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!

What's up with the Hearst?

While the Smithsonian repatriates cultural patrimony and sacred objects to the
Yurok, what is the story with the Hearst?

#########

The Smithsonian Institution has returned a trove of precious artifacts to the Yurok Indians in California in what is one of the largest repatriations of Native American ceremonial artifacts in U.S. history.

The Yurok, who have lived for centuries along California's Klamath River, received 217 sacred items that had been stored on museum shelves for nearly 100 years. The necklaces, headdresses, arrows, hides and other regalia from the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian are believed to be hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.

"It's awesome. It's a big thing with our people," said Thomas O'Rourke, chairman of the Yurok, a tribe that lived next to the Klamath River in far Northern California for 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. "These are our prayer items. They are not only symbols, but their spirit stays with them. They are alive. Bringing them home is like bringing home prisoners of war."

To celebrate the return of the items, the Yurok will hold a Kwom-Shlen-ik, or "Object Coming Back," ceremony today in the town of Klamath.

The returned artifacts were sold to the museum in the 1920s by Grace Nicholson, a renowned collector of Indian art, who owned a curio shop in Pasadena in the early 20th century. Ceremonial Indian regalia was in vogue among wealthy Americans at the time.

The sacred cache is part of an ongoing effort around the country to return Native American burial artifacts, ceremonial items and remains taken by white settlers from Indian villages and indigenous sites.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F08%2F13%2FMN0O1ET3EI.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0wXSeX1yY

Oops, forget something? (Part 2)

You really have to give it to the Hearst and their clunky on-line museum catalog.
Once again, while they seem to be in a hurry and get a less than perfect search engine out there, they seem to have forgotten their NAGPRA obligations.

Take for example, catalog numbers of human remains from the Cardinal Site (SJo-154):

12-11273 through 12-11307

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/modules/browser/details.php?onum=12-11299

Once again, search the National NAGPRA database at the NPS. Take a guess what is missing from the culturally unidentified database...

Like we said before 43 CFR 10.11 can only work when the museums come clean on
what they are holding.

(PS--why do some people at the university also insist the Hearst has not taken in human remains since the 1970s when these were accessioned in the mid-1980s?)

Anthony Garcia speaks

From the recent NAGPRA meeting in Seattle
(see http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/REVIEW/meetings/Vol2_052309_Seattle_WA.pdf )

When questioned by Dr. Sonya Atalay on the
large number of culturally unidentifiable remains--

ANTHONY GARCIA: I promise the next time I come
before the meeting I hope to have even new
information as to how we go into this direction
because I know this is the most sensitive area we
have. We have a very large number and it’s – we
have learned – we are learning that we may have
hastily made those determinations and we’re trying
to correct that.

And later when questioned by Dan Monroe on the changes to the culturally
unidentifiable inventories--

ANTHONY GARCIA: Actually two-fold, yes. Tribes
are especially the ones who are coming forth asking
that to be changed. They’re making special
requests. Some don’t understand it enough and want
to sit down and they explain it out and we determine
this is what they’re trying to do, and we work with
them quite often that way. We are ourselves going
after areas, very large areas that we believed were
identified as culturally unidentifiable and realized
that, oh no, this is quite wrong and it was in haste
in the inventories and we’re right now working – we
have archaeologists and other scientists working
right now on this to change one very large area
which we hope to report in some future months that
this has been completely turned around. It won’t be
all – it won’t be all changed to culturally
affiliated. There still will be some that will be
unidentifiable but it won’t be anything like it was
reported originally.

Hmm...interesting after his earlier testimony to the NAGPRA Review board, that most tribes weren't concerned about having their human remains repatriated. We also wonder how large the effort is on re-doing all those hastily done inventories. Is it a team of 5, 10 or 20 people? What are their
credentials and how is the Hearst approaching these hastily done inventories? (And really cynical minds want to know why UCB did any of their inventories in haste given all the extensions they were granted in the 1990s?)

And really cycnical minds want to know how it will all play with the UCOP Committee, particularly with Prof. Bob Bettinger and Prof. Phil Wilkie.

"Appropriate" Native Americans

In the Spring 2008 issue of Catalyst (V. 3, No. 2), Robert Birgeneau says:

Says Birgeneau about King’s role, “At my request, Jud stepped into this difficult situation as interim director of the Hearst Museum. He has been extraordinarily effective in this role and now has us on a track which promises to resolve many of these problems; this includes especially seeking out appropriate Native American input.

NANC is intrigued on how Mr. King--a chemical engineer and University administrator--determined which Native American tribes had appropriate input and which ones did not? Was it based on the amount of human remains from their traditional tribal territory, or some other criteria? Or was it ones who agreed with Mr. Garcia's statement? Or did the input come from just Native Americans employed by the University? Why hasn't Mr. King invited input from all tribes which have human remains housed in the musem? Are he and the Chancellor worried they may hear something they don't like?

Anthony Garcia on Repatriation

In the minutes of the 37th Meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee meeting, it is noted in the Public Comment section that:

Mr. Garcia stated that he regularly has Native Americans tell him that human remains in the museum were from their tribe but they did not want them to come back to the tribe.

(see http://www.nps.gov/history/Nagpra/INDEX.HTM )

NANC would like to ask Mr. Garcia, which Native American tribes he has heard this from? Further, we would also like to ask if Mr. Garcia has totally forgotten his meetings/consultations with the Great Basin Coalition, the Tachi Yokuts, and Susanville Rancheria? Admittedly, these occurred before he became NAGPRA Coordinator, but one has to ask was he sleeping at the time of those earlier consultations?