Reprinted without permission
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
REPATRIATION REVIEW COMMITTEE CHOSEN
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review
Committee, mandated by the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, has been selected by the Secretary of the Interior,
Manuel Lujan. Members are Dr. Philip Walker (University of California -
Santa Barbara; physical anthropologist); Dr. Martin Sullivan (Heard
Museum; AAM board member); Daniel Monroe (Oregon Art Institute, AAM board
member); William Tallbull (Northern Cheyenne tribal historian); Rachel Craig
(Inupiaq Native, Alaska); and Tessi Naranjo (Santa Clara Pueblo Tribe, New
Mexico, Collections Manager for Pojoaque Pueblo). The law requires
repatriation of certain Native American skeletal remains and other objects
from museums to Native American groups. The committee will advise Secretary
Lujan on regulations needed to implement the Act and will assist in the
resolution of disputes that arise under the Act.
The Act requires that museums receiving federal funds take inventory
of Native American remains and funerary objects in their collections and offer
to repatriate those items to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated tribes
or Native Hawaiian organizations. Jonathan Haas testified on February 26,1992,
before the House Appropriations Committee, Interior Subcommittee, supporting
the allocation of funds to implement this portion of the law. Funding would
be shared by museums and Indian groups.
ALthough a coalition of Native Americans, museums, anthropologists,
and universitites had been slated to testify, at the last minute the Native
Americans (except for the Native American Rights Fund) testified separately
under the sponsorship of "Keepers of the Treasures," a new intertribal
cultural council founded in 1991. Regarding repatriation, their testimony read:
"In our experience, tribes are at a disadvantage in dealing with
museums and other institutions, and there is a need for a source
of financial assistance for tribes engaged in such efforts.
Thus, we support some level of appropriations for repatriation
grants to tribes. On the other hand, we are somewhat skeptical
about the commitment of museums to comply with the mandate of
NAGPRA, and we are afraid that a grant program for museums to
conduct inventories may delay rather than expedite the resolution
of tribal repatriation requests, because we are afraid that
museums will use such grants to do more analysis than is required
to comply with the mandate of NAGPRA. In any event, we believe
that a request for $12,000,000 for repatriation grants to
museums and tribes when the grant program to tribes for
>>living tribal cultures<< (underlined) is funded at the
$1,000,000 level conveys a misplaced sense of priorities."
****************************************************************************
Lisa A. Mitten 207 Hillman Library
Social Sciences Bibliographer University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Bitnet: lmitten@pittvms 412-648-7723
****************************************************************************