Insight
Monday, February 6, 1995 Page 3
Returning tribes’ remains a difficult, emotional task
Repatriation
Continued from Page 1
a person who studies disease
patterns — and worked with tribes
in Alaska, Maryland and Arizona.
When Reinhard interviewed for
a job at UNL, he was shown the
university’s skeletal collection and
was to approach the problem of
repatriation.
“When I was shown the collec
tion, I noticed a lot of the remains
looked historic in age,” he said. “I
was told they were excavated in
1930, and some of them were
buried as late as 1820.”_
What he saw, he said, angered
him.
i was astounaea people would
have a collection of skeletons
sitting in a museum for 50 years
while living descendents of these
people were still around.”
Now, Reinhard is an assistant
professor of anthropology at UNL
and has worked at returning
remains to the Omaha Tribe near
Macy.
Although he has received
support from the university’s
anthropology department in
general, he said, some archaeolo
gists have severely rebuked his
work.
“Someone said I was ‘rolling
over for the Indians,”’ he said.
“The general concern was that I
had become too close to the
Indians, too friendly, and I’ve lost
my scientific perspective of the
issue.”
in a science mai uigs up re
search from the ground, reburying
it can fly in the face of logic.
Reburial is an angry issue,
Reinhard said, because some
archaeologists think they are losing
research opportunities by putting
artifacts back in the ground.
In an argument at Reinhard’s
house, he said, one archaeologist
told him it was unprofessional to
take sides with American Indians.
He said many anthropologists
were afraid that by becoming
involved in reburial, there was no
way to make it a winning situation
and that his work “was ruining
their reputations.”
“It’s a peculiar thing,” he said.
“I’ve noticed that archaeology and
anthropology and Native Ameri
cans are in two different worlds,
and there’s not much crossover.”
But Reinhard was able to walk
the line between UNL’s research
and the Omaha Tribe’s remains.
The tribal leaders found value in
research themselves, he said. They
wanted studies done on the remains
that would answer questions about
their ancestors concerning diseases
and diet.
The university would have these
research results, he said, but
archaeologists are angered because
they will lose the chance for
“sequential study.”
Over a number of years, he said,
scientists would analyze the
collection for different purposes,
such as genetic affinity. The
remains would be similar to a
computer data bank.
In the end, he said, the interest
of American Indians must be at the
forefront.
“There’s a lot of anger among
Native Americans that they’re
studied as specimens in academ
ics,” he said. “ ... It’s immoral for
us to apply a storage attitude
toward Indian skeletons.”
Lineage
When 115 skeletons were dug up
near Homer in the 1930s and 1940s
and stored at UNL, Dennis
Hastings lost his ancestors.
Hastings, the tribal historian for
the Omaha Tribe, said no one asked
to remove the remains.
“Where is the dignity and
respect for the grave itself and the
people who were buried there?” he
said. “We registered complaints
with the Nebraska Historical
Society, but they tamed around and
ignored us.”
When the remains of two
pioneer girls were uncovered in
western Nebraska by the Nebraska
Daughters of the American Revolu
tion, they were given an elaborate
funeral, Hastings said, while his
ancestors were shipped off to
research laboratories.
Hastings took his frustration into
action and drafted a legislative bill
that would order repatriation.
LB340 was taken to Washington,
he said, and indirectly initiated the
federal repatriation (NAGPRA) act.
Even before the bills passed, he
said, he noticed the climate toward
repatriation had warmed, and UNL
started to return artifacts.
In working with the university
and Reinhard, Hastings said the
research provided valuable informa
tion for his tribe.
“In an era where we didn’t know
much about our people, the scien
tists started to speak to us about our
people and what they did and what
they ate.”
Teamwork
This cooperation also was helped
by UNL’s four-member NAGPRA
committee, formed last March. <
Eric Jolly, UNL director of
V
affirmative action and diversity and
a NAGPRA member, said repatria
tion was a difficult, personal issue.
Jolly also is a member of the
Cherokee tribe. He is familiar with
the workings of administration,
while understanding American
Indian rituals and observations.
“I’m able to attend our meetings
and provide a bridge between the
necessary demands of materials
managements from the academic
community,” he said, “and to
highlight the types of communica
tion we have to have about those
material demands when we’re
talking to the tribal offices.”
Jolly said he was able to outline
the specifics of repatriation.
The tribal entities have indepen
dent self-governing status in the
U.S. Constitution, he said, and the
repatriation of their remains is
similar to the repatriation of
remains of U.S. military personnel
who die oversees.
Skeletal remains, eagle feathers,
medallions, peace pipes and any
object of religious significance were
examples of the items being
repatriated, he said.
He said the repatriated items
were not those generally placed on
exhibit. Objects such as moccasins,
shrouds, beadwork, pottery and
other items gathered appropriately
through tribal permission would
remain on exhibit.
When the items are returned, the
tribe holds a repatriation ceremony,
which is broken into two parts —
funeral and recleansing. The land is
purified and prayers are offered for
the return of the remains.
“The remains of our ancestors
are important in the same way that
every individual is concerned about
the proper care and respect of the
legacy of our ancestors,” he said.
Years ago, he said, American
Indians’ religious practices were
outlawed. As part of returning their
religious freedom, he said, the
government needed to return
religious icons and materials.
“To imagine not having access
to religious sites and symbols for
Christians is no different than
having access to same sites and
symbols of Native American
spiritual leaders.”
Jolly said NAGPRA workers
James Mehsling/DN
were cataloging and identifying the
remains left in boxes at UNL. It is a
task, he said, that is not as easy as
it seems.
“The university has to find a way
to convey to the tribal organizations
just how an extensive project this
is,” he said.
“I think at the same time the
university has to be sensitive to the
fact that material that was once
handled as objects of research are
being returned to individuals who
view them as objects of worship.”
Although the identification takes
a long time, he said, UNL has set
the pace in being responsive to
NAGPRA demands.
“We’re trying to do this in ways
that serve everyone,” he said.
“Where there is research interest,
we share with tribes the potential of
research interest and the option of
allowing it to go on.”
Some tribes have allowed UNL
to keep their materials.
“By being highly responsive,
we’re beginning to build trust,” he
said. “ ... My heart is in both
communities. I don’t feel tom on
the issue.”