply, see:

http://wesleyanargus.com/2011/02/01/university-takes-steps-to-begin-complying-with-nagpra/

When will the Hearst and UC Berkeley?

Respect for the dead?!

Let's see the AAM and others are against the display of Native American remains. Okay, so the Hearst doesn't put any on public display, but they gladly display them via DELPHI...


http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/object/108373

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/object/108374

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/object/108375

Hmm, over-reacting on our part? A double standard on the Hearst's part? Or a case of what where they thinking? Either way, it will be interesting to see how long these stay up!

More Univ. of Michigan news

U-M adopts ‘consultation first’ approach on transfer of Native human remains
By Staff reports

Story Published: Nov 24, 2010

Story Updated: Nov 23, 2010

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The University of Michigan will take a “consultation first” approach to all interactions with American Indian tribes as the university further develops its policies and procedures for the transfer of Native American human remains.

Vice President for Research Stephen Forrest established the approach as part of his announcement that he has accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains.

The 12-member committee submitted nine recommendations that suggested a process for how the university might handle requests for the transfer of human remains and associated funerary objects now being held by the U-M Museum of Anthropology. The report was submitted Sept. 16.

Forrest accepted those recommendations, with some modifications, after weighing feedback he received during a month-long period of public comment during October.

rest at

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/greatlakes/U-M-adopts-consultation-first-approach-on-the-transfer-of-Native-American-human-remains-110193329.html

Cal NAGPRA

20 years after the inauguration of the National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California’s own NAGPRA law (or Cal NAGPRA) has been effectively quashed by a lack of state funding.

Cal NAGPRA was enacted in 2001 in an attempt to force California institutions with large Native American collections to return objects to their culturally affiliated descendants. The bill (AB 978) aimed to “streamline and add an accountability step to the repatriation process” to both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. Unlike other states, California does not have a process of recognition for federally unrecognized tribes. Consequently, the state has over a hundred such tribes, the highest number in the country.

The legislation was conceived after several university museums, particularly UC Berkley’s Hearst Museum, were accused by Native American tribal leaders of sidestepping National NAGPRA regulations and ignoring local tribal demands for the return of hundreds of thousands of sacred objects and ancestral remains.

“The bill came about because tribes were not consulted by the universities to establish cultural affiliations with property and remains,” said Lalo Franco of the Yokut/Wukchumni Nations and the cultural heritage director of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe.

rest at

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/The+end+of+Cal+Nagpra%3F/21690

SCIENCE MAGAZINE on the NAGPRA laws

We hope the tribes log in and give their two cents worth...

#####################################################


From AAAS. You can see the articles with a free online registration.

Here is the link: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/returning-tribal-remains.html



Has NAGPRA (the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act) been good or bad for archaeology? We at Science have done a special news package on the law's impact, timed for its 20th anniversary. And because the law sparks passionate views on research and Native rights, we are hosting an online discussion on ScienceNOW, our online daily news site. Our reporters and editors will be monitoring comments and posting their views over the next day or so. Given your interests, we would like to particularly invite you to join the discussion. If you go to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/returning-tribal-remains.html it's easy to participate. We look forward to hearing your comments.

Tribes sue over the Ruby Pipeline

For more than two years the Northern Paiute including Nevada's Fort McDermot and Summit Lake Paiute tribes and the California's Fort Bidwell tribe have lobbied to divert the pipeline around their traditional lands in northwest Nevada. Dean Barlese, a cultural and spiritual guide at the Summit Lake Reservation, says, "We're not against the pipeline. It's just the route has taken it through some of the most pristine areas still left in Nevada." He says the BLM and other federal agencies conducted inadequate consultations with the tribes.

Aaron Townsend, vice chair of the Fort Bidwell tribal council, says a pipeline man camp has gone up just south of an area where the pipeline will bisect "house rings, burials, prayer sites – you name it, we've got everything – obsidian quarries, petroglyphs." He describes looting of cultural sites as people hear about archaeological resources along the pipeline corridor. The Fort Bidwell tribe recently filed a petition for review over the BLM's approved right-of-way for the pipeline.

Read the entire article at:

http://www.hcn.org/hcn/blogs/goat/more-surprises-flow-from-ruby-pipeline