The Return of the Ahayu: da: Lessons for Repatriation from Zuni Pueblo and the [and Comments and Replies] Author(s): William L. Merrill, Edmund J. Ladd, T. J. Ferguson, Elizabeth Cruwys, Alan S. Downer, Christian F. Feest, Charlotte J. Frisbie, Joyce Herold, Schuyler Jones, Robert Layton and Larry J. Zimmerman Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 5 (Dec., 1993), pp. 523-567 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744272 . Accessed: 26/10/2012 12:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December I993 ? I993 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation forAnthropological Research. All rightsreserved OOII-3204/93/3405-0002$4.50

can Indians, vol. io, edited by Alfonso Ortiz (Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, I983), "The Raramuri Stereotype of Dreams," in Dreaming: Anthropological and Psychological In- The Returnof terpretations,edited by Barbara Tedlock (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, i987), and "Conversion and Colonialism in NorthernMexico: The Tarahumara Response to the JesuitMis- theAhayu :da sion Program,I60I-I767," in Conversion to Christianity:Histor- ical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transforma- tion, edited by Robert W. Hefner (Berkeley: University of California Press, I993). Lessons forRepatriation EDMUND J. LADD is curator of ethnology at the Museum of In- dian Arts and Culture, Museum of , Santa Fe, N.M., fromZuni Pueblo and the a position he has held since I984. Born in I926, he was educated at the Universityof New Mexico (B.S., I955; M.S., i963). He served as Pacific Archaeologist forthe National Park Service in SmithsonianInstitution' Hawaii formany years. His publications include "Zuni Social and Political Organization" and "Zuni Economy" in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9, edited by Alfonso Ortiz (Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, I979), "Pueblo by William L. Merrill,Edmund Use of High-AltitudeAreas: Emphasis on the A:shiwi," in High- AltitudeAdaptations in the Southwest,edited by JosephC. Win- J.Ladd, and T. J.Ferguson ter (Albuquerque: U.S. Forest Service, i983), and numerous tech nical reportson Hawaiian archaeology.

T. J. FERGUSON iS directorof Southwest Programsfor the Insti- tute of the NorthAmerican West in Tucson, Arizona. Born in I950, he was educated at the University of Hawaii at Hilo (B.A., In I987, the Smithsonian Institution returnedtwo Ahayu:da I973), theUniversity of Arizona (M.A., I976), and theUniversity (twin gods or war gods) to the Zuni of western New Mexico. Ne- of New Mexico (MCRP, I986; Ph.D., I993). He worked forthe gotiations leading to this repatriationextended over nine years. Pueblo of Zuni as directorof the Zuni Archaeology Programin During this period, a number of issues regardingthe proper cura- I977-8 i and I984-85. He is coauthorwith E. RichardHart of A tion of Zuni objects at the Smithsonian were raised, many of Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, I985 ) and which were resolved while others were tabled to be addressed in has published several articles about the Zuni, including "The Im- the future.A detailed historyof these negotiations is presented pact of Federal Policy on Zuni Land Use," in Seasons of the and then analyzed fromthe distinct perspectives of each of the Kachina, edited by Lowell JohnBean (Menlo Park: Ballena Press, authors,who played central roles in the negotiations as a Smith- i989), and "Contemporary Zuni Architectureand Society," with sonian curator,a Zuni anthropologist,and a consulting anthropol- Barbara J.Mills and Calbert Seciwa, in Pueblo Style and Re- ogist hired by the Pueblo of Zuni. This case study offersinsights gional Architecture,edited by WolfgangPreiser, Fred G. Sturm, into the complexities of the repatriationprocess and valuable les- and Nicholas Markovitch (New York: Van Nordstrom Reinhold, sons formuseums and tribes as they begin discussing the return 1990). of cultural propertylegislated by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of I990. The present paper was submitted in final form 20 v 93.

WILLIAM L. MERRILL iS curator of western North American eth- nology in the Department of Anthropologyat the National Mu- seum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (Washington, In a gentle rain at dusk, the a:pilha:shiwani (bow D.C. 20560, U.S.A). Bornin i950, he was educatedat theUniver- priests)installed two wooden images of the twin gods, sity of North Carolina (A.B., I972) and the Universityof Michi- Ahayu:da, in a shrine on a mesa overlooking Zuni gan (M.A., I975; Ph.D., i98i). He has conducted field and archi- Pueblo. As they sprinkledsacred prayermeal over the val research on northernMexico since I977 and is the author of RaramuriSouls: Knowledgeand Social Processin NorthernMex- Ahayu:da, the priests instructedthem to protect the ico (Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, I988). His A:shiwi () fromharm and use theirpowers publications also include "Tarahumara Social Organization, Polit- to bringfertility and good thingsto all the peoples of ical Organization, and Religion," in Handbook of North Ameri- the world. The year was I987, and the ceremonywas the repetitionof an ancient ritual conducted each De- cember,at the wintersolstice. The monthwas March, I. This article was prepared with the approval of the Zuni Tribal however, and unlike the new Ahayu:da created and Council and the Smithsonian Institution, and the images are re- printedwith the permission of the Zuni Tribe. We are gratefulto placed in shrines everyyear these two were a century FrederickJ. Reuss, Felicia Pickering,Paula Massouh, Roger Anyon, old. They had been removedin the i 88os fromthe Zuni and the staffof the National Anthropological Archives for their Indian Reservationin western New Mexico by Frank assistance in its preparation. We thank the following colleagues Hamilton Cushing and JamesStevenson and eventually for their comments on an earlier draft: Roger Anyon, Timothy placed in the collectionsof the SmithsonianInstitution. Baugh, Alex Boone, Richard Conn, Richard Cowan, Linda Eisen- hart,William Fitzhugh, Tom Freudenheim, Nancy Fuller, Lauryn In I978 the Zuni Tribe began an effortto recoverthese Guttenplan Grant, Candace Greene, JamesHanson, LaDonna Har- and otherAhayu:da, and fornine years theyengaged in ris, E. Richard Hart, Robert Hoffmann,Porter Kier, Marie Malaro, negotiationswith the SmithsonianInstitution to attain Barbara Mills, Andrew Othole, Nancy Parezo, Felicia Pickering,C. thatgoal. When the bow priestsplaced the Ahayu:da in Bryant Rogers, Bruce Smith, William Sturtevant, Paula Taylor, PerryTsadiasi, and Douglas Ubelaker. Funds fortravel required to a shrineon the Zuni Indian Reservation,these gods were complete this article were graciously provided to William Merrill finallyrestored to the purposefor which theywere cre- by the Wenner-GrenFoundation forAnthropological Research. ated in Zuni cultureand society.The repatriatedAhay-

523 524 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume34, NumberS, December1993 u:da now serve as sentinels forthe Zuni people and as legislationwas the largecollections of AmericanIndian heraldsof a new era in the relationsbetween American human remains and burial goods housed in museums Indians and museums. acrossthe country,most recoveredby archaeologistsand During the past 30 years, the relationshipbetween physicalanthropologists from prehistoric archaeological AmericanIndians and museums has undergonea radical sites. The National Congress of American Indians, the reformulation.From being simply the providersof ob- Native AmericanRights Fund, and othernational Indian jects formuseum collections and the subjects of their organizationsmounted a veryeffective campaign to se- exhibits,American Indian people have begun to play an cure fortribes the rightto have theirancestral remains increasinglyprominent role in planningmuseum exhib- reburiedif they chose to do so. This campaign elicited its and public programs,and a number of tribes have strongsupport in several state legislaturesas well as in establishedtheir own museums (Brascoupe I980; Clif- Congress(Ubelaker and Grant i989). Archaeologistsand fordi988:i89-25i; I99I). A majorexpression of this physicalanthropologists lamented the potentialloss of processcame in I989, when the Congress the materialbut organizedno formaleffort to stop the establishedthe National Museum of the American In- legislation.Public reactionwas largelyin supportof the dian as part of the Smithsonian Institution.The last AmericanIndian position. available space on the Mall that stretchesbetween the In addition to reburiallegislation enacted by several U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial was designated states(Yalung and Wala i992), Congressenacted two as the site of the new museum, and a prominentChey- laws in I989 and I990 requiringrepatriation. The Na- enne attorney,W. RichardWest, Jr.,was selected as its tional Museum of the AmericanIndian Act (Public Law firstdirector. ioi-i85) ofNovember I989 requiresthe Smithsonianto The expandingparticipation of American Indians in inventorythe human remains and funeraryobjects in formalmuseum activitieshas been paralleled by a dra- its collections and to initiate repatriationprocedures matic increase in the numberof requests by American upon the request of any individual or tribe "culturally Indians for the returnof objects frommuseum collec- affiliated"with the materials. The Native American tions. Reflectingthe increased awareness of American GravesProtection and RepatriationAct (Public Law ioi- Indian people of the content of museum collections 6oi, hereafterNAGPRA), of November i6, I990, re- across the country,these requests have generatedcon- quires federal agencies and museums other than the siderablediscussion about the legal and moral justifica- Smithsonianthat receive federalfunds to inventorynot tion formuseum collections and the basis upon which only human remains and grave goods but also "sacred nativepeoples can legitimatelylay claim to them. This objects" and "communally owned culturalpatrimony" discussionhas taken place not only in the United States as definedby the law and to providethis informationto but also around the world-in Australia,New Zealand, Indian tribesand Native Hawaiian organizations.Repa- and Canada, for example-where native groups have triationof these materials to lineal descendants,tribes pressurednational governmentsand museums to return that demonstrateownership, or tribes with a cultural collectionsto them (FrisbieI987:34I; Hubert I989; affiliationis mandatedif those partiesrequest it. Mahuikai99i; RichardsonI989; Ubelakerand Grant The principaljustification for this legislationwas the 1989: 279-80). convictionthat, unless forcedto do so, museums would In the United States, an early perspectiveon these not be responsiveto American Indian requests for the issues foundlegislative form in the AmericanIndian Re- returnof such objects to them.Nonetheless, prior to the ligiousFreedom Act of I978 (PublicLaw 95-34I). The passage of this legislation,a numberof American Indian act establishedas a "policy" of the U.S. governmentthe tribes,including the Iroquois, Hopi, San Felipe, Zia, protectionof the religiousfreedom of American Indians, Cochiti, Blackfoot,Navajo, and Zuni, had secured the Eskimos (Inuits), Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians, "in- return of objects from museum collections (Fenton cludingbut not limitedto access to sites,use and posses- I989; FrisbieI987:337-54). Of theseefforts, the most sion of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship comprehensivehas been the Pueblo of Zuni's program throughceremonials and traditionalrites." Indian tribes to regainpossession of its Ahayu:da. have oftencited this act as the legal basis fortheir re- Known popularly as "war gods," the Ahayu:da are quests forthe repatriationof museum collections.It has twingods who serveprimarily as protectorsof the Zuni provento be a veryineffective tool, however,because it people. They also have an influenceover the weather lacks enforcementpower and has been interpretedin and prosperityin generaland functionas patronsof gam- several courtdecisions to provideIndians no more pro- ing and sports.They were createdin time immemorial tectionthan that affordedall American citizens by the by the Sun Father,the ultimate giverof life,to lead the First Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution (Ubelaker Zunis and help them overcomeobstacles in theirmigra- and GrantI989: 266-67; FergusonI983; Childs I980; tion to the Middle Place at Zuni Pueblo. Each year in Echo-HawkI986; O'Brien 991I). ceremoniesat the wintersolstice the leadersof the Deer A movementto createlegislation that would mandate clan create an image of the elder brother,Uyuyewi, in the returnof museum collections to American Indian sculpturalform, while the leadersof the Bear clan create tribeswas initiatedin the late I980s (Echo-Hawk I986, an image of the youngerbrother, Ma'a'sewi. These im- Tropeand Echo-Hawki992). The initialfocus of this ages, carved fromcylindrical pieces of cottonwood or MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da| 525

ity to remove them. Zuni religiousleaders believe that to do so unleashes theirgreat powers, resulting in wan- ton destructionand mayhem (Hustito I99I; Ferguson and Eriacho I990:6-7). The recoveryof Ahayu:da wrongfullyremoved from the Zuni Indian Reservation is thus of graveconcern to Zuni religiousleaders. To restoreharmony to the world,Zuni religiouslead- ers initiateda projectto recoverall stolenAhayu:da that could be foundand reinstallthem at shrineson the res- ervation.By the end of I992, the Pueblo of Zuni had secured the returnof 69 Ahayu:da: 54 frommuseums, io fromprivate collections, 3 fromprivate art galleries, and 2 frompublic auctions (table I). These 69 examples representall the Ahayu:da in the United States then knownby the tribeto have been held outside the Pueblo of Zuni. A few Ahayu:da remain in collections outside the United States. The Zunis' pursuitof the returnof the Ahayu:da be- gan in I978, when Zuni representativescontacted first the Denver Art Museum and then the SmithsonianIn- 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 stitutionabout the Ahayu:da in theircollections. While the Denver Art Museum returnedthe three Ahayu:da in its collectionto the Pueblo of Zuni withintwo years, it took the Smithsoniannine yearsto repatriatethe two Ahayu:da in its collection. Despite theirlength, the ne- gotiationsbetween the SmithsonianInstitution and the Pueblo ofZuni were characterizedthroughout by careful deliberation,cooperation, and a concertedeffort by each partyto understandthe perspectivesof the other.Both the Pueblo ofZuni and the SmithsonianInstitution were pleased with the negotiationsand with theiroutcome. Here we describe what took place during the nine years of these negotiations.This historyis important forthe insightsit providesinto the complexitiesof the repatriationprocess. Without knowledge of what tran- FIG. Image the youngerbrother Ahayu:da spiredand why, the length of the negotiationsmay be the Bear clan Parsons created by (from i9i8:398, misinterpretedas eitherobstruction by the museum or the American reprintedby permissionof a lack of dedicationon the part of the tribe.Neither of AnthropologicalAssociation). i. of these is the case. The SmithsonianInstitution and the Zuni Tribe learned many valuable lessons that may be of use to otherswho will be involved in the greatnum- ber of repatriationrequests that are anticipatedin the pine about 50 to 75 cm long, featurea stylized face, nextdecade. We are convincedthat the negotiationsbe- torso,and hands. Bundles of prayersticks and otherof- tween the Smithsonian and the Zuni Tribe provide a feringsare attachedaround its base (fig.I). Ahayu:da are positive model that, with some modifications,should also createdin special ceremoniesconducted when new be emulated by othertribes and museums. bow priestsare initiated. Our knowledge of the negotiationsis based on the The images of Ahayu:da are entrustedto the bow roles we-playedas some of the principalparticipants in priests(also called war chiefs),who place them at one the process. Ferguson,an archaeologist,was directorof of a numberof shrineson the mesas surroundingZuni theZuni ArchaeologyProgram from I977 to I98I and Pueblo (Cushing I 89 6:4 I 7-25; Parsons I 9 I 8, I924; Ste- actingdirector in I984-85 while employedby the Zuni venson I904:34-50, 576-608). The new Ahayu:da re- Tribeas an expertwitness on triballand claims. In these places an existingone that is now placed on a pile of capacities,he served as a principalliaison between the "retired"images to remainan integralpart of the shrine, Pueblo of Zuni and the SmithsonianInstitution during graduallydisintegrating and returningto the earth (fig. the initial negotiationperiod and later as a consultant 2). The bow priestsinstruct the Ahayu:da to protectthe to the Pueblo of Zuni on repatriationand related mat- Zuni worldfrom its enemies and to use theirpotentially ters. Ladd, an anthropologistand member of the Zuni malevolent powers for beneficial purposes. Once the Tribe,worked with the religiousand political leaders of Ahayu:daare installedat a shrine,no one has the author- the Pueblo of Zuni in formulatingthe requestsand offi- 5.26| CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, NumberS, DecemberI993

S _ s~~~~~~~~~~S

FIG 2. Ahy'asrn nms abo,veuiPel, wihnwAhy-ai situadAaud rmpeiu yer atra.Poogahb ito rCso Mineefa i886 corts of Smtsna Inttuin Ntioa nhoooia Arhies, negativenumber2332b. .__-

cial statementssubmitted to theSmithsonian Institu- HistoricalOverview i980, tion.Merrill, an ethnologistand, since curatorof PRELUDE theSmithsonian Institution collections of whichthe Ahayu:dawere a part,was responsible for evaluating the The relationshipbetween the Pueblo of Zuni and the Zunirequest, preparing the SmithsonianInstitution's Smithsonian Institution goes back more than ioo years.2 responses,and documenting the collections in question. In I846, thesame year that the United States asserted Webegin our presentation with a historyof the nego- politicalcontrol over what later became the territory tiationsand follow this with our individual perspectives of New Mexico,Congress accepted a bequestfrom the onthe events. In the process, we analyze why the negoti- ationswere successful, note the mistakesthat were made,and offer our views on how the process could have 2. Themajority of the information upon which this historical over- viewis basedhas beendrawn from unpublished letters, memo- beenimproved. We concludeby evaluating the applica- randa,and reports in thefiles of William L. Merrilland T. J.Fergu- bilityof this case to the repatriation ofNative American son.These materials are listed in chronologicalorder at theend of religiousobjects in general. thearticle, but only published materials are cited in thetext. MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 527

TABLE I Ahayu:da Repatriatedto the Pueblo of Zuni

Year Institution or Collection Number

I978 Sotheby Parke-Bernet,Inc. I I980 Denver Art Museum 3 I980 WheelwrightMuseum 2 I980 Museumof New Mexico 4 I98I Millicent Rogers Museum I I98I Unversity of Iowa Museum of Art I I984 Irivate collection, Tucson, Arizona I I985 Tulsa Zoological Society I I987 Smithsonian Institution 2 I987 MorningstarGallery, Santa Fe 2 I988 Sotheby Parke-Bemet,Inc., Warhol Collection auction I I988 Beloit College, Logan Museum of Anthropology 3 I988 Milwaukee Public Museum 2 I989 SouthwestMuseum 2 I990 Redrock State Park, Gallup 2 I990 Winnipeg Art Gallery, Winnipeg, Canada I I990 American Museum of Natural History I I990 Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation 2 I990 Hudson Museum, University of Maine I I990 Alvin Abrams/FirstPhiladelphia Corporation collection I I990 Lowie Museum of Anthropology,University of California, Berkeley I I990 Private collection, San Francisco I I990 Taylor Museum, Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center I I990 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona I I990 University Museum, University of Pennsylvania I I990 Pauline Kivea, private collection, Santa Fe I I990 Courtney Sale Ross and Steven J.Ross collection, New York I I99I Ramona Morris collection, Woodside, California I I99I Rick Dillingham collection, Santa Fe I I99I Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri I I99I BrooklynMuseum I3 I99I Denver Museum of Natural History 6 I99I San Diego Museum of Man I 1991 Lois Flury collection, Seattle 2 I99I North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh I I992 Anonymous private collector (sent to tribal building) I I992 Chicago Art Institute I Total 69

English scientist James Smithson and chartered the workedindependently. They producedthe firstmodern Smithsonian Institution as a trust organizationdedi- ethnographicdescriptions of the Zuni and amassed enor- catedto "the increaseand diffusionof knowledge among mous collections of Zuni objects for the Smithsonian men." A littleover threedecades later,in I879, the first Institution(Cushing I883, I896, I9OI, i920; Stevenson SmithsonianInstitution expedition arrived at Zuni, led I887, I904, I9I 5). Combinedwith objects acquired from by JamesStevenson and includingamong its members othercollectors, the Smithsonian'santhropological col- Stevenson'swife, Matilda Coxe Stevenson,and the nov- lections came to include over io,ooo Zuni items. These ice anthropologist (Judd are currentlyhoused in the National Museum of Natu- I967:56-63; HinsleyI98I:I90-207; Parezoi985). ral History. The main purpose of the expedition was to collect Since their arrival at the Smithsonian Institution, ethnographicmaterials, primarily ceramics, that could mostZuni objectshave remainedin storage.The ceram- be used to interpretthe relationshipbetween the prehis- ics in the Zuni collection have been the subject of im- toric and historicpueblo populations of the American portantanthropological research (Bunzel I9 29; Hardin Southwest(Stevenson I883; Hardin I989:I42-50). I983, I989), and overthe years some material has been When the expeditionreturned east, Cushing remained incorporatedinto public exhibitions.The Smithsonian at Zuni, where he conducted research for four years. preparedexhibits on the Zunis for several world fairs Afterthe death of her husband in I888, Matilda Steven- and included exhibitson Zuni themes in permanentin- son continuedresearch at Zuni on her own. Because of stallationsat the Smithsonianmuseums in Washington. personal differences,Matilda Stevenson and Cushing Around the turn of the centuryone of these exhibits 528 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume34, Number57 December1993

meetingwith SmithsonianInstitution anthropologists to discuss the exhibitof Zuni masks. Claude Wood, a _!S~ t! memberof the staffof SenatorClinton P. Andersonof New Mexico, a SmithsonianInstitution regent, con- veyedthe requestto the SmithsonianInstitution's Un- derSecretary James Bradley, who in tum asked Sidney R. Galler,the SmithsonianInstitution's assistant secre- taryfor science, to arrangethe meeting. On October29, GovernorLewis and Pesancio Lasiloo, an employeeof the Pueblo of Zuni, met with William C. Sturtevant, one of two curatorsof the NorthAmerican ethnology collections,and Samuel L. Stanley,a specialiston con- temporaryAmerican Indian affairs and programcoordi- natorof the SmithsonianInstitution's Center for the Studyof Man. Byall accounts,the meeting was quitecordial, charac- aA- terizedby an open exchangeof perspectives.Governor Lewis indicatedthat Zuni visitorsto Washingtonhad informedZuni religiousleaders that the masks wereon exhibitand thatthe Zuni peoplewere disturbed by this. The masks, he explained,were sacred and associated withthe Shalako,an importantblessing ceremony held everywinter. He pointedout that the masks should neverbe seen by uninitiatedpeople, who could be en- dangeredby viewingthem. Zuni's religiousleaders had asked him to go to Washingtonto attemptto retrieve FIG. 3. Model ofAhayu.da altar on exhibitat the the masks.In exchangefor the masks,Lewis offereda UnitedStates National Museum in 1905. Photograph "wagonload"of inoffensive objects, such as jewelryand byDe LanceyGill, courtesy of Smithsonian everydaytools, or itemsrecovered from the archaeologi- Institution,National Anthropological Archives, cal excavationsscheduled to beginin I972 at theprehis- negativenumber 2363. toric Zuni settlementof Hawikku and other nearby ruins.3 Sturtevantnoted that at least some ofthe maskshad portrayedan altarof the Ahayu: da as it appearsduring neverbeen used and had been made byZuni peoplespe- theceremony in whichthe Ahayu:da are created (fig. 3); cificallyfor Matilda Coxe Stevensonto take back to thesame basic arrangement is used when the Ahayu:da Washington(Stevenson I898; I904:243 n. a). Lewisre- areinstalled at outdoorshrines (Stevenson I 904: PI. 21; pliedthat these considerations were irrelevant from the Culinthug 19 07: Zun P1.ms 2). Inhads. i19 55, bee when patotemsumspbthe last major renova- Zuni perspective,citing a case fromthe I950S involving tionli exibtof the Smithsonian fromatlatth Institution's 9 adpoabyeepermanent exhib- a groupof Boy Scouts in La Junta,Colorado. The Scouts itson AmericanIndians was completed,three large ex- called themselvesKoshare (a Pueblo termfor a sacred hibitcases were devotedto the Zuni. One, focusedon clown) and reproducedShalako masks foruse in their Zunipottery production, showed a Zuniwoman in the "mock" Indiandances. When the Zuni religiousleaders processof decorating a clay jar. Another used buildings learnedof their activities, they lodged a complaintwith EI. Leis governoof theaPuebaloa ofZnexi,i reuete ah at Zuni as theyappeared in the,late i 9thcentury to the Commissionerof Indian Affairsand threatenedto explainthe distinctive Pueblo architectural style. The close their sacred dances to all non-Indians.After a third,labeled "Ancestral Gods Come to Lifeas Masked meetingand othercommunications with the Scouts, the Dancersin Zuni Ceremonies,presented a brief discus- Zunis persuadedthem to turnover the masks to Zuni sionof Zuni religion,illustrated by thedisplay of five religiousleaders (Gendron i958). kokko(kachina) maisks And other ceremonial objects Followingtheir meeting, Lewis, Lasiloo, Sturtevant, and Stanleyviewed the Zuni masks on displayin the exhibithalls of the National Museum of NaturalHis- tory,and Sturtevantassured the Zuni leadersthat some- thingwould be done to correctthe situation.Later that day,Sturtevant prepared a memorandumto GeorgePhe- bus, supervisorof the Departmentof Anthropology's collectionsmanagement division, requesting that he close the Zuni mask exhibitand returnthe masks to

3. Theseexcavations never took place. MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da 1529

iods

'tA4' 'dot'3 |[trflnks t nr1i w[T fmid4 briiil rn into an itrld l a nd iesrew t efareofth people.

FIG. 4. TheZuni mask exhibitat theNational Museum of Natural History, no date.Photographer unknown, courtesyof the Smithsonian Institution, negative number 43369.

storage.Before acting on Sturtevant'srequest, Phebus theexhibit if a reviewindicated that a morerespectful metwith Clifford Evans, then chairman of the depart- presentationwas called for. Galler, Cowan's immediate ment.Evans thoughtthat Sturtevant'srequest would supervisor,supported his position.On November9, probablybe implementedin the futurebut onlyafter I970, Gallerinstructed Cowan, Evans, and Sturtevant themuseum's exhibits committee had approvedit. He toprepare a letter to Lewis,explaining that the Smith- instructedPhebus to coverthe exhibit with a curtainbut sonianInstitution's role as a publiceducational institu- notremove the masksand theninformed the director tionprecluded its closing any of its exhibits. ofthe museum, the botanist Richard S. Cowan,of the Thisletter was neverwritten, in largepart because developments. Sturtevantwas adamantthat the exhibit be closed.He Cowanimmediately and emphaticallyrejected Stur- arguedthat refusing todo so would"have serious conse- tevant'srequest, ordering that the exhibit not be closed. quencesdeleterious to ourresponsibilities tothe nation He was primarilyconcerned that acceding to theZunis' andto posterity topreserve our collections, and damag- wishesto removethe masks from public display would ingto our relations with Indian communities." To move setthe dangerous precedent of allowing groups from out- beyondthis impasse, John C. Ewers-theother curator sidethe museum to intervenein themuseum's exhibits ofNorth American ethnology in theDepartment ofAn- program.Cowan did not wantto take any actionthat thropologyand theperson who had createdthe mask mightultimately lead to the SmithsonianInstitution's exhibitsome i S yearsearlier-suggested forming an ad havingto acquiesceto thedemands of creationists and hoccommittee to review the issues and make a recom- otherfundamentalist groups who wantedexhibits de- mendation.With the blessing of Cowan and Evans, this pictingbiological evolution withdrawn from the mu- committeemet on December 4, I970, withEwers as its seum.At thesame time, he was concernedthat Sturte- chairand Sturtevantand twoarchaeologists from the vanthad attemptedto close an exhibiton his own department,Waldo Wedel and William Fitzhugh, as its initiativewhen control of the exhibits was thepreroga- members. tiveof the director,not the individualcurator. Cowan In themeeting, Sturtevant's perspective carried the saidthat he wouldapprove revising but not eliminating day.On December7, thecommittee submitted a state- 530 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 ment to Cowan recommendingthat the Zuni mask ex- theircollections. In the latteryear, the Zuni Bear clan hibitbe closed immediately.They maintainedthat this leader Alonzo Hustito and his son Charles Hustito course of action was necessaryboth to show respectfor learnedthat the Denver Art Museum had an Ahayu:da Zuni beliefs and to forestallfuture requests forthe re- on public display afterseeing an illustrationof it in a turn of objects from the collections. They rejected publication(Feder I97I: pl. 88; cf. Conn I979:304). Lewis's request forthe returnof the masks, indicating About the same time, the bow priestsVictor Niihi and that the SmithsonianInstitution's possession of them Dexter Cellicion discovereddocuments that surveyors could be justified on legal, ethical, and scientific fromthe U.S. Geological Surveyhad leftdecades before grounds. They also argued that this particular case in a tin can at one ofthe Ahayu:da shrines.An investiga- shouldnot serveas a precedentbut ratherthat any simi- tion ofthese documentsconducted by the Zuni Fish and lar requestreceived by the museum in the futureshould WildlifeDepartment and the Bureau of Indian Affairs be evaluated on its own merits.They suggestedthat an (BIA) led the Zunis to believe that some Ahayu:da im- exhibiton the Zunis be prepared,with Zuni participa- ages had been taken fromthe shrine in the early 20th tion if possible, to replace the masks exhibit,and they centuryand placed in the Denver Art Museum (Martza submitteda draftresponse to Lewis that they recom- i99i). These events triggereda responsefrom the Zuni mended be signed by the Secretary,the highestofficial religiousand political officialsthat rapidlyevolved into of the SmithsonianInstitution, to indicate that his re- a full-blowncampaign to recoverall the Ahayu:da that quest had been taken veryseriously. had been taken fromtheir shrines on the reservation. After expressing his gratitude to the committee, By the mid-I970s, several of the religiousleaders had Cowan disbanded it. A month later, he issued a new concludedthat the disturbingstate of world affairswas policyto the effectthat all futurerequests for the return caused in part by the Ahayu:da that had been stolen of objects fromthe collections or formodifications to fromthe reservationbecause these images were not in the exhibits would be handled by the directorof the theirshrines where their potentially destructive powers museum.At the same time,he postponedmaking a final could be controlled.To determinehow to recoverthem, decisionon the fateof the Zuni masks exhibit.Although the leaders sought the assistance of the Indian Pueblo the museum's records on this matter are incomplete, Legal Services (IPLS) and the triballyoperated Zuni Ar- the mask exhibitapparently remained open forseveral chaeology Program,both recently established at the moremonths. Finally, in responseto continuedpressure Pueblo of Zuni. C. BryantRogers, an attorneywith the fromthe Department of Anthropology,Cowan agreed IPLS who was working at Zuni on a Reginal Heber that it could be curtainedover and the masks returned Smith CommunityLawyer Fellowship, initiated a com- to storage.However, he waited until April 7, I972, to prehensivestudy of the legal options available to the send Lewis the letterprepared by the ad hoc committee. tribe.His previous experienceworking for the Missis- Believingthat the matterwas relevantprimarily to the sippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, National Museum of Natural Historyrather than to the and the Boston Indian Center had convinced him that SmithsonianInstitution as a whole and concernedthat any actions taken by the Zuni Tribe to repatriateAhay- the museum's control over decision making in such u:da should have the blessingof the tribalreligious lead- cases not be lost to the Secretariatof the Institution, ers, especially those entrustedwith the care of the Cowan sent the letterover his own signaturerather than Ahayu:da. that of the Secretary. Followingthe discoveryof the Ahayu:da at the Den- Lewis respondedto Cowan in late May, expressinghis ver Art Museum, communityleaders, the staffof the appreciationthat the exhibit case had been closed. He Zuni ArchaeologyProgram, and Rogersmet on several acknowledgedthat the masks were copies made by Zu- occasions to determinea culturallyappropriate means nis forStevenson but reiteratedthat they should none- to act on the concernsexpressed by the religiousleaders. theless not be displayedpublicly. He also expressedan Some of the meetingswere formalconferences held at interestin workingwith the SmithsonianInstitution to variousoffices in the pueblo. Othermeetings were infor- preparean exhibit on Zuni culture but suggestedthat mal discussionsheld at nightin the homes ofthe partici- the theme of the exhibitnot be Zuni religion.He men- pants. Alex Boone, WilfredEriacho, and Hayes Lewis, tioned that the SmithsonianInstitution might consider threeprominent members of the Zuni Tribe, attended workingwith Edmund Ladd, a Zuni anthropologist,on many of these meetingsand providedhelpful informa- planningthe exhibit.There is no recordthat anyone at tion on the protocolfor contacting religious leaders. In the SmithsonianInstitution responded to his letter or Zuni culture,it is the religious leaders who should re- pursuedthe possibilityof creatingan exhibit together, quest meetingswith the tribal council, using the bow althoughthe subject of a cooperativeexhibit appeared priestsas messengers,not vice versa.Involvement of the again a few years later as negotiationsfor the returnof bow priestswas thus advised because of theirdual role the Ahayu:da got under way, as intermediariesbetween the religiousleaders and the tribalcouncil and as the caretakersof the Ahayu:da. This initial series of meetings culminated in a long ORGANIZATION OF THE CAMPAIGN meetingheld at the home of the Bear clan leader and Between I972 and I977, the Pueblo of Zuni did not con- attendedby the leaders of the Deer clan, bow priests, tact any museums about the Zuni religious objects in and otherinterested religious groups as well as by attor- MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da I 53I neys fromthe IPLS and anthropologistsfrom the Zuni that if they returnedthe Ahayu:da they would violate ArchaeologyProgram. This meetingwas conducted al- their trustas a public institutionand set a precedent most entirelyin the Zuni language. For more than two thatcould resultin the loss of much of theircollection. hours,the onlyword that the non-Indiansat the meeting The Zuni representatives,who had naivelyexpected the understoodwas "Cushy," a referenceto Cushing,who museum to turn the Ahayu:da over to them immedi- had been initiatedas a Zuni bow priest.After much dis- ately,felt that they had failed to convey theirperspec- cussion,the religiousleaders seemed to decide thatnone tive effectively.Moreover, during the meetingLaFrance of the non-Indiansat the meetingwas attemptingto be had hintedthat the Pueblo of Zuni had legal groundsfor another"Cushy," who had abused the trustthe Zunis recoveringthe Ahayu:da. The Zunis were concerned had placed in him. At the end of the meeting,Rogers thatthis threatof litigationhad alienated the museum's indicatedthat he was unwillingto do anythingon repa- representativesand created a confrontationalatmo- triationmatters unless he had the full approval of the spherethat theyhoped to avoid in the future. appropriatereligious leaders. The meeting reassured An agreementto meet again at a later time was the the Zuni authoritiesthat the non-Indiansinvolved in the onlydirect product of the meeting.During the course of discussions about repatriationof Ahayu:da were moti- the discussions,however, Conn inquiredwhy the Zunis vated by a concernto assist the Zuni Tribe as directed had singled out the Denver Art Museum when other by the religious leaders and not by some other,more museums also had Ahayu:da in theircollections. When personalagenda. the Zunis asked him what museums he was referring On January26, I978, afterconferring with Rogers,Ed- to, Conn mentioned the Brooklyn Museum and the ison Laselute, the governorof the Pueblo of Zuni, wrote SmithsonianInstitution, among others.When the Zuni to RichardConn, curatorof primitiveart at the Denver delegationreturned to Zuni, it passed this information ArtMuseum, inquiringabout the Ahayu:da in its collec- on to the Zuni Tribal Council and religiousleaders, who tion. Laselute informedConn that the image of the god decided that securingthe returnof Ahayu:da fromthe was the propertyof the Zuni people, that it should not SmithsonianInstitution's National Museum of Natural have been removedfrom its shrine,and that its public Historywould providean importantprecedent for other displaywas inappropriate.Conn respondedon February museums that the tribeintended to contact about repa- 8, acknowledgingthat the Ahayu:da was on exhibitand triatingthese images. Laselute instructedT. J.Ferguson, indicatingthat the directorof the museum, Thomas directorof the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram, to contact Maytham,would be happyto meet with representatives the SmithsonianInstitution to set up a meetingto dis- of the Pueblo of Zuni concerningits disposition.Conn cuss the returnof the Ahayu:da in its collections. also told Laselute that other people had contacted the On April io, Fergusoncalled Vincent Wilcox, collec- museum about the image, including two other Zunis, tions managerof the SmithsonianInstitution's Depart- a non-Zuni anthropologygraduate student conducting ment of Anthropology,and told him that the Zunis fieldworkat Zuni Pueblo, and an "enthusiastic"Federal wantedto discuss the possibilityof Smithsonian Institu- Bureau of Investigationagent who had threatenedto tion collaborationin the developmentof a museum at come to Denver at once to confiscateit. To avoid the Zuni and the returnof Zuni religious objects in the confusionthat such uncoordinatedactivities might gen- Smithsonian Institution collections. He emphasized erate,the Zuni Tribal Council decided to implementa that the Zunis wanted to avoid the confrontationthat long-standingZuni politicalprecept that made it respon- had characterizedtheir recent meeting with the Denver sible forconducting formal negotiations with nontribal Art Museum, which they attributed"to theirown im- institutionsand agencies. propermanner of approachingthe issues." A date fora In earlyApril, the tribalcouncil sent threerepresenta- meetingwas set forThursday, April 2o, to coincidewith tivesto meetwith Maytham,Conn, and HardinHolmes, the visit of a Zuni delegation to Washingtonto meet an attorneyserving as a memberof the Denver ArtMu- with congressionalrepresentatives. seum's board of trustees.Believing that any Ahayu:da In the earlyafternoon of April 2o, the Zuni delegation found offthe reservationmust have been stolen, the arrivedat the SmithsonianInstitution's National Mu- council chose Police Chief Gordon Peywa, Head Tribal seum of Natural History,an imposinggranite building RangerBarton Martza, and Dexter Cellicion, one of the situated between the Mall and ConstitutionAvenue, bow priestsresponsible for the Ahayu:da,as its represen- where the Department of Anthropologyis located. Its tatives (Martza i99i). The IPLS arrangedfor Timothy membersincluded GovernorLaselute, LieutenantGov- LaFrance,an attorneywith the Native AmericanRights ernorDorson Zunie, Councilman ChesterMahooty, and Fund (NARF) in Boulder, Colorado, to serve as legal Alex Boone of the Zuni Tribe's AdvisoryCommittee. counsel to the Zuni delegation.Marilyn Youngbird, as- Fergusonaccompanied the delegationas its liaison, and sistanton Indian affairsto the governorof Colorado,was TimothyLaFrance of the NARF was presentto provide invitedto attendthe meetingat the requestof the Zuni legal representation.They met with the directorof the Tribe. Neither the Denver Art Museum nor the Pueblo museum, PorterKier, the chair of the Department of of Zuni had had any previous experiencewith repatria- Anthropology,William Fitzhugh,curator William Stur- tionrequests, and each was unfamiliarwith the perspec- tevant,James Glenn of the National Anthropological tives and intentionsof the other.Museum officialswere Archives,the SmithsonianInstitution's Native Ameri- circumspectand noncommittal,apparently concerned can Museum TrainingProgram Coordinator James Han- 532 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 son, and Marie Malaro of the SmithsonianInstitution's to make sure that the Zunis in fact wanted theirreli- General Counsel's Office. gious leaders to examine the collections and, if so, to The Smithsonian Institution's representativeshad begin making arrangementsfor the visit. At the same concernssimilar to those the Zuni delegationhad en- time,Sturtevant was to organizea collection ofhistoric counteredat the Denver ArtMuseum two weeks earlier. photographsof Zuni governorsin the Departmentof An- While eagerto workwith the Pueblo ofZuni in planning thropology'sNational AnthropologicalArchives as a gift a museum-Hanson had been hiredby the Smithsonian to the Pueblo of Zuni. Fitzhughalso suggestedto Han- Institutionin I976 to provide such assistance-they son thathe meet with people fromZuni to discuss their were reluctantto consider returningany objects from plans fora museum. He hoped that the Pueblo of Zuni the collections.They indicatedthat the SmithsonianIn- and the SmithsonianInstitution could establish a pro- stitutionhad acquired the collectionslegally and thatit gramto work cooperativelyon exhibits,collections ac- had a trustresponsibility to preservethese collections quisition and management,and the creation of a mu- forall people; returningany objects would set a prece- seum at Zuni. dent that could jeopardize the collections as a whole. Upon returningto the pueblo, the Zuni delegationin- They added thatthey could not in good conscience turn formedthe religiousleaders of what had taken place at over any objects withoutassurances that theywould be the SmithsonianInstitution. Throughout the night of affordedthe care and securityrequired by modernmu- May 9, a large groupof religiousleaders met with Ladd seum practices.They also pointedout thatthe museum to discuss the many complicated issues involved with had thousands of Zuni artifactsin addition to the two curationand repatriationof sacred artifactsand to reach Ahayu:da and that theywere concernedabout how the a consensuson the positionsthe Zuni Tribe should take. entirecollection should be curated. The session was recordedon tape and later transcribed In lightof the SmithsonianInstitution's position, La- in Zuni. The principalpoints were then translatedinto seluteretreated from a demandfor the immediatereturn Englishby WilfredEriacho, the officialtribal translator, of any religiousitems. Following its lead, he suggested and approvedby the religiousleaders. The resultingdoc- that the museum and the Pueblo of Zuni cooperate to ument,dated September2o, I978, was entitled"State- determinehow the museum should curatethe Zuni ob- ment of Religious Leaders of the Pueblo of Zuni Con- jects in its collections. In so doing,he exemplifiedthe cerningSacred Zuni Religious Items/Artifacts."It made Puebloan ethic of avoiding open, contentiousdispute. six basic points: (i) All Zuni religiousobjects are impor- He asked the Smithsonian Institutionto refrainfrom tant to the practice of Zuni religion.(2) Most such ob- exhibitingany Zuni religious objects and to preserve jects are createdby the membersof severaldifferent reli- themuntil the Pueblo of Zuni could createits own mu- gious orders, each contributingspecialized expertise. seum,at which time sensitiveobjects could be returned. This creativeprocess bestows a spirituallife on the for- LaFrance then interjectedthat some objects needed to merlyinanimate materials of which the religiousobjects be returnedimmediately to the Zuni religioussocieties are made. (3) Communallyowned religiousobjects can- responsiblefor their care. He suggestedthat the Smith- not be removedfrom Zuni land by any one forany pur- sonian Institution'sZuni collectionbe inventorieditem pose. The removal of individuallyowned religious ob- by item to identifythese objects, but the Smithsonian jects is condemnedbut not prohibited.(4) The disruption officialsrebuffed his suggestion. of Zuni religionby the Spanish and U.S. governments The groupthen began to discuss how the Smithsonian and the removal of sacred objects fromZuni lands has Institutionmight assist the Zunis in preventingfuture createda spiritualimbalance in the worldwhich has had theftsof religiousobjects fromthe reservation,propos- "adverseeffects." To restoreharmony, the objects must ing that Hanson work with the Zunis to notifythe be returnedto theirproper place on Zuni lands. (5) The AmericanAssociation of Museums about stolen Ahay- theftor removal of such objects fromZuni has been u:da. The meeting concluded with the agreementthat motivatedin large part by the value that theyhave as- a delegationof Zuni religious leaders would returnto sumed in the museum and art worlds. (6) The Zunis Washingtonto examine the entireZuni collection and request the assistance of museums and other relevant preparea set of guidelines forits propercuration. The partiesin securingthe returnof these objects to Zuni SmithsonianInstitution and Zuni representativescon- and preventingthe futuretheft and sale of them. curredthat Edmund Ladd would be the most appropriate A few hours afterthe meeting ended, Fergusoncon- personto coordinatethis visit, and the SmithsonianIn- tacted Fitzhughat the SmithsonianInstitution and in- stitutionagreed to cover the travelexpenses of Ladd and formedhim that the religious leaders were not intent one religiousleader. on forcinga returnof the objects to the pueblo. They The next day, Fitzhughinstructed the department's preferredto work with museums to reach an agreement collectionsmanagement staff to preparethe Zuni collec- on the dispositionand care of Zuni religiousobjects in tions forthe upcomingvisit by inventoryingand clean- their collections as well as to secure their assistance ing the religious objects, storingthem separatelyfrom in being informedabout religious objects being sold at the remainderof the collection, and updatingthe cata- logue to include only items that currentlywere in the collection.4He requested that Sturtevantcontact Ladd nate knowledge, the Smithsonian distributed some of its collec- tions to museums around the world. These collections included a 4. In the late igth and early 20th centuries,in an effortto dissemi- number of items fromZuni, mainly ceramics (Parezo i982). MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 533 auctions and in planning a Zuni museum, for which The directivealso authorizedseveral individuals and theyanticipated asking for materials on loan. They also organizationsto undertakeactions on behalfof the tribe, wanted to pursue a dialogue with museums that they revealingthe multifacetedapproach to repatriationthat hoped would result in the voluntaryreturn of religious the pueblo had developed. The Zuni Police and Tribal objects. Despite these assurances, however, it is clear Rangerswere to increase theirefforts to preventthefts fromthe "Statement"of the religiousleaders (the details of religious objects on the reservation.The FBI was of which Ferguson did not learn about until months asked to investigatepossible criminalviolations associ- later) that the return,voluntary or otherwise,of the atedwith Ahayu:da stolenwithin the previousfive years Ahayu:da and otherreligious objects to the pueblo was and currentlyin the possession of private individuals. a primaryobjective. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService was to explore the The next day, Laselute wrote Hanson in responseto possibilityof recoveringAhayu:da on the groundsthat Hanson's letterof May 3, acceptinghis offerto presenta some of the feathersattached to them came frombirds statementon behalfof the Zuni people at the upcoming protectedby federallegislation. Barton Martza was to annual meetingof the American Association of Muse- continueworking on the recoveryof the Ahayu:da from ums (AAM). He indicated that the Pueblo of Zuni the Denver Art Museum, receivinglegal counsel from wantedto conveyto the membersof the AAM the ethi- the NARF. Rogers of the Zuni branch of the IPLS was cal problemsassociated with the purchase and display to providelegal advice on thisrequest and otherrepatria- of Zuni religious objects. He also requested that they tion issues. Fergusonwas to focus on coordinatingnego- agree to remove all Zuni religiousobjects fromdisplay tiationsbetween the pueblo and museums, particularly and to curate them in consultationwith the Zunis; to the SmithsonianInstitution, and on locating Ahayu:da negotiatethe returnof religiousobjects to the Zuni reli- in other museums. He was also to investigatehigh- gious leaders; to refrainfrom buying, offering for sale, technologysecurity measures that the tribecould adopt trading,or exchangingany Zuni religious object; and to protectits religiousobjects and to determinehow to to informthe Zuni Tribal Council immediatelywhen arrangefor the National Park Service to reassignLadd religiousobjects were offeredfor sale. Five monthslater, to assist the tribein theirnegotiations with museums. Hanson presentedthe Zuni statementduring the AAM's By the time this directivewas issued, Fergusonand business meeting,but memberswere reluctantto take BarbaraMills, anotherarchaeologist with the Zuni Ar- a position as an organizationon issues that they felt chaeologyProgram, had departedfor the East Coast to were betterhandled by individualmuseums. study museum collections for several tribal research projects.As an adjunct to this research,Ferguson began to develop a list of museums with Ahayu:da in their FORMALIZATION OF THE ZUNI APPROACH collections.In late May and earlyJune, he photographed On the basis of theirexperiences at the Denver ArtMu- and took notes on Ahayu:da in the AmericanMuseum seum and the SmithsonianInstitution, the political and of Natural History,the BrooklynMuseum, and the Mu- religiousleaders of the Pueblo ofZuni beganformalizing seum of the American Indian in New York.5Ferguson a strategythat they felt would be effectivein futuredeal- and Mills then traveledto Washington,where, on June ingswith museums. They agreedthat working in a con- 26, Fergusonmet at the National Museum of Natural ciliatoryfashion would be more appropriateto the reli- Historywith Director Kier, the acting chairmanof the gious natureof the mattersat hand and moreproductive Departmentof AnthropologyHerman Viola, and Stur- thanlawsuits, which would be used only as a last resort. tevant to discuss the upcoming visit of Zuni religious Underlyingthis approach was the Zuni ethic that in a leaders to the collections. Fergusonindicated that the dispute a good man goes to his adversaryfour times to religious leaders wanted to discuss the returnof reli- seek resolution throughreasonable negotiationbefore gious objects from the collections and to enlist the takingdrastic action. The Zunis hoped that museums SmithsonianInstitution's aid in stoppingthe theftof would agree to returnthe Ahayu:da once theywere in- religiousobjects fromthe reservationfor sale in the art formedof theirimportance in Zuni culture. market.The SmithsonianInstitution officials responded The Zuni Tribal Council also decided that the thatthey were willing to assist the tribein stoppingthe pueblo's effortsto recover religious objects had to be theftsbut asked the tribeto providethem with specific bettercoordinated. On May 30, I978, the governorand suggestionsof what it would like the Smithsonianto tribalcouncil issued a directiveentitled "Coordination do. At the same time,they stated that theydid not plan of Tribal Effortsto Secure Protectionand Returnof Ob- to returnany objects to the Zuni and that theydid not jects of Traditional Religious Significanceto the Zuni want to discuss this issue duringthe visit of the reli- People." The directiveinstructed anyone working for or gious leaders, feelingthat it had been resolved during on behalfof the tribeto contactthe governoror Council- the April meeting.Rather, they envisioned the visit as man Chester Mahooty beforetaking any action. These involvinga thoroughexamination of the Smithsonian officialswould in turncontact the religiousleaders for Institution'sZuni collections by the religious leaders, theirapproval. The tribal council was thus to serve as who, afterconsulting with otherZuni religiousleaders, the spokesman and liaison forreligious leaders in deal- ing with nontribalmembers, but it was the religious 5. In subsequentyears many anthropologists and othermuseum leaders who maintained control over substantivedeci- professionalswith knowledge of Ahayu:dain museumsand else- sions. wherecontributed to thislist. 534 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number S, December I993 would providethe museum with a specificset of cura- Dated September2i, I978, it was titled"Request to the tion guidelinesfor the collection. National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian In- Upon returningto Zuni, Ferguson summarized the stitution,for Assistance in Securing Achievement of meetingin a memorandumto Laselute, Mahooty, and Goals Identifiedin the 'Statementof Religious Leaders the Zuni religiousleaders. He suggestedthat the pueblo ofthe Pueblo of Zuni ConcerningSacred Zuni Religious conformto the SmithsonianInstitution's wishes forthe Items/Artifacts,'Dated 20 SeptemberI978." This docu- religiousleaders' visit but recommendedthat these lead- ment made nine specific requests of the Smithsonian ers preparea position paper outliningtheir perspectives Institution.The firstwas that the SmithsonianInstitu- on religiousobjects held in museum collections. They tion adopt the followingfour points as partof its formal could present the position paper to museum officials museum policy: (I) to remove all sacred Zuni religious duringtheir visit and request that the discussions con- artifactsfrom public display immediatelyand to store tinue at a futuredate. Because of the SmithsonianInsti- and curate these items properlyafter discussion with tution'sstature, Ferguson emphasized that it was to Zu- the Pueblo ofZuni; (2) to discuss and negotiatewith the nis' advantageto maintaingood relationsand reiterated religiouscouncil of Zuni the returnof certainreligious his beliefthat throughpatient negotiationsa mutually itemsto the membersof the religioussocieties who cre- satisfactoryagreement would be reached. ated these thingsfor the benefitof all people and who On September23, I978, a Zuni delegationflew from were responsiblefor their care and maintenance;(3) not Albuquerqueto Washington,accompanied by Ferguson. to buy or offerfor sale, trade,or exchangeany Zuni reli- The members of the delegation included Allen Kalle- gious objects; and (4) to informthe Zuni Tribal Council stewa, head of the Deer clan and maker of the elder immediatelyif any such objects were offeredit forpur- brotherAhayu:da, who also served as head (komosona) chase or if it learned of a pendingsale to anotherparty. ofthe masked dancers;Alonzo Hustito,head of the Bear The Zunis emphasized that they were not demanding clan and maker of the youngerbrother Ahayu:da; and the returnof items, only requestingthat negotiations Chester Mahooty, who besides being a memberof the about them begin.In addition,the SmithsonianInstitu- Zuni Tribal Council was an officialin the ritual Ne- tion was asked to assist the tribein dealing with other wekwe or Galaxy Fraternity.Ladd had arrivedin Wash- museums and pLofessionalorganizations on these is- ingtonthe previousday fromhis National Park Service sues; to share its knowledge of the art and collector's post in Hawaii and met the delegation at the airport. marketto preparethe Zunis to deal with this market Earlierin the month,the National Park Servicehad ap- directly;to assist them in implementingthe UNESCO provedhis temporaryreassignment to assist the Zunis Conventionon the Means ofProhibiting and Preventing in theirnegotiations with the SmithsonianInstitution. the Illicit Import,Export, and Transferof Ownershipof The followingMonday, the delegationspent the day CulturalProperty; to conformin its policies and actions examining the Smithsonian Institution's Zuni arti- to the AmericanIndian Religious FreedomAct; to work factual and archival collections, blessing many of the with Congressto develop legislationthat would protect sacredobjects they encountered. Ladd recordedthe com- Zuni sacredplaces and objects; to develop programsand mentsof the religiousleaders on audio tape, and Fergu- exhibitsto educate the public about Zuni religionin the son took photographsof the collectionsand storagecon- hope that with greaterpublic understandingthefts of ditionsas directedby the religiousleaders. The nextday, religious objects would cease (the Zunis offeredtheir the delegationmet with representativesof the Smith- assistance in planning these educational activities); to sonian Institution'sDepartment of Anthropology:the assist in developinga tribalmuseum at Zuni; and to be chairmanWilliam Fitzhugh,North American curators willing to continue the dialogue and provide technical William Sturtevant,John Ewers, and Bruce Smith,and and informationalassistance to Zuni as needed. the collectionsmanager Vincent Wilcox. JamesHanson Since the Smithsonian Institution representatives also attendedthe meeting(fig. 5). needed time to studythese documents,the discussions The Zunis presentedthe SmithsonianInstitution rep- remainedgeneral, focusing for the most parton the very resentativeswith threedocuments. One was the "State- complicatedissue ofhow to determinewhether a partic- ment of Religious Leaders" summarizedabove, and an- ular object is sacred or not. Ladd indicated that in one otherwas a resolution (M7o-78-99I) draftedby Rogers sense almost all Zuni objects are sacred, a proposition and passed by the Zuni Tribal Council on September that some Smithsonian staffmembers regardedas too 23 adoptingthis statementas officialtribal policy and broadand vague. He added that the Zuni perspectiveon requestingthat all museums and "other thirdparties" the sacredness of cultural material probablyshould be workwith the Pueblo ofZuni to implementthe position modifiedand thatthe problemwas currentlythe subject of the religiousleaders. This resolutionalso reiterated of much discussion at Zuni. The Smithsonianrepresen- the council's position that Zuni religious leaders had tatives agreed to work with the Zunis in preventing final control over tribal policy concerningthe disposi- theftsand the sale of theirreligious objects as well as tion ofsacred artifacts and officiallyauthorized the Zuni in developingjoint educational projects.The consensus delegationvisiting the SmithsonianInstitution to nego- was that the reportto be preparedby the religiouslead- tiate with the museum. ers on the basis of theirexamination of the collections In contrastto these two documents,the thirdwas ad- would providea foundationfor future discussions on the dressed specifically to the Smithsonian Institution. SmithsonianInstitution's Zuni collections. MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da 1 535

FIG. 5. Zuni delegationand Smithsonianofficials during the 1978 consultationwhen Zuni religious leaders examinedthe Zuni collections.Standing (from left to right),James Hanson, Edmund Ladd, T. J.Ferguson, WilliamSturtevant, and WilliamFitzh ugh. Seated (from left to right),Allen Kallestewa, Chester Mahooty, andAlonzo Hustito. Photograph by Smithsonian Institution staff photographer, courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution,National Anthropological Archives, Photographic Lot 86-68.

On Wednesday,the Zuni delegation,including Fergu- Zuni,continued to be thatif the SmithsonianInstitu- sonand Ladd, met with Kier, Associate Director James tioncould be persuadedto cooperatewith them and, Mello,Fitzhugh, Sturtevant, and Ewers.The workac- particularly,if it returnedZuni religiousobjects from complishedduring the previous two days was summa- itscollections, many other museums would follow suit. rized,and the Smithsonian Institution reiterated its in- Uponreceiving Ferguson's letter, Smithsonian Insti- tentionto assistthe Zunis in theways outlined in the tutionstaff members began discussing how to respond documentsthey had presented. That afternoon the dele- to the Zunis' request.They wanted to conveyto the gationreturned to Zuni. Zunistheir willingness to cooperateand to continuethe Duringthe followingweeks, several meetings were discussionson thereligious objects without agreeing to heldat Zuni to discussthe visit. On October25, Fergu- returnany specific items. On January26, I979, Kiersent sonwrote Kier, indicating that the Zunis were encour- Fergusona letterin whichhe madefive points: (i) that agedby the Smithsonian Institution's concern and will- theSmithsonian Institution would not engage in there- ingnessto cooperate.He requestedthat Kier provide a movalof religious items from Zuni lands and would no- writtenresponse to thedocument requesting the assis- tifyZuni tribalofficials if suchobjects were offered to tanceof the National Museum of Natural History, indi- theSmithsonian Institution or if it learnedof any being catingthat the Zunis hoped to presentthis response to offeredto othermuseums or private individuals; (2) that theother museums they intended to approachon the theSmithsonian had no Zuni religiousitems on public issueof proper disposition of Zuni religiousobjects in displayat thetime and would consult with Zuni tribal theircollections. Ferguson's view, shared by manyat officialsbefore incorporating any such items into an ex- 536 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 hibit; (3) that the Smithsonianwould like to workwith to New York on behalfof the tribeto certifyfor the FBI the Zunis to determinehow best to exhibitconcepts of that the Ahayu:da was authentic.On October i9, after Zuni religionand awaited the recommendationsof Zuni receivinginstructions from Zuni religiousleaders, Pan- religiousleaders on the properstorage and othercurato- dey flewfrom Albuquerque to New York,his travelex- rial proceduresfor these items; (4) thatthe Smithsonian penses paid by the MaytagFoundation. He retrievedthe was willingto assist the Zunis in establishinga museum Ahayu:da fromthe FBI and also visited the Museum of at Zuni and arrangingcontacts with othermuseums and the AmericanIndian, where he was shown a photograph anthropologists;and (5) that the Smithsonianwished to ofan Ahayu:dathat was describedas beingin the private continuediscussions with the Zunis to determinemu- collection of its formerdirector, Frederick Dockstader tuallyacceptable ways in which objects vital to ongoing (Dockstader I96I:I74). The next day, Pandey returned Zuni religioncould be made available to them. to New Mexico and deposited the Ahayu:da with the BeforeKier sent this officialresponse, Sturtevant and assistant U.S. attorneyin Albuquerque, where it was Hanson notifiedthe Zunis of two pendingauctions that placed in a vault and held as evidenceuntil it was deter- were offeringZuni religious articles forsale. The first, mined whetherthe confiscationwould be legally con- scheduledfor September 9-I0, I978, in Santa Fe, in- tested. volved the sale of an altar that Zuni religious leaders A fewdays later,the attorneyfor the Los Angeles doc- identifiedas belongingto the Zuni Ko/lowisi societyas tor who had consigned the Ahayu:da for auction at well as a prehistoricAnasazi mummy that reportedly Sotheby'scontacted Americans forIndian Opportunity had been taken froma cliffdwelling in Dove Springs, (AIO), a national organizationestablished by LaDonna Arizona, on the Navajo Indian Reservation.Rogers, re- Harris to promote the interestsof American Indians. tained by the Zuni Tribal Council, was able to arrange The attorneyindicated that his client had not realized foran anonymousbuyer to purchase the altar and then the significanceof the Ahayu:da until the controversy turnit over to the Zunis. Togetherwith Ferguson,he had arisen and, after reading the Zunis' letter to persuaded the districtattorney of Santa Fe County to Sotheby's,wanted to returnit to the Zuni Tribe with declare the mummy an unclaimed human body that no legal contest. The doctor, who desired to remain could not be sold. Eventuallythe mummywas placed in anonymous,hoped to donate the Ahayu:da to the non- the Indian Health Service hospital morgueon the Zuni profitAIO so that he could claim a tax deduction and Indian Reservation.The Zunis, who had never claimed then have AIO transferthe Ahayu:da to the Pueblo of that the mummy was of Zuni ancestry,contacted the Zuni. The Zuni Tribe and AIO acceptedhis proposalbut Navajo Nation to determinewhat they should do with wanted no directrole in assigninga monetaryvalue to it. The two tribes agreed that it would be buried in a the Ahayu:da because doing so mightbe interpretedas cemeteryin Gallup, New Mexico (Fergusoni982). an acknowledgmentthat Ahayu:da could be boughtand The second auction involvedan Ahayu:da thatwas to sold and mightlead to furtherthefts. Rogers made sure be sold in New York at SothebyParke-Bernet (Johnson that the documents accompanyingthe donation of the I979:29). On October 9, six Zuni bow priests and the Ahayu:da to AIO clearly established that the donor's Deer and Bear clan leaders sent a letterto JohnL. Mar- "interest"in the image was less than title, in keeping ion, chairmanof Sotheby's,explaining the significance with the Zunis' legal theorythat only the Zuni Tribe of the Ahayu:da and requestingthat it be removedfrom could have title to an Ahayu:da. On January3, I979, the sale and returnedto the Zunis because it had been Alonzo Hustito and VictorNiihi, accompanied by Ma- stolen.Through the auspices ofthe IPLS and the Maytag hooty, Ferguson, and Rogers, received the Ahayu:da Foundation,a New York law firmwas retainedto de- fromthe U.S. attorneyin a presentationceremony held velop legal theorythat applied to the recoveryof Ahay- at the Albuquerqueoffice of AIO. The returnwas hosted u:da as communallyowned property.Marion responded by LaDonna Harris,president of AIO, and Regis Pecos, favorablyto the Zunis' concernsand removedthe Ahay- the AIO stafferwho had worked out the details of the u:da fromsale, a standardprocedure for Sotheby's in arrangement.Out of respect for the sacredness of the the case of a third-partydispute concerningownership Ahayu:da, AIO never had the image in its possession, (Greenfieldi989:20I). Sotheby'salso agreedto cooperate and it was passed directlyfrom the U.S. attorneyto Zuni with the Zuni Tribe to preventthe sale or theftof its religiousleaders. The Zunis returnedhome that after- communallyowned religiousobjects. By this time, the noon with the firstAhayu:da to be repatriatedto the Pueblo ofZuni had contactedthe U.S. attorneysin New tribeand placed the image at an open shrineon the reser- Mexico and New York, requestingthat they determine vation. whetherthe Ahayu:da could be returnedto Zuni Pueblo By this time,three principles had emergedas the basis on the groundsthat it had been stolen fromfederal trust fora Zuni claim forrecovery of Ahayu:da: (i) They are lands and pointing out that, under Federal Statute i8 sacred artifactswhose presence at Zuni is needed for U.S.C. ?II63, it was a federalcrime to possessstolen spiritualpurposes in the long-standingand ongoingZuni tribalproperty. The U.S. attorneysagreed that the com- religion.(2) To the degree that they can be regardedas munally owned Ahayu:da were tribal propertyand di- propertyat all, theyare owned communallyby the tribe. rectedthe FBI to confiscatethe Ahayu:da as contraband. (3) Once placed at their shrine they cannot legally be In mid-October,Triloki Nath Pandey,an anthropolo- removed.Thus any Ahayu:da not at its shrine on the gist conductingfield researchat Zuni, agreed to travel Zuni Indian Reservationhas been stolen and is subject MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 537

to recoverypursuant to i8 U.S.C. ? II63. It should be He also summarizedthe legal theorythat the Zunis had noted that this statute is applicable only to a narrow used to recoverthe Ahayu:da fromthe Sotheby's auc- categoryof tribalreligious objects which, like the Ahay- tion. LaFrance confirmedthat the Zunis had a basis for u:da, cannot under any circumstancesbe lawfullyre- litigationto recover the Ahayu:da but explained that moved or possessed by any individual.In theirnegotia- theypreferred that the museum returnthem formoral tions forthe returnof Ahayu:da,the Zunis consistently and humanitarianreasons. The museum inquired how noted this restrictedapplicability, both to indicate that it could be known that the Ahayu:da in its collection it would not supporta wholesale demand forthe return had been stolen.The previousMay, at the requestof the of tribalitems in museum collections and to stressthe NARF, the assistant attorneygeneral of Colorado had unique importanceof the Ahayu:da. assuredmuseum officialsthat, if the Ahayu:da had been Althoughsome FBI agentsoffered to confiscateAhay- stolen,they would not be violatingtheir charge if they u:da frommuseum collections around the countryand deniedtheir visitors access to the Ahayu:da by returning returnthem to Zuni, as had been done at Sotheby's,the themto Zuni. Ladd explainedthat because no Zuni indi- Zuni Tribe chose a differentapproach. Bolstered by the vidual has the rightto sell an Ahayu:da,any not located knowledgethat a powerfullegal theorysupported their in its properplace in and around the reservationmust view thatno one but the Zuni Tribe could have title to have been stolen. The Zuni representativesasked that an Ahayu:da,Zuni leaders decided to pursue the recov- theirrequest and the discussionsregarding the Ahayu:da eryof the images in a culturallyappropriate manner by be kept confidentialfor fear that the image would once phrasingtheir requests in nonconfrontationalterms and again be subject to possible theft.The meeting closed relyingon moral and religious argumentsto persuade with a promisefrom the museum board to considerthe othersto comply with their requests. They were con- issues carefullyand notifythe Zunis of its decision. vincedthat the only acceptable responseto a requestfor On Februaryio, the Denver Art Museum issued a an Ahayu:da was its return,but theycontinued to view press release questioning the veracity of the Zuni legal action as a last resort. claims. It pointedout that therewas no legal precedent forthe returnof artifactsbased on a claim of communal ownershipand that returningthe Ahayu:da mightlead CONTINUING THE CAMPAIGN to claims by othertribes, but it indicatedits intentionto As the Zunis were retrievingtheir religious articles from continuediscussions with the Zunis to finda mutually public auctions,they worked with the FBI and theirlegal acceptableresolution. This pressrelease, issued in antic- advisorsto recovertwo Ahayu:da that an art dealer in ipation of a forthcomingnews article about the nego- Port Townsend, Washington,had offeredfor sale and tiations in a local newspaper (Wolf I979), resulted in developed a strategyfor protectingand ensuringZuni several additional stories in local newspapers that access to sacred sites offthe reservation.They also con- characterizedthe Denver ArtMuseum's positionin very tinuedtheir discussions at Zuni about the Ahayu:da in negativeterms (Clurman I979, Rocky Mountain News the SmithsonianInstitution and Denver Art Museum I979a, Albuquerque Journal I979a). LaFrance wrote collections.They wanted to see these negotiationssuc- Mayerrequesting a retractionof statementsin the press cessfullyconcluded beforepresenting requests to other release that he thoughtmisrepresented the Zuni posi- museums. tion. LaFrancereleased his letterto the press,leading to To this end, on December 28, I978, Zuni religious additional controversialnews stories (Gallup Indepen- leaders sent a five-pageletter to the Denver Art Mu- dent I 979, RockyMountain News I 979b, Albuquerque seum's board of trusteesexplaining why the Ahayu:da JournalI979b). This public controversydisturbed the should be returnedto the Zuni Tribe. On Januaryio, Zuni religious leaders, who felt that the Ahayu:da de- I979, a second meetingwas held betweenZuni represen- servedmore respectfuldiscourse. tatives and museum officials.The Zuni delegationin- In mid-March,the museum requestedfurther discus- cluded Hustito, Niihi, Mahooty, Ladd, and Ferguson, sions, but the Zunis respondedthat they expected the joinedby LaFranceof the NARF, Youngbirdof the Colo- board to make a final decision duringits next meeting. radoCommission on IndianAffairs, and SharonSteely of On March 2i, the board approveda resolutionto return the Colorado lieutenantgovernor's office. After offering the Ahayu:da to the Zunis. It indicated that the Zunis prayersto the Ahayu:da in the collections storagearea, consideredthe Ahayu:da to be an animate deitycrucial the Zuni delegation met with the museum's director, to the performanceof their religion rather than a symbol curators,and 30-memberboard of trustees. or art object and that as communal propertyit could FrederickMayer, chairman of the board, opened the not have been legally sold or given away. It instructed meetingby indicatingthat the museum wanted to learn museum officialsto meet with Zuni representativesto more about the Zuni perspectiveon the Ahayu:da but arrangefor the returnof the Ahayu:da, to work with no decision on the returnof the image would be made them to ensure the Ahayu:da's securityat Zuni, and that day. The Zuni religious leaders then presentedan to discuss how to enhance communicationbetween the overview of the importanceof the Ahayu:da in Zuni museum and the Zuni people. religion,and Fergusondescribed the securitymeasures Withassistance from the museum,the Zunis immedi- thatthe Zunis were developingto ensurethat Ahayu:da ately began planninga high-securityfacility to be con- returnedto the reservationwould not be stolen again. structedaround the shrinewhere the Ahayu:da was to 538 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 be placed. This facility was designed to protect the Mexico, requestedthat the Zunis preparea formal,writ- Ahayu:da from theftwhile meeting the religious re- ten rationale for the returnof one of these images in quirementthat the shrine be exposed to the elements its collection. GovernorRobert E. Lewis, who had been (Millsand Ferguson I990:I8-I9). A designwas approved returnedto officein I979, submittedthe reporton Au- by the museum and the tribe,and in late I979 crews gusti, I980, at thesame time asking permission to send fromthe Zuni Young Adult ConservationCorps began a delegationto Taos to presentthe Zunis' requestto the construction.The fortifiedshrine was completed on museum's board of trustees.In Septembera delegation May 22, I980, the same day thatmuseum officials ar- comprisedof Lieutenant GovernorTheodore Edaakie, rived in Zuni to meet with the tribalcouncil and reli- Niihi, Hustito, Mahooty, and Ferguson met with the gious leaders and inspect it (Zuni Young Adult Conser- board to discuss why the Ahayu:da should be returned vationCorps 1980). to its rightfulplace on the Zuni Indian Reservation.Im- This meetingwas characterizedby good feelings,and pressed with the sincerityand reasonableness of the the Zunis were glad that negotiationsthat had begun in Zuni religiousleaders, the board approvedthe repatria- a somewhat contentious and controversial fashion tion request on October 24 but asked the Zunis to de- ended very cordially. Not only had they reached an scribe in writinghow the securityof the image was to agreementfor the returnof the Ahayu:da but theyhad be ensured and to provide a list of other objects in the obtained valuable professionalsupport from the mu- museum's collection that the Zuni Tribe mightin the seum in the process. On October 29, Niihi and Martza futureask to be returned.Lewis submittedthis informa- pickedup the Ahayu:da in Denver along with two other tionin a letterdated November i9, I980, andthe Zunis Ahayu:dathat the museum had discoveredin its collec- returnedto Taos in JanuaryI98I to retrievethe Ahay- tions duringthe course of the negotiationsand returned u:da and place it at the fortifiedshrine (Stephens i982). to Zuni, where theyplaced them in theirshrine. Similarly,in the fall of I980, the WheelwrightMu- Unfortunately,the FBI had notifiedseveral Albuquer- seum of the American Indian and the Museum of New que television stations and newspapersof the returnof Mexico, both in Santa Fe, along with the Universityof the Ahayu:da and, unbeknownstto Zuni Pueblo, had Iowa Museum of Art,informed the Zunis that theyhad arrangeda press conferenceat the airport.The Zuni del- Ahayu:dain theircollections and offeredto returnthem. egationwas not preparedfor the media attentionit re- While the repatriationof these Ahayu:da did not require ceived. The airingof a filmclip showingthe bow priest formalpresentations to the boards of trustees,it did en- withthe Ahayu:da on local televisioncaused consterna- tail considerablecorrespondence and performanceof a tion in tribalofficials who had just negotiatedthe return varietyof administrative tasks. Because the tribedid not of anotherAhayu:da froma museum in New Mexico have travelfunds to send a delegationto Iowa, arrange- withthe understandingthat the image would be repatri- ments were made with JeanWeber, the directorof the ated withoutpublicity. The experienceled themto exer- Museum of New Mexico, to have the Ahayu:da from cise more controlover the publicitysurrounding their the Universityof Iowa Museum of Art shippedto Santa work. Fe. There,on July28, I98I, Bear clan leadersAlonzo The Zunis' effortsto recoverAhayu:da at the Denver and Charles Hustito, Mahooty, and Fergusonreceived ArtMuseum, the SmithsonianInstitution, and Sotheby it, returningwith it to the reservationthe same day. Parke-Bernetwere closely interrelated.The actions Two monthslater, on September30, I98I, a Zuni dele- taken in one negotiationwere evaluated and applied, gationthat included Edaakie, Hustito,Niihi, and Fergu- where appropriate,in others to maximize consistency son returnedto Santa Fe to retrievetwo Ahayu:da from and effectiveness.After the passage of the AmericanIn- the WheelwrightMuseum and fourAhayu:da fromthe dian Religious Freedom Act of I978, the Zunis' cam- Museum of New Mexico. paign to recover religious items began to receive na- of tional attention.Their approach to the repatriation RESUMING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SMITHSONIAN on the Ahayu:da was publicized duringfield hearings INSTITUTI ON act held at Zuni Pueblo (AndrusI979: appendixC; U.S. Departmentof the InteriorI979), in reportsprepared for From the fall of I978 until the fall of I980, the Zuni the NARF (AmericanIndian Law CenterI978:I8-2 I), religiousleaders and others workingfor the Zunis on in scholarlyarticles (Blair I979a, b; Childs I980; Talbot repatriationissues focusedon securingthe returnof the i985), and in popularpublications (Canfield i980). The Ahayu:da fromthese museums and fromprivate collec- Zuni Tribe sent Fergusonto a number of professional tors.A coherentrationale forrepatriation had been de- meetingsand conferencesto explain Zuni actions and veloped and was consistentlyapplied, but afterthe trip dispel rumorsthat the Zunis were planningwholesale of the religious leaders to the SmithsonianInstitution raids on museum collections (Eriacho and Ferguson the tribe'scampaign became more reactive than proac- I979, FergusonI979). Duringthis period, the Zunis con- tive: actions were undertakenonly to preventthe sale tinuedto emphasize the criticalimportance of the Ahay- of Ahayu:da or to respondto museums that voluntarily u:da in theirworld and to distinguishthem frommost offeredrepatriation. Although the religiousleaders had otherobjects collected or otherwiseobtained from Zuni. met twice in late I978 to discuss the SmithsonianInsti- Upon learning about Zuni concerns for recoveryof tutioncollections and had reacheda consensus on what Ahayu:da,the Millicent RogersMuseum in Taos, New should be done, they had made little progresstoward MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da I 539 completingthe formalreport requested by the museum. objects such as dance kilts and rattles could be placed To advance the negotiationswith the SmithsonianInsti- on public display. All these items could be used for tution,Ladd was hired by the Zuni Tribe in October scholarlystudy, but in no circumstancesshould theybe I980 to work with religiousleaders to preparea formal replicatedor copied. The Zunis should be allowed to report on Zuni curatorial recommendations. Ladd's make prayerofferings to the objects but otherwisethe involvementwas supportedby a grantfrom the North Smithsonianshould treatthem in accordancewith stan- AmericanIndian Museums Association. dardmuseum practices.In addition,Zunis would coop- By the end of the month,Ladd had completeda draft eratewith the Smithsonianin preparingpublic exhibits ofthe reportthat was circulatedamong religious leaders about Zuni culture. for their comments and suggestions.Ben Kallestewa, As soon as he receivedthe report,Ubelaker met with who had recentlyinherited from his fatherthe position threemembers of the department'scollections manage- ofkomosona, met privatelywith each religiousgroup to ment staff-Wilcox, Phebus, and Linda Eisenhart- ensurethat the statementreflected its thinking.The fi- along with Sturtevantand William Merrill, who had nal reportwas completed in early JanuaryI98I, more been hiredfour months earlieras curatorof the Smith- than two years afterthe religiousleaders had inspected sonian Institution'swestern North American ethnology the SmithsonianInstitution collection. This reportbore collections.The groupconcluded that beforea response thetitle "Request forthe Returnof Zuni SacredMaterial could be prepared,the objects that the Zunis had re- and Recommendationsfor the Care and Curationof Ob- quested to be returnedshould be investigated thor- jects of Zuni Religious Significancein the Collection of oughlyto determinetheir place in Zuni cultureand the the Smithsonian." A cover letter signed by Governor circumstancesunder which theyhad enteredthe collec- Lewis indicated that the reporthad the full supportof tions. In addition,with the approvalof the Zunis, these the Zuni Tribal Council. objects should be documentedin detail so that a record On JanuaryI9, I98I, Lewis sent the reportto Douglas of them could be preserved.It was agreed that Merrill Ubelaker,who had succeeded Fitzhughas chair of the would be responsiblefor the projectand forformulating SmithsonianInstitution's Department of Anthropology a responseto the Zunis' statement.Eisenhart, who had in JanuaryI980. In theirreport, the Zuni religiouslead- preparedthe Zuni collectionfor the visit ofthe religious ers divided the Smithsonian Institution'sZuni collec- leadersin I978, would workwith him, preparing written tions into five classes. Class i was identifiedas "items descriptionsof the objects and coordinatingphotogra- that are communallyowned by the Pueblo as a whole phy and illustrations.A few days later,Edith Dietze, a and which have been illegally removed from Zuni conservatorwith the SmithsonianInstitution's Native lands." This class included the two Ahayu:da plus the American Museum Training Program,was assigned to gamingarticles and prayersticks associated with them. the projectto supervisethe identificationof the materi- Class 2 consisted of "items removed fromZuni lands als of which the objects were composed. without the consent of the religious society or priest- On March I2, Ubelaker wrote Lewis, thankinghim hood responsiblefor their care and maintenance" and forthe Zunis' carefullyconsidered recommendations re- included two "plumed serpents"(ko/lowisi), "fetishes" gardingthe Zuni objects in the Smithsonian Institu- of the rain priesthood(etto we), and "fetishes" owned tion's collections. He indicated that the Departmentof by individual members of the medicine societies (mil- Anthropology'sreaction to the recommendationswas ile). The Zunis requestedthat the more than 70 objects generallyfavorable and that each object in question was in these two classes be returned.Class 3 was definedas being investigatedthoroughly. He expressed his hope "items of special concernsold by individualsfor which that the Zunis' desires could be met with a "minimal specificaction is recommended."All the items in this loss ofinformation . .. to futurescholars of Zuni culture class were masks. The Zunis requestedthat a delegation and history"and that he would keep him informedof of religious leaders dismantle these masks, with the the progressof the review.He closed by requestingaddi- SmithsonianInstitution retaining the dismantled ele- tional informationon how the Zunis proposed to dis- ments. This recommendation reflected the way in mantle the masks. which masks not in use are storedwithin Zuni Pueblo. By late springof I98I, the documentationprocess was Class 4 consisted of "other items sold by individuals well under way, but because of the number of items or taken fromindividual local shrines" and class 5 of involved it was clear that several more months would "miscellaneous pottery,working tools, rabbit sticks, be requiredto completeit. During the firstweek ofJune, dance paraphernalia,and other artifacts."The objects Merrillvisited Zuni to meet with the tribalcouncil, reli- in these two classes could remain at the Smithsonian gious leaders,and Fergusonto reporton the progressof Institution. the workand discuss in more detail the issues involved. Zuni religious leaders indicated that paraphernalia Duringhis visit he was taken to examine the shrinethat fromZuni religioussocieties extantin the igth century had been preparedto receive the Ahayu:da returnedto butnow extinctshould remainat the SmithsonianInsti- Zuni and to meet with the chiefof the Zuni Tribal Po- tution,which had in effectbecome the custodian. For lice, who explainedthe elaboratesecurity measures they theseand otheritems thatwould remainthere the Zunis were takingto ensure the safetyof the Ahayu:da. Mer- made recommendationsfor their curation. They indi- rill's visit happened to coincide with the public perfor- cated that masks should never be exhibitedbut other mance of a masked dance sponsoredby one ofthe kivas, 540 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume34, Number5, December1993

andthis gave him the opportunity to see firsthandhow vitalthe Zuni religion was forcontemporary Zunis and toobserve that artifacts similar to the ones in the Smith- sonianInstitution's collection were still in ritualuse. In AugustI98I, Fergusonresigned as thedirector of theZuni Archaeology Program, but his association with thePueblo of Zuni did not cease. He servedas a codirec- tor(with Calbert Seciwa) of the Zuni History Project in I982-83 andcontinued to conductresearch and testify forZuni Pueblo as an expertwitness in twoland claims againstthe United States. A yearlater, Ladd retired from theNational Park Service and became curator of ethnol- ogyat theMuseum of New Mexico. Bythe fall of I98I, Merrillhad completed a review of thepublished literature and unpublished records on the SmithsonianInstitution's Zuni collections,but he had beenunable to findany detailed information about how Cushinghad acquired one of the Ahayu:da at theSmith- II;\. i ..... sonianInstitution (fig. 6). The associatedaccession rec- ordsrevealed that Item 206426, a woodenimage of the elderbrother war god, had beenpurchased in August I900 fromCushing's widow, Emily Magill Cushing. A catalogcard carries the information, assumed to be from notesleft by Cushing, that the image was takenfrom "thealtar of Ahanita [a/tann/a] on ToyaalaneMt. near the Puebloof Zuni, wheresuch figuresare renewed yearly."Cushing probably secured the Ahayu:dabe- tweenI879 andI884, whenhe livedat Zuni,or on later shortvisits between i886 and I889, whenhe was the directorof the Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition(Hinsley I98I:I90-207; Greeni990). Forat leasta decadebefore entering the Smithsonian Institu- tion,the image had remained in Cushing'sprivate col- lection.In November,Merrill examined Cushing's pa- persat theSouthwest Museum in Pasadena,and, while FIG. 6. The AhayuIdataken by FrankH Gushing he learned nothingmore about the Ahayu:daat the (catalognumber 206426). Photographby Kiell SmithsonianInstitution, he discoveredthat Cushing Sandved,1982, courtesyof the Department of haddefinitely acquired and manufactured these images Anthropology,Smithsonian Institution, temporary forother people during this period. On oneoccasion, for negativenumber 60/3 2. example,Cushing carved a facsimileof an Ahayu:da and restoreda numberof associatedofferings, which he shippedto the British anthropologist E. B. Tylor;in I 9 I I Tylordonated them to thePitt Rivers Museum at Ox- immediatelyaccessioned into the museum'scollection fordUniversity (Cushing n.d.). Although doing so clearly but apparentlyretained by the Stevensonsas part of to2 Jnay18of n violatedZuni norms, Cushing, renowned for his skill at rsponsedtheirprivate collection. cuteyoZuns'atatthe In 1896, menteight years after the replicatingIndian artifacts using traditional technology, deathsumitenthr of James forlevewtoth Stevenson, Smithsonian Matilda Coxe Institution, Stevensoneprr col- presumablyfelt that his statusas a bowpriest justified amnistationanlectedvarious items legalr consl0B/ery3ayte.eassociated with the Ahayu:da to be thisactivity. He mayalso have hoped that by presenting theseitems to Tylorhe couldcultivate a relationshipvimewitlIn07: processiwasecompletetOnth.2). Presumablnthe National Maye4,'1smonthscafte Museum acwuired withthis major figure in European anthropology tocom- reeiinthpaeZnisy report,d Ubelkrsn the Smithsosspaton- pensatefor his poor relations with many anthropologists thian Insivtutoe rolespionse to Gov6,ernorLewis. Inte thedc in theUnited States (Hinsley I98I:200-20I; Green I1990: 2- 27). Thecircumstances surrounding the acquisition of the Zunis thatudath Ahayud hateeiaknfrmthi otherAhayu:da at the SmithsonianInstitution were better-documented.This one (Item176544) was taken shrmintesimproprly reitw agedtortrthem onthona Intheuio fromits shrine on GornMountain by Nai'uchi, the elder brotherbow priest, who gave it to JamesStevenson in 1881 (fig.7). Unlikethe other items collected during thesame Smithsonian Institution expedition, it was not RRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:daI 54I

tionswith the federal government would benefit by hav- ing an exhibiton Zuni religionin Washington.The SmithsonianInstitution thus requested the Zunis to ex- plainwhy contemporary Zuni leadersfelt that objects madefor the Smithsonian Institution by the appropriate 1 .v.S...... ; : : religiousleaders should be returnedto Zuni andto clar- ifythe nature of the ownershipof the otheritems. In SS{0505000$Z?fti ; short,it agreedto returnthe Ahayu:da to Zuni butre- questedadditional information on the otheritems be- forereaching a finaldecision. Fortwo years the Zunis did not respond to theSmith- sonianInstitution document. During this period, mem- bersof the tribe visited the Smithsonian Institution on severaloccasions to view the collectionsand to make prayerofferings, but no discussionson thereturn of the objectstook place. This delayresulted in partfrom the complicatednature of the negotiations and the number ofreligious leaders who needed to considerthe various issuesbefore reaching a decision. In addition,during this periodthe tribe'spolitical administration changed. In JanuaryI983, QuincyPanteah replaced Lewis as gover- nor.A fewmonths later, Panteah died and was suc- ceededby his lieutenant governor, Chauncey Simplicio. The newadministration was unableto locaterecords of thenegotiations, even though they were on filein the governor'soffice and at theZuni ArchaeologyProgram. Internalfactional politics, changes in administrative personnelwithin the tribe, and the difficulty ofachiev- ingconsensus on theappropriate treatment of so many categoriesof sacred objects also contributedtothe delay. In addition,with more than ioo tribalprograms to over- see,the tribal council required some time to setthe pri- oritiesfor tribal initiatives. Throughout this period, FIG. 7. The Ahayu:da taken by James Stevenson however,the Zuni religious leaders regularly asked Ladd (catalogsoia Intttonnumber 176544). n heohr h'otograph hdbeby K,ell wne d and Fergusonabout the statusof repatriationof the Sandved,vidully In1982, th courtesycase oftemssof the Department cas3, ofluw Ahayu:dafrom the SmithsonianInstitution, and, with Anthropology,Smithsonian Institution, temporary urgingfrom religious leaders, the tribal council eventu- ha enmdeb uifr_'jom maeiassupie ', ria negativenumber 5I1/20. allyattended to thisunresolved matter. Theinteraction between the Zunis and the Smithson- ian Institutiondid not cease entirely during this hiatus. groundsthat, since the Ahayu:da were and are commu- Severalemployees of the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram re- nallyowned by the Zuni people, no onecould have con- ceivedtraining as museuminterns at the Smithsonian veyedtitle to themto the SmithsonianInstitution. Institution.In addition,the Departmentof Anthropol- However,the available evidence indicated that all the ogybegan working with the Pueblo of Zuni in I982 on othertI.7 ecnoicanudaheobjects in classpltial i had cirumtanesbeen made by ofturensofnZuni people,h theloan ofa numberof the most significant examples in manycases the appropriatereligious leaders, ex- ofZuni ceramicsin its collectionsfor an exhibitthat presslycentuyvew,to be broughtMexi,courmay to thehavteSmithsonian Dplacetsmen Institution prssre for the puebloorganized in collaborationwith the Heard Institutineprr ontZuirpopoleoogooeat,wtexhibition.Similarly, some Smithsonian of the clasS 2 objectshad Museumof Phoenix, Arizona. The anthropologistMar- bee,nconstnruted by Zuinis as "imodels"for the S.mithk garet Ann Hardin was thecurator thisexhibit. Har- tioundathroooit,s.nc Ine Aayuddiin some Zuni ladrs atmu dinhad first studied Zuni ceramics while a Smithsonian Institutionpostdoctoral fellow in 197 5-76 as partof a researchproject on ceramicstyle that she had begun othertimecsiclsI hadaprnl beleve thatetheZunis reola, a decadeearlier among Purepecha (Tarascan) potters in Michoacain,Mexico. She did not actuallyvisit the Puebloof Zuni, however, until the end of I978, when, overthe course of a week,she presented several lectures at Zuni HighSchool about the Zuni potterycollection at theSmithsonian Institution. The ceramicsteacher at thehigh school, Jenny Laate, indicated that she would appreciatehaving some photographs of outstanding ex- 542 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 amples of this potterythat her studentscould studyin tion's collections. However, on Julyi i, Zuni religious developingdesigns for the ceramicsthey were producing leadersand membersof the tribalcouncil met with Hart in her classes. and Fergusonto decide how to respondto the Smithson- The followingspring, Hardin returnedto the Smith- ian Institution.(Ferguson was servingas the acting di- sonian Institutionand contractedfor a series of photo- rectorof the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram, a position he graphs.That summershe gave copies ofthe photographs held until the followingJune.) The Zuni religious and to Laate, whose students began producingpottery in- political leaders discussed each class of objects as well spiredby the ceramicsfeatured in the photographs.Har- as the generalissues of how religiousobjects should be din worked forthe next two summers with pottersat treatedand the properrelations between museums and Zuni, documentinga revivalof Zuni potteryattributable AmericanIndian tribes. Fergusonwas asked to drafta in partto her own effortsto expose youngartists to the document summarizingthe discussions that he would ceramic variabilityevident in the SmithsonianInstitu- pass on to Kallestewa forreview and approval. tion's collections (Hardin i989). In the summerof I98I, On JulyI7, Simplicio sent the final document,enti- Hardin began collaboratingwith the Pueblo of Zuni on tled "Request forImmediate Returnof the Zuni Ahay- the planningof an exhibitthat would juxtapose the old u:da and Reformulationof Zuni Position on Other Sa- and the new ceramics, and the followingyear the Na- cred Artifactsin the Collection of the Smithsonian tional Endowmentfor the Artsapproved funding for the Institution,"to Ubelakerat the SmithsonianInstitution. exhibit.Hardin returnedto Zuni as a researchassociate The documentbegan with a disclaimer,explaining that of the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram to work full-timeon the Zuni religiousleaders had misunderstoodthe nature developingand implementingthe project. During the of the informationthat the SmithsonianInstitution had same period,she assembled a collection of contempo- requestedof them in SeptemberI978 and that this mis- raryZuni artsfor the SmithsonianInstitution, including understandinghad been reflectedin the documentthey potteryproduced by Zuni High School students,several had submitted in I98I. It had become clear to the examples of which were lent by the SmithsonianInsti- youngerreligious leaders who had inheritedthe posi- tution forthe upcoming exhibit. The exhibit,entitled tions of theirdeceased elders that the religiousleaders "Gifts of Mother Earth: Ceramics in the Zuni Tradi- who had inspectedthe SmithsonianInstitution's collec- tion,"opened in I 983 at the Heard Museum and traveled tions had assumed that the museum wanted to know until I985 with venues at the Pueblo of Zuni, the Milli- how the Zunis cared forthe objects in question. It was cent RogersMuseum, the New Mexico State University thoughtthat this misunderstandinghad arisenfrom the Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution (Hardin difficultyin translatingnon-Indian curatorial concepts I983). into the Zuni language. The new komosona and clan In FebruaryI984, a delegation fromthe Zuni Tribe leaders now understoodthat the Smithsonian Institu- traveledto Washingtonto testifyat congressionalhear- tion had really been asking for the tribe's position on ings on a bill (P. L. 98-408) that added Kolhu/wala:wa, the objects' ultimate disposition. On the basis of this a veryimportant sacred site in Arizona known as "Zuni new understanding,the religious leaders had reformu- Heaven," to the Zuni Indian Reservation(Hart i99i). lated theirposition. The Zunis scheduled a meetingwith Merrillto discuss The Zuni religiousleaders indicated that the Smith- how the repatriationnegotiations should be resumed. sonian Institution'sjustification for returning the Ahay- Attendingthe meetingwere GovernorSimplicio, Head u:da on the basis of titlediffered radically from the Zuni Councilman Roger Tsabetsaye, Komosona Ben Kalle- perspective.Their position was that all Zuni religious stewa,and the tribe'sland claims attorneyStephen Boy- objects embody knowledge that belongs to the Zuni den. E. RichardHart of the Instituteof the NorthAmeri- communityas whole and is held by specificindividuals can West, who had been hired by the Zuni Tribal only in trust. All objects made on the basis of this Council to undertakehistorical research in connection knowledge, even those made outside Zuni by non- with the bill beforeCongress, was also present.During Indians, derive their existence ultimately from Zuni the meeting,the Zunis explained that theywere unable knowledgeand thus belong to the Zuni people. This po- to proceed with the preparationof a response to the sition was basically the same as that articulatedin the SmithsonianInstitution's response of May I982 because I950S duringthe controversyover the Zuni masks made the tribalcouncil did not have readyaccess to copies of by the La JuntaScouts. The Zunis thereforerequested that response or to any of the other communications that all religiousobjects in the SmithsonianInstitution betweenthe Pueblo of Zuni and the SmithsonianInsti- collectionsbe returnedto Zuni. Recognizingthe compli- tution.Merrill photocopied the relevantdocuments, and cated natureof the case, theyasked that only the Ahay- the Zuni representativesindicated that theywould pass u:da be returnedimmediately. They maintained,how- them on to the religiousleaders. ever, that by accepting the Ahayu:da they would not The followingmonth, Merrill represented the Smith- relinquish their claim to other Zuni objects in the sonian Institutionat the openingof the "Giftsof Mother Smithsoniancollections, and theyreserved the rightto Earth" exhibitionat Zuni. Because so many activities negotiatefor the returnof otheritems in the future. were takingplace in conjunctionwith the exhibit and Whenthis documentarrived at the SmithsonianInsti- the religious leaders had not yet had time to meet to tution,Merrill was conductingfield research in Mexico, formulatea response,there were no discussions of the and the museum took no action until he returnedin returnof Zuni objects from the Smithsonian Institu- JanuaryI985. At that point, he reviewed the Zuni re- MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 543 sponse and consulted with administratorsand legal March 5, I987, deaccessioninghad been approved,and counsel about the position the museum should take. He arrangementshad been made to returnthe Ahayu:da to thenrecommended that the SmithsonianInstitution re- the Zunis in a ceremonyat the School of AmericanRe- turnthe Ahayu:da and postponenegotiations on the re- searchin Santa Fe, where JonathanHaas helped coordi- mainderof the collection. He contacted Zuni officials nate the local arrangements.Travel fundswere available to arrangea meeting to discuss details of the return, foronly one staffmember of the departmentto attend and it was agreedthat Zuni and SmithsonianInstitution the ceremony.It was decided that Eisenhart,who had representativeswould meet in Junein conjunctionwith worked extensivelyin caringfor and documentingthe the openingof the Zuni ceramics exhibit. Zuni collectionover the previousdecade, would accom- On JuneI4, I985, Simplicio, Tsabetsaye, and Coun- pany the Ahayu:da. On March I3, she traveled from cilwomanRita Enote Lorenzo met with the Department Washingtonto Santa Fe, where she depositedthe Ahay- of Anthropology'schair, AdrienneKaeppler, its collec- u:da in a storagevault at theSchool ofAmerican Research. tions manager,Candace Greene, and Merrill to decide The next day, RobertMcC. Adams, Secretaryof the how to bringthe negotiationsto a mutuallysatisfactory SmithsonianInstitution, arrived at the School ofAmeri- conclusion.Since the two sides were in agreementas to can Research to returnthe Ahayu:da to representatives what should be done, therewas littlediscussion. Smith- fromZuni (AdamsI990, Smithsoniani987). The Zuni sonian Institutionrepresentatives indicated that they delegationincluded Head Councilman Barton Martza, would preparea formalrecommendation to the adminis- the bow priestsPerry Tsadiasi and JuanQualo, Lambert trationthat the Ahayu:da be returnedto Zuni, and the Homer of the Bear clan, Deer clan leader Neal Kalle- Zuni representativesagreed that this was the appro- stewa, Edmund Ladd, Zuni Police Chief Val Panteah, priatestep to take. Police OfficerSyverson Homer, and RogerAnyon, direc- The Smithsonian Institution administration had tor of the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram. Others who at- changedin I984, and most of the higher-leveladminis- tendedwere Fredand JoanEggan, Margaret Hardin, Bar- tratorswere unfamiliarwith the negotiationsthat had bara Mills, T. J.Ferguson, and several membersof the taken place priorto theirarrival. In the monthsfollow- staffof the School of American Research.A staffmem- ing the meeting,Merrill prepareda detailed reporton ber of the Museum of New Mexico attendedat Ladd's the historyof the negotiationsalong with a justification requestto documentthe event on videotape. for the returnof the Ahayu:da. He also reviewed the The Ahayu:da were laid flat on a table in the School documentationof the objects that were to be returned of American Research's elegant Southwestern-style to ensurethat it was complete.In JanuaryI986 he com- chapel, their heads facing west so that, at the proper pleteda draftof the reportfor review by the Smithsonian time,the bow priestcould make them rise up and take Institutionlegal counsel and the Departmentof Anthro- them home. Adams spoke briefly,indicating that the pology.On March 28, the finalreport was submittedto SmithsonianInstitution was delightedthat the negotia- the administrationfor its approval,but it was inexplica- tionsfor the Ahayu:da had been successfullyconcluded, bly misplaced. The administrationdid not finallyap- and then formallyconveyed the images to the Zuni. prove Merrill's recommendationsuntil the following Martza, Homer, Tsadiasi, and Ladd accepted the Ahay- September,more than two yearsafter the Zunis' request u:da on behalfof the Pueblo of Zuni and, with Adams, forthe "immediate return"of the Ahayu:da. signeda documentthat affirmedand certifiedthe trans- On October 23, I986, Kaeppler wrote Simplicio, in- fer.Food and beverages were then served,after which forminghim that the SmithsonianInstitution had ap- the Zuni delegationreturned to the religious activities proved the agreement reached during the July I985 at hand. Firstoffering prayers that marked the beginning meetingand requestingthe Zunis' advice on what to do of their trip back to Zuni, the bow priests picked up with the adornmentsthat had been attached to one of the images fromthe table and leftthe chapel, the other the Ahayu:da when it had been exhibitedat the Smith- membersof the Zuni delegationfollowing them in sin- sonian Institutionaround the turn of the century.On gle file.They thendrove immediately to the Zuni Indian December 29, Simplicio respondedthat the adornments Reservation. should remain on the Ahayu:da and that the Zuni reli- That evening,nine years afterthe tribehad firstap- gious leaderswould determinetheir disposition. He also proachedthe SmithsonianInstitution, the Zuni delega- suggested procedures for returningthe Ahayu:da to tion arrivedat Zuni with the Ahayu:da. As is customary Zuni. On Januaryi, I987, RobertE. Lewis replacedSim- in the returnof Ahayu:da, the delegationstopped before plicio as governor.On January7, Merrill called him to enteringZuni lands, and Qualo, in his capacity as an bringhim up to date on the status of the tribe'srequest officerof the Newekwe society,offered a prayerto purify and sent him a copy of Kaeppler's letterof the previous the images and everyonein the delegation.The delega- October,which Lewis had not seen. tion then proceededto the fortifiedshrine, where they placed the Ahayu:da among the othersthat had already TRANSFER OF THE AHAYU:DA been returnedand said appropriateprayers. The Departmentof Anthropologythen began the pro- THE cess ofdeaccessioning the Ahayu:da,which involvedob- RETURN OF OTHER AHAYU:DA taining the approval of the Department's collections BetweenI984 and I987, theZuni tribeconcentrated its committee,its chair, and the museum's director.By effortson completingthe negotiationswith the Smith- 544 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number S, December 1993 sonian Institutionrather than beginningnew negotia- ment of the Interior'sOffice of the Field Solicitor de- tions with other museums. The religious leaders and cided to act as the Zuni's legal counsel, calling upon theiradvisors continued to see the negotiationswith the U.S. Departmentof Justicelawyers only when theiras- SmithsonianInstitution as crucial to the campaign to sistance was requiredto recoverAhayu:da fromprivate recoverall Ahayu:da.During this period, only two Ahay- collections. The Instituteof the NorthAmericanWest u:da were returnedto Zuni, one anonymouslyin I984 continuedto provide professionalassistance at the re- by a Tucson collector,the other in I985 by the Tulsa quest of the Zuni Tribe even thoughthe field solicitor Zoological Society. could not pay forthese services. Once the two Ahayu:da were returned from the The pace of Ahayu:da repatriationsgreatly increased SmithsonianInstitution, the tribe began to contact all in I990, spurredin part by the precedent set by the remainingmuseums known to have images. As this SmithsonianInstitution and in part by the passage of projectwas being organized,the Morning Star Gallery the Native American Graves Protectionand Repatria- in Santa Fe and two museums in Wisconsin (the Logan tionAct. In I990, I5 imageswere recovered from nine Museum of Anthropologyand the Milwaukee Public museums and fourprivate collections, including 2 that Museum) offeredto returna total of seven Ahayu:da. the Museum of the American Indian returnedthe day Returnof the Ahayu:da fromthe MorningStar Gallery beforeit became the newest unit of the Smithsonian was facilitatedby Rogers, then in private practice in Institution.In I99I, 26 Ahayu:dawere repatriated from Santa Fe, who put the galleryowners in contact with five museums and three private collections, including Zuni officials.In addition,Sotheby Parke-Bernet adver- the 2 in the Lois Flurycollection that the tribehad first tised an Ahayu:da for sale in its auction of the Andy attemptedto recoverin I978. In I992, two additional Warhol collection. Merrill notified the Zunis of the Ahayu:da were returnedfrom a museum and an anony- pendingsale, and the tribe asked Hart of the Institute mous collector.The substantialcosts oftravel to repatri- of the NorthAmericanWest to complete the historical ate Ahayu:dain I990 and I99I werepaid fromgrants documentationneeded by the Department of Justice, fromthe Seventh GenerationFund and the FrostFoun- which had agreedto representthe tribeif litigationwas dation. When it was impossible forthe Zunis to travel required.Drawing upon the files maintainedby Fergu- to a museum to carrythe Ahayu:da back to the reserva- son, Rogers,and the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram, Hart tion, the Museum of New Mexico providedassistance facilitateda prelitigationresolution in which the Andy by receivingthe images shipped to them and holding Warhol Foundation withdrewthe Ahayu:da fromsale themuntil the religiousleaders could travelto Santa Fe and returnedit to Zuni religiousleaders. Qualo, Kopek- to retrievethem (Livesay I992:297). win JohnNiihi, Tribal Councilman William Tsikewa, and Hart traveledto New York in May I988, wherethey took possession of the Ahayu:da and returnedit to Zuni Personal Perspectives (Firestonei988). The administrativeeffort, travel ex- penses, and othercosts associated with these activities Our presentationof the history of the returnof the consumed all of the resourcesof the tribeallocated for Ahayu:da to the Zuni people has focusedthus faron the repatriationin I987 and I988. quasi-publicdimension of the process: meetings,formal In I988, at the requestof the Zuni Tribal Council, the documents,official actions. In the followingpersonal the time Instituteof the NorthAmericanWest donated perspectiveson what took place, we offerour opinions forFerguson to preparea briefhistory of the removal of of what motivatedthe SmithsonianInstitution anthro- date Ahayu:da fromZuni, what the tribehad done to to pologistsand administratorsand the Zuni religiousand recoverthese images, and which museums and collec- political leaders to adopt certainpositions or to pursue tors were known to have Ahayu:da remainingin their particularcourses of action. We also isolate those as- collections(Ferguson i989). This reportwas intendedto pects ofthe negotiationsthat we feelare worthyof emu- providethe tribalcouncil with the informationneeded lation and those that should be avoided. to secure legal representationfrom the Departmentof Justice.Although the Zunis were committed to re- for questing that museums returnAhayu:da religious WILLIAM L. MERRILL and humanitarianreasons, they recognized that deacces- sioningmuseum artifactsis always a legal process. Ex- The Smithsonian Institution'sresponse to the Zunis' ceptfor the NARF's workwith the Denver ArtMuseum I98I request forthe returnof the Ahayu:da and other and the earlywork of Rogersin I978-79, the Zunis had items of religious significancewas conditionedby sev- neverretained an attorneyto providecomprehensive le- eral developmentsof the previous decades. Changes in gal advice and representation.They thoughtit best to the national political climate associated with the civil have parityin futurenegotiations: if museums had legal rightsand anti-Vietnam-warmovements had contrib- counsel, so should the tribe. uted to a politicizationof the fieldof anthropologyand In I989, as a resultof inquiries made to obtaincatalog had led a numberof SmithsonianInstitution staff mem- numbersfor Ferguson's report, the SouthwestMuseum bersto promoteincreased interaction between the Insti- decided to repatriatethe two Ahayu:da remainingin its tutionand Indian people. In theI960S and I970S, several collection. Upon completion of the report,the Depart- programswere establishedto increase Indian participa- MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 545

tionin SmithsonianInstitution activities and to provide ings were unavailable: neitherthe SmithsonianInstitu- Indian people greateraccess to Smithsonianresources tion nor the Zunis had preparedformal reports on what and expertise.Two of these programswere designedto had transpired.As a consequence, I relied on the Zunis' offertechnical assistance to Indian tribesin the creation I98I position paper as my point of departure. of theirown archivesand museums. Between I973 and I began by undertakingan extensivereview of the lit- I98I, the year in which the Zunis submittedtheir for- eratureon Zuni historyand cultureand the archivaland mal requestfor the returnof the Ahayu:da, 283 persons catalogue recordsassociated with the Zuni collections fromi 63 differenttribal groups participated in these two housed in the museum. My feelingwas that it would programs,including 4 Zunis (Nancy Fuller, personal be a disserviceto both the Zunis and the Smithsonian communication,I992; JamesGlenn, personal commu- Institutionto preparea response based on a superficial nication, I992). understandingof the cultural significanceof the items Many at the SmithsonianInstitution regarded the for- in question and of the circumstancesunder which they mationof tribal museums as a prerequisitefor the return had enteredthe collections.I also feltthat it was crucial of objects fromits collections to the tribes. Although to communicatedirectly with the Zunis to supplement the possibilityof permanentlytransferring some of the the informationI gathered from written materials. I collectionsto the tribeswas considered,most feltthat thereforecontacted Ferguson, at the time the directorof collections would be most appropriately"returned" the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram and the person whom withinthe frameworkof long-term loans to tribalmuse- the Zunis had designatedas the liaison on mattersre- ums. Such loans would allow the SmithsonianInstitu- lated to their repatriationrequest. We agreed that we tion to ensure that the collections were curatedand ex- would discuss the issues that emergedas my work pro- hibited in accordance with currentmuseum standards gressedand that I would go to Zuni later in the year to and that theywould be returnedto the SmithsonianIn- meet with the religiousand political leaders. stitutionin the event that the tribalmuseums ceased to AfterI began my research,it quickly became obvious exist (as in fact occurredin several cases). that the two Ahayu:da in the SmithsonianInstitution's The SmithsonianInstitution did not have to confront collections should be returnedto Zuni. They were un- the issue ofrepatriation directly until the Zunis submit- questionablycommunally owned and had been taken tedtheir formal request in I 98 I. At the time,its position fromshrines without the authorizationof the pueblo as on repatriationwas a verysimple and practicalone: each a whole. However, because the Zuni request involved repatriationrequest should be judged on its own merits. scores of items in additionto the Ahayu:da,I continued No more elaborate policy had been developed in part my researchrather than simplyrecommending that the because of an absence of specificrepatriation requests Ahayu:dabe returned.This researchrevealed that many but also because it was thoughtthat any policy that ofthese items had been preparedby Zuni religiouslead- would be applicable to the greatdiversity of Indian cul- ers expresslyfor the SmithsonianInstitution and others tureswould have to be so generalas to be of little use. apparentlywere owned by individualsrather than com- Althoughthere was generalconcern that returning some munallyby the pueblo. I decided to recommendthat the objects might result in the dismantlingof the collec- SmithsonianInstitution agree to returnthe Ahayu:da tions, this concern was overriddenby a commitment while requestingclarification of the statusof these other to returncollections if legal or ethical considerations objects and of the Zunis' justificationfor requesting warrantedit. theirreturn. The reluctance of Smithsonian Institutionadminis- In preparingmy recommendationsfor the administra- tratorsand anthropologistsin I978 to considerreturning tion, I consulted primarilywith William Sturtevantof Zuni items fromthe collections did not reflectan in- the Departmentof Anthropologyand Marie Malaro of flexibleand a priori decision to reject all repatriation the SmithsonianInstitution's General Counsel's office. requests. Instead, it was based on the belief that the Bothagreed that the Ahayu:da should be returnedto the Zuni items in question had been acquired by the Smith- Zunis, but neitherSturtevant nor Malaro nor, forthat sonian Institutionboth legally and ethically. At the matter,anyone else at the SmithsonianInstitution pres- same time, staffmembers recognized that the informa- sured me to adopt a particular stance on the issues. tion on the cultural significanceof these items in the Nonetheless,because ofthe reluctanceof some adminis- museum's recordswas incomplete.They asked the Zu- tratorsto accede to the Zunis' requestto close the Zuni nis to examine the entireZuni collection to clarifythe masks exhibitin the early I970s, I was concernedthat status of these objects within Zuni cultureand to pro- my recommendationto returnthe Ahayu:da would not duce a set of guidelinesfor their proper curation. It was be readilyapproved. In my reportto the administration, hoped thatthe Zunis' concernsfor these items could be I emphasizedthat the SmithsonianInstitution's title to accommodatedwithout having to returnthem, but the the Ahayu:da was doubtfuland that my recommenda- repatriationof at least some of the items was recognized tion thatthey be returnedto Zuni was based on strictly as a distinctpossibility. legal considerations.As a result,I argued,the repatria- In I98I, when I assumed responsibilityfor responding tion of these items would set no new precedentsand to the Zunis' repatriationrequest, I discussed the I978 would not jeopardize the collections as a whole. As it meetingswith several staffmembers who had partici- turnedout, the museum's administratorsneeded little pated in them,but detailed descriptionsof these meet- convincing;they believed that the Institutionshould en- 546 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 deavorto respondas positivelyas possible to American the Zuni religious leaders. Around I978, some of the Indian concernsabout the collections. religious leaders decided that the reason there was so A littleover a yearhad elapsed betweenthe Smithson- much sufferingin the worldwas thatso manyAhayu:da ian Institution'sreceipt of the Zunis' repatriationre- had been removedfrom Zuni land. The campaign that quest and its decision to returnthe Ahayu:da, but the resultedfrom this was initiatedand directedby the reli- Ahayu:da were not returnedto Zuni until five years gious leaders, and this is the only way it could have later. Changes in administrationat both Zuni and the workedat Zuni. If it had been up to the tribalcouncil SmithsonianInstitution and the logisticalproblems that or the averageZuni, it would neverhave happened. inevitablyarise when many people must be involvedin I became involved in the negotiationsat the request making a decision contributedto this delay. However, of boththe Zuni Tribe and the SmithsonianInstitution. the principalfactor was the belief on the part of both William Sturtevantwas particularlyhelpful in setting the Zunis and the Smithsonian Institution that the up the mechanism by which the National Park Service otherside expectedresolution of the complicatedissues made my time available to assist the tribeat the begin- surroundingthe items other than the Ahayu:da before ningof the project.The National Park Servicehad previ- the Ahayu:da could be returned.Since the Zunis had ously assigned me to the Zuni Tribe or to a federal submitteda comprehensivestatement on the collec- agencysuch as the Departmentof Justiceto serve as a tions,I assumed that theywanted a comprehensivere- translatorfor depositions or court testimonyin land sponse-a task that required over a year of full-time claims cases. This workentails morethan just linguistic workfor me to complete.Because theyreceived a com- translation,because thereare fundamentalconcepts that prehensiveresponse, the Zunis assumed thatthe Smith- need to be interpretedfrom English into Zuni and back sonian Institutionconsidered the returnof the Ahayu:da again. My professionaltraining as an anthropologistpro- to be contingenton reachingan agreementon the other vided me with the backgroundI needed to undertake items. They fearedthat if they accepted the Ahayu:da this typeof cross-culturalinterpretion. Fortunately, my withoutresolving the issues associated with the other supervisorsin the Park Service supportedme in this items theywould be expected to relinquishtheir claim work and saw that it was of value. to these items. Not until the summerof I985 was this I feel thatfor the SmithsonianInstitution my creden- miscommunication cleared up and an agreement tials as a museum professionaland anthropologistwere reachedto returnthe Ahayu:dawhile postponingdiscus- as importantas my status as a member of the Zuni sions on the otheritems. The time betweenthe reaching Tribe; my participationin the negotiations gave the ofthis agreement and the returnof the Ahayu:dato Zuni tribeadditional credibility.At Zuni, my role as part of was devotedto resolvingfinal details ofthe return,deac- the advisoryteam thatworked with the religiousleaders cessioning the Ahayu:da fromthe collections, and ar- on repatriationof the Ahayu:da was appropriatein part ranginga date forthe officialtransfer. because I am a member of the Suski (Coyote) clan, Despite the length of the negotiations, both the whose membershave an affiliationwith the Ahayu:da. SmithsonianInstitution and the Zunis agreed at their I acted as a mediator,trying to translateadequately the conclusion that they had been handled properly.From differentconcepts of museums and Zunis and helping the outset, the SmithsonianInstitution was impressed to make sure that people were really talkingto one an- by the Zunis' deliberate and nonconfrontationalap- other and not simply at each other. Sometimes I re- proach and theirrecognition of the difficultissues that viewed documents preparedby both-sides beforethey their repatriationrequest raised for the museum. For were officiallytransmitted to tryto maximize commu- theirpart, the Zunis appreciatedthe SmithsonianInsti- nication. tution's commitmentto respond to their request in a Zuni elders and SmithsonianInstitution representa- carefulfashion and to be sensitive to the Zunis' con- tives viewed the collections differently.The museum cernsfor the collections.Although some individualsnot seemed to conceive of the artifactsas a collection,con- involved in the negotiationssuggested that the delays sideringthe entire set as importantas the component were a tactic to avoid returningthe Ahayu:da, this was pieces. The Zunis viewed the collection as individual not the case, and the Zunis never expressedany doubt objects many of which are not meant to be preserved that the SmithsonianInstitution acted at all times in (thegoal and trustresponsibility of the museum). "Cur- good faith.Indeed, to the degreethat these delays could ating" these objects properlyaccording to Zuni beliefs have been avoided,both sides were responsible.The im- would upset many museum curators,because as sacred portantpoint is that the negotiationsstrengthened the artifactsthey are supposed to be depositedin the ground relationshipbetween the Zunis and the SmithsonianIn- and allowed to disintegrate.It is profaneto keep masks stitution,providing the basis for cooperationin future completelydecorated, because a spiritis investedin the projectsboth at Zuni and at the Smithsonian. mask when it is used in a performanceand this spirit needs to be released so that it can return to the afterworldat Kolhu/wala:wa. In theory,keeping the EDMUND J. LADD masks completelydecorated like art objects or "mantle Perhapsthe most importantaspect of the effortsto re- pieces" keeps the spirit of the dance performance turnthe Ahayu:da to Zuni has been the role played by trappedin the mask. The person who originallyowned MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 547

the mask is thus left without a passport to enter the using Stevenson's I904 reportas a guide. Even though afterworldor to come back to Zuni land forspring rains theywere made of cardboard,they looked like the origi- and winterstorms. As a result,that spiritis not doing nals and thus like the spiritsof the kachinas theyrepre- his job. sented. As in the case of the La JuntaScouts, even Medicine bundles and fetishesare similarin thatupon thoughthey had not been made with ritual and prayer the death of the medicine man who owned them they the Zunis still consideredit insensitiveto have them in are supposed to be buried and sent to the afterworld. the museums as models and used as decorativepieces. Whenthey are preservedin a museum context,the spirit The Zuni religiousleaders, looking at these objects,con- is trapped.The whole museum concept of preservation sideredthem real. For this reason, at the request of the of artifactsis alien to Zuni religious culture. Even Zuni Tribe,we gave them to the Zuni religiousleaders thoughthey had been told what to expect,the Zuni reli- fordisposition as they thoughtbest. gious leaderswere horrifiedupon seeing thatthe Smith- The issue of "models" in museum collections poses sonian Institutionwas preservingreligious objects. In two basic questions forthe implementationof the Na- theirview, masks and otherreligious paraphernalia did tive AmericanGraves Protectionand RepatriationAct: not belongin the museum; preservationof these materi- What is real? and Whose beliefsystem is to be applied? als was insensitiveand immoral. These questions and others will take time to answer. The Zunis were not angryat the SmithsonianInstitu- For this reason, the implementationof the NAGPRA tion,however. What theyexperienced was tse/meti,sad- should not entail settingfixed time limits. Given the ness. They said, "We are very sad. Why have these diversityof Indian tribesin the United States, no blan- thingsbeen put here?Who sold these things?"I triedto ket policy can be createdthat covers everysituation for give them philosophical answers to these questions as everytribe, and the issues surroundingthe reburialof well as to provideinformation on the historicalcircum- human remains in many cases will be quite different stanceswithin which many of the objectshad leftZuni. fromthose associated with the repatriationof religious I said thatmany of them had been acquiredby museums items.While a mandaterequiring museums to talk with when people were hungry-that the Zunis had not Indians about sensitive and sacred artifactsis clearly thoughtabout the consequences of "selling their life" needed,the issues will need to be workedout on a case- and perhaps not being able to enter the afterworldbe- by-casebasis. Tribal religiousleaders should be the ones cause theywere tryingto feed themselves. to direct the work and make the decisions, as in the Even though emotions were strongduring the visits repatriationof the Zuni Ahayu:da. Museums should to the SmithsonianInstitution, the Zuni elders always make it possible forreligious leaders to see the collec- conductedthemselves as religiousleaders. In Zuni cul- tions firsthandand tell the museum what is sensitive. ture,one does not mix angerinto religiousundertakings. Museums should open their doors as the Smithsonian Emotionsare important,and it is vital to remainspiritu- Institutiondid forZuni. Also, futuregenerations are go- ally cleansed and focused on the purpose at hand. The ing to be interestedin what we are doing under the Zuni religious leaders were always polite, as the reli- NAGPRA and why, and forthis reason it is important gious oaths they take requiredthem to be. They never that the whole process be documented. demandedthe immediate returnof the Ahayu:da; they There was a "heavy" feelingduring the ceremonyin always said, "We respectfullyrequest that you return Santa Fe thatreturned the Ahayu:da fromthe Smithson- them." The Zuni approachwas forcefulin its sincerity, ian Institutionto the Zuni Tribe. In some respects it but the religiousleaders remained determined to recover was a reenactmentof the way the Ahayu:da are ceremo- what theyknew belongedto them. nially set out in the plaza beforethey are taken to the When the religiousleaders leftthe SmithsonianInsti- shrines.The religious leaders were saddened, but they tution the firsttime, they spirituallymade the spirits were also elated by the factthat theyhad recoveredthe thererise up and come back to Zuni. But theystill felta Ahayu:da fromthe SmithsonianInstitution-the ones sadness thattheir children, the artifactsin the museum, that had become the most importantto us because we werebeing held in ways thatfor the Zunis were insensi- had workedso long to get them back. Afterall the work tive. The Zuni religious leaders know that in the long thathad gone into the negotiations,it was a verypleas- runthe objectsin the museum will "eat themselvesup" ant feelingto have attainedthe goal. no matterwhat the museum does to preservethem. Pro- Even thoughthe Ahayu:da have been returned,negoti- longingthat process of disintegration,however, is still ations with the Smithsonian Institutionare not over. wrong. Currently,at the requestof the National Museum ofthe One confoundingissue in the negotiationswith the AmericanIndian, we are consideringthe largecollection SmithsonianInstitution concerned artifactsthat were ofZuni artifactsin thatnewest branchof the Smithson- made formuseum exhibits. To the museum these are ian Institution,and the museum is assistingus with the "models." To the Zuni todaythey are real and verysen- developmentof a tribalmuseum. If and when the Zuni sitive.For instance,during my tenureas curatorof eth- religious leaders decide it is necessary,they will also nology at the Museum of New Mexico, the museum reopen the negotiationswith the National Museum of returneda number of Zuni kokko masks made during Natural History.In the meantime,the power and conti- the WPA period. These masks were made as "models" nuityof Zuni cultureand religionhave been reinforced 548 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December I993 by the returnof the Ahayu:da to their shrine on the legedinformation within the pueblo as well as the trans- Zuni Indian Reservation,and this is good. mission of informationto museums, and this helped to make the difficultprocess of providingsensitive infor- mation to museums somewhat easier. T. J. FERGUSON The negotiationswith the Smithsonian Institution As Ladd points out, the Zunis were successfulin their cannot be divorcedfrom other aspects of the campaign negotiationswith the SmithsonianInstitution because to recoverAhayu:da. The actions the Zunis took in one the impetus forthe repatriationrequest came fromthe situation had an impact on what they were doing in Zuni religious leaders themselves. Two generationsof others.In reflectingon the I4 years duringwhich the clan leaders and bow priestsprovided the driveand per- Zunis have soughtto recoverAhayu:da, what impresses sistenceneeded to sustain nine yearsof discussion. Even me is the tribe's incredibleoutlay of time, administra- though the Zunis made use of anthropologists,attor- tive costs,and travelexpenses. Requests fordocumenta- neys, and law enforcementofficers in their campaign, tion, attendanceat meetingsof boards of trustees,and theirapproach remained grounded in Zuni culture-that tripsto repatriatethese images all heavilytaxed its mea- is, therewas an imperativeto ask forrepatriation four gerfinancial resources. Fortunately, the Zunis were able times as reasonable men. In implementingthis ap- to secure several grantsto offsetthe costs of travel,and proach,after the initial experiencewith the Denver Art when travelwas impossible the Museum of New Mex- Museum, the firstcontacts with other museums were ico made its facilities available. This relationshipre- couched in nonthreatening,humanistic terms rather flectedLadd's effortsas curatorof ethnologyand is illus- thanlegal ones. The Zunis were well aware oftheir legal trativeof the role museums can play as thirdparties rights,however, and afterthe repatriationof the Ahay- when artifactsare repatriated. u:da from the Smithsonian Institutionall correspon- I agree with Merrill that the major reason that the dence with othermuseums was reviewedby the tribe's negotiationswith the SmithsonianInstitution took as legal counsel to ensure that the tribalgovernment's po- long as they did is that the issues were extendedfrom sition that Ahayu:da are stolen propertywas not inad- a focus on the Ahayu:da to the whole collection. The vertentlycompromised. SmithsonianInstitution representatives expressed their EverythingI did as a consultinganthropologist was desireto deal with the entireZuni collectionat the same closely coordinated with the Zuni Archaeology Pro- time. In I978, when this approach was proposed, it gram,which played a key role, as the tribe's cultural seemed reasonable both to the museum and to the Zu- resourcemanagement agency, in maintainingadminis- nis, but in retrospectit was naive and incongruentwith trativecontinuity and servingas an archive. My main the structureof the decision-makingprocess at Zuni. functionwas to conductresearch on questions posed by The Deer and Bear clans, supportedby the bow priests, Zuni religiousleaders and museums about the history were responsiblefor the Ahayu:da. They were unified of removal of Ahayu:da and the role of these images in in their spiritual concerns and agreed on what was Zuni cultureand society.Although I occasionallyserved needed to rectifythe world situation that disturbed as an amanuensis in the preparationof documents,I did them. The religious leaders with authorityover the not act as an advocate. The Zuni religiousleaders used Ahayu:da could not, however,answer questions about legal counsel when an advocate was needed. othersacred artifactsin the museum. Addressingthese At the outset of the campaign,Rogers forged a proce- questions entailed intensive consultation with many dure wherebyall the alternativesconcerning repatria- other religious leaders, not all of whom had firsthand tion issues were presentedto the religiousleaders, who knowledgeof the curatorialissues involved.In contrast werethus empoweredto make informeddecisions about to the situationwith the Ahayu:da, therewas no agree- a course of action. Althoughthis was sometimesa diffi- ment on the appropriatedisposition of all the artifacts. cult process because of the complexityof the legal and Workingtoward a consensus took severalyears of meet- culturalissues, the religiousleaders remained in control ings and consultationsat Zuni, and in the end the tribe of the whole endeavor.At firstthis was a veryformal decided to defermany decisions until the appropriate procedure.Over time, as the personal relationshipsof religiousleaders expressed concerns that warranted a re- theparticipants solidified and fewerpeople were directly considerationof the issues. Fortunatelyfor everyone involved,it became more informal.This occasionally concerned,the Smithsonian Institutionwas amenable led to roughedges in the articulationof the repatriation to this resolution. activitiesof Zuni religiousleaders and successive tribal I now thinkit would have been betterif Zuni and the councils. At no time, however,did political leaders or SmithsonianInstitution had dealt only with the issue non-Indianstry to make decisions forthe Zuni religious thathad broughtthe Zunis to the museum,the repatria- leaders. tion ofthe Ahayu:da. In fact,after their experience with I foundthat at Zuni certaininformation requested by the SmithsonianInstitution, the Zunis triedto keep all museums was easier for a non-Indian to collect and negotiationswith othermuseums focusedon the Ahay- transmitthan for a Zuni who was not initiatedin the u:da. While it is understandablethat museums would properreligious societies or otherwisequalified to have like to deal with each tribeonce and only once to dis- it. By workingwith a non-Indian,the religiousleaders pense with all issues eitherparty may identify,this may maintained better control over the diffusionof privi- not always be in the interestof eitherthe tribeor the MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 549

museum. To do so may forcedecisions about repatria- the SmithsonianInstitution validated the Zuni position tion of sacred artifactsthat the tribe is not ready to on this issue. I hope that the SmithsonianInstitution's make, and this may result in tribes' requesting that actionwill teach collectorsthat it is unethicalto possess more artifactsbe repatriatedthan is warrantedby spiri- this type of cultural propertyand thus help discourage tual or culturalneeds. the black market in stolen sacred artifacts.Thefts of I hope that the implementationof the NAGPRA will Ahayu:daat Zuni have not entirelyceased. While all the not create a situation like that which occurredin the repatriatedAhayu:da are secure in theirfortified shrine, Zuni-Smithsonian Institutionnegotiations, with their some that have never left the reservationare in open, misplacedif well-intentioned attempt to forcedecisions unprotectedshrines, and three of these were stolen in about sacred items the curation of which was not a I990 (Fergusoniggob). The investigationof these thefts pressingconcern for the tribe.The impetusfor repatria- was impededby the factthat the specificAhayu:da were tionrequests should come fromthe religiousleaders of a not documented.To correctthis situation,Perry Tsadi- tribeon the basis of spiritualneeds. Since these spiritual asi and the Zuni ArchaeologyProgram have obtained needs may not manifestthemselves until some time in fundingfrom the Chamisa Foundationto document all the future,tribes should retainthe rightto requestrepa- existingAhayu:da at all of the shrines on the reserva- triationof sacred artifactswhenever the need arises. tion. It is hoped that this projectwill help deterthefts They should not be expectedto giveup theright to make (Othole,Tsadiasi, and Fergusoni992). futureclaims. The NAGPRA gives tribesimportant lee- way in decidingwhat human remains,funerary objects, and items of culturalpatrimony to request forrepatria- Conclusion tion.The schedule ofrepatriation requests should reflect the culturalneeds of Indian people and not the bureau- The Zuni-Smithsoniannegotiations for the repatriation craticand administrativeconvenience of museums. of the Ahayu:da were successful even though the two Two importantaspects ofthe Zuni approachthat were partiesjustified the returnon differentgrounds. For the instrumentalin the success oftheir campaign to recover Smithsonian Institution,the issue of title was para- Ahayu:daare documentationof the processand dissemi- mount.Once it had been determinedthat the Institution nation of information.From the outset, the Zuni reli- lacked good titleto the Ahayu:da,there was no question gious leaders expressedtheir concern that theiractions thatit would returnthem to the Zunis, just as it would be documentedso that a historycould be writtenthat any other item in comparable circumstances.In their explainedto futuregenerations of Zunis what they did I984 reformulationof theirposition, the Zuni religious and why. Also, the Zuni Tribe's willingnessto explain leaders noted that the SmithsonianInstitution's ratio- its point of view to museum personneland to publicize nale differedsignificantly from their own, indicating its concernsin appropriateforums in ways that did not that fromtheir perspectiveany object created on the compromise esoteric informationwas very useful in basis of Zuni knowledge belonged to the Zuni people, gaining supportfor its position (Ladd I983; Ferguson even if it had been made by non-Zunis. Althoughtheir I9goa, I99I; Fergusonand EriachoI990; HustitoI99I; concern for the returnof the Ahayu:da reflectedthe Martza199I; Tsadiasi i99i). greatreligious significance of these items, the justifica- Anotherimportant aspect of the campaignto repatri- tion for theirreturn was encompassed by this broader ate Ahayu:da has been a genuine concernfor the secu- principle,which resembles in many respectslaws gov- rity of the artifactsonce they have been returnedto erningrights to intellectualproperty. Zuni. The Zuni religiousleaders helped designand con- The Zunis and the Smithsonian Institutionworked structa culturallyappropriate but securefacility around out theirrespective positions in terms of the cultural one shrineto providephysical protection.Indian tribes and legal traditionswithin which each operatedat the requestingrepatriation of human remains and artifacts time. Future repatriationnegotiations between Indian should be ready,as the Zunis were, to addressquestions tribesand museums will take place within the frame- frommuseums about the securityof artifactsafter repa- work of the i990 Native American Graves Protection triation.I thinkthat museums, with a trustresponsibil- and RepatriationAct (Public Law IoI-6oI).6 It requires ity for the materials being repatriated,should be ethi- the reburialof Indian remains and gravegoods if so re- cally bound to raise this issue and do what they can to help resolve it in a manner appropriateto the tribe involved.It is in no one's interestto see repatriatedarti- 6. The Smithsonian Institution was excluded fromthe NAGPRA. facts stolen or otherwiseremoved fromtheir intended The repatriationof human remains and burial goods in all Smith- disposition. sonian collections was addressed in the legislation that established the The Zunis have National Museum of the American Indian (Public Law ioi- never denied that members of the I 8 5). Although Public Law I O I - I 8 5 does not mention the repatria- tribewere occasionally involved in theftsof Ahayu:da, tion of sacred objects and cultural patrimony,the Smithsonian's but theydo not thinkthat this justifiesthe thefts(and, Department of Anthropology and National Museum of Natural in fact,federal law does not distinguishbetween objects Historyhave decided to embrace the spiritand intent of the NAG- stolen by tribalmembers and those stolen by nonmem- PRA, broadeningits mandate to include consideration of the repa- triation of these categories of objects (Baugh, Bray, and Killion bers).By returningtwo Ahayu:da removedfrom shrines i992). It remains unclear what effect,if any, the NAGPRA will by Zuni bow priests(albeit one of them was Cushing), have on the continued application of i8 U.S.C.? II63. 550 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December I993 quested by culturallyaffiliated tribes or directlineal de- Zuni and the SmithsonianInstitution invested tens of scendants.It also authorizesrequests for repatriation of thousands of dollars and several years of stafftime in communally owned items of cultural patrimonythat reachinga mutually satisfactoryagreement. Yet these have "ongoinghistorical, traditional or culturalimpor- negotiations were relatively simple because detailed tance centralto the Native American groupor culture informationon Zuni cultureat the time that the Ahay- itself" and communally or individuallyowned sacred u:da entered the Smithsonian collections was readily objects, definedas "specific ceremonial objects which available and the collectionsthemselves were well docu- are needed by traditional Native American religious mented.Also, the issue ofwhether the Zunis were legit- leaders forthe practice of traditionalNative American imate claimantsdid not arise; the political and religious religionsby theirpresent-day adherents." organizationsof the Pueblo of Zuni have remainedrela- The NAGPRA calls forthe identificationof the neces- tivelyunchanged over the past century,and the religious sarilyvaguely defined"sacred artifacts"and "cultural and political officialsagreed on how the negotiations patrimony"in specificmuseum collectionsthrough the with the SmithsonianInstitution were to be handled. exchangeof information and perspectivesbetween tribes Negotiationswill be more complicated in the case of and museums, but it does not specifyhow these ex- tribes that lack this continuityand consensus and in changesare to take place. Similarly,the proposedregula- situations in which documentationis uneven. Tribal tions forimplementing the act, which the Department and museum representativesshould take these various of the Interiorpublished in May I993, deal with all the factorsinto consideration when establishing budgets stages of the process but in a ratherschematic fashion. and timeframes for their negotiations and should expect Althoughthe procedureswill undoubtedlydiffer some- that these will have to be adjusted over time. what fromcase to case, the Zuni-Smithsonianexperi- In requestingthe repatriationof museum collections, ence offerssome suggestions as to how negotiations tribesshould avoid makingblanket requests such as for should be conducted. "all sacred objects." Instead, they should indicate spe- At the outset,each partyshould commititself to un- cificitems and providea detailed explanationof the sig- derstandingthe concernsand perspectivesof the other nificanceof these items and the justificationfor their and to reachinga mutually satisfactoryagreement in a return.An effortshould be made to supportcontempo- nonconfrontationalfashion. Everyoneinvolved should raryperspectives on these items with informationde- recognizethat vast culturaldifferences potentially sepa- rived from well-established traditions or published rate museums and tribes (as well as one tribe from sources,especially informationfrom the time periodin another)and that their concepts of, for example, "an which the items entered the museums' collections. object" and of "sacred" may differradically. In the Tribal representativesshould not invent traditionsfor Zuni-Smithsoniannegotiations, a common goal was these objects,nor should theyallow short-termpolitical reached,but the reasons givenby the two partiesto jus- gain for themselves to motivate repatriationrequests. tifythe resultwere quite different.In otherrepatriation For theirpart, museums should share all the informa- cases, the goals and justificationsmay be so divergent tion that theyhave on the collections in question with that resolution will require considerable compromise the tribalrepresentatives. and the creationof entirelynew perspectiveson the is- This informationas well as othercommunications be- sues at hand. tween the tribesand museums should be writtendown, In every repatriationrequest, each partyshould ap- so that the negotiationswill not be hampered if the point appropriatepersons to handle negotiationson a tribalor museum representativesshould change.At the day-to-daybasis. These personswill usually be not tribal same time, these representativesshould discuss these political leaders or museum administratorsbut individ- writtenstatements in detail to ensure that their mes- uals who fullyappreciate the importanceof the items sages and intentionsare clear. They should also meet at in question to both the tribesand the museums and can both the museums and the tribal lands to allow each focus their attention on reaching an equitable agree- partythe opportunityto presentits views in a familiar ment. Ideally, the tribal representativesshould have setting,to discuss the issues with othermembers of the some familiaritywith museums and the museum repre- tribesor museum staffs,and in general to understand sentatives should be knowledgeable about the tribes one anotherbetter. Meaningful consultation is an expen- withwhich theyare dealing.These representativesneed sive processfor all parties,and means need to be devel- not have the authorityto make final decisions (which oped to fund the work that the NAGPRA has set in presumablywill reside in religious leaders, tribal offi- motion.When a decision is reachedto repatriatehuman cials, and museum administrators),and theiractivities remains or artifacts,tribes should provide museums should not be disruptedby changesin tribalor museum with explicitand detailed instructionson the culturally administrations. appropriateprotocol for packing and shippingthose ma- It is extremelyimportant that both tribesand muse- terials.If such instructionsare not volunteered,muse- ums recognizethat the amount of time and money re- ums should request them in orderto be sure that they quiredto assemble informationand reach an agreement are proceedingin an appropriateand respectfulmanner. can be substantialand will vary considerablyfrom one Finally,tribes and museums should employthe repa- collection to another, even when the collections triationnegotiations as a contextwithin which to ex- are comparablein size and complexity.The Pueblo of plorealternatives to repatriationand possibilitiesfor co- MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da | 55I

operationin other projects (Boyd and Haas i992). For ers, entitled "Exhibition of Zuni Masks at the Smithsonian" example, if tribes are concerned that items might be and "Publications on Zuni Masked Ceremonies." damaged or lost if they were permanentlyreturned, an 3 December [ca.]. Undated note, JohnC. Ewers to William C. Sturtevant. agreementmight be reached in which the museums 3 December. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto JohnC. would continue to care for the items but would turn Ewers. themover to the tribesupon request.At the least, tribes 7 December. Memorandum, Ad Hoc Committee on Zuni Mask might consider allowing museums to preparedetailed Exhibit to R. S. Cowan. documentationof the items so that a record of them I0 December. Memorandum, R. S. Cowan to JohnC. Ewers.

would remainif the items themselvesshould be lost or I97I stolen. In some circles, the passage of the Native American 29 January.Memorandum, R. S. Cowan to Department of Anthro- Graves Protection and RepatriationAct has been re- pology staff.

gardedas a devastatingblow to museums, threatening I972 to dismantleirreplaceable scientific collections at a time when increasing numbers of scholars are relyingon 23 March. Note, R. S. Cowan to William Fitzhugh. these collections in their research.The impact of this 7 April. Letter,R. S. Cowan to Governor Robert Lewis. I June[ca.]. Letter,Governor Robert Lewis to R. S. Cowan. legislationwill likelybe greateron the extensivecollec- 5 June.Note, R. S. Cowan to CliffordEvans. tions of skeletal remains and burial goods, for which repatriationis now a mandated option, than on ethno- I978 graphiccollections, which oftencontain few sacred ob- jects or items of cultural patrimony.From an "ethno- 8 February.Letter, Richard Conn to Governor Edison Laselute. 3 April. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal Council. graphic"perspective, this new law can be seen as the 6 April. Transcription of report,Federal Bureau of Investigation. logical next step in the evolving relationshipbetween 7 April. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Vincent Indianpeople and museums, creatingan opportunityfor Wilcox. tribesand museums to work togetherto increaseunder- io April. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Vincent Wilcox. standingof American Indian cultureand history.We be- io April. Memorandum, Vincent Wilcox to William Fitzhugh, lieve that the negotiationsbetween the Pueblo of Zuni JohnEwers, William C. Sturtevant,Herman Viola, JamesHan- and the Smithsonian Institutionfor the returnof the son, and Marie Malaro. Ahayu:daoffer an excellentexample ofthe positiveben- i i April. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Barton Martza. efits that can result when such negotiationsare con- I 5 April. Note, BryantRogers (Indian Pueblo Legal Services) to T. J.Ferguson. ducted in the context of mutual respect and under- 20 April. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting between Zuni and Smith- standing. sonian representativesat the Smithsonian. 20 April. Notes, JaneWalsh (staffmember, Department of An- thropology,Smithsonian), meeting between Zuni and Smith- sonian representativesat the Smithsonian. 2I April. Memorandum, William Fitzhugh to Vincent Wilcox, List of Unpublished Materials Consulted William C. Sturtevant,James Glenn, James Hanson, Marie Malaro, and PorterKier. I970 3 May. Letter,James Hanson to T. J.Ferguson. 5 May. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Margaret 27 October. Note, JamesBradley to Sidney R. Galler. Hardin. 29 October. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto Sidney R. 5 May. Letter,Timothy LaFrance to William James (assistant at- Galler. torneygeneral, state of Colorado). 29 October. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto George 9 May. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal Council. Phebus. io May. Memorandum, William Fitzhugh to William C. Stur- 30 October. Work order,Clifford Evans to George Phebus. tevant. 4 November. Memorandum, R. S. Cowan to Sidney R. Galler. i i May. Letter,Governor Edison Laselute to James Hanson. 9 November. Memorandum, Sidney R. Galler to R. S. Cowan, ii May. Letter,William R. James to Hardin Holmes. CliffordEvans, and William C. Sturtevant. ii May. Letter,W. H. Van Duzer (deputy city attorney,city and io November. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto Sidney R. county of Denver) to Hardin Holmes. Galler. I7 May. Letter,Nancy Dick (Representative,Colorado House of io November. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto George Representatives)to Hardin Holmes. Phebus. I9 May. Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with James IO November. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto file. Hanson. IO November. Note, R. S. Cowan to CliffordEvans. I9 May. Letter,James Hanson to Governor Edison Laselute. IO November. Memorandum, JohnC. Ewers to CliffordEvans. 25 May. Memorandum, Vincent Wilcox to George Phebus. iI November. Note, CliffordEvans to William C. Sturtevant. 30 May. Memorandum, Governor and Zuni Tribal Council to I2 November. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto R. S. Zuni religious leaders, tribal employees, individuals working Cowan. on behalf of the tribe on subject of "Coordination of Tribal Ef- 24 November. Memorandum, R. S. Cowan to JohnC. Ewers. fortsto Secure Protection and Return of Objects of Traditional 25 November. Memorandum, R. S. Cowan to Sidney R. Galler. Religious Significance to the Zuni People." I December. Memorandum, JohnC. Ewers to Ad Hoc Com- 3I May. Memorandum, BryantRogers to Governor Edison Lase- mittee. lute, Councilman Chester Mahooty, and Zuni religious leaders. i December. Memorandum, William C. Sturtevantto JohnC. i June.Letter, William Fitzhugh to T. J.Ferguson. Ewers. 7 June.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Governor Edison Lase- i December [ca.]. Two undated reports,prepared by JohnC. Ew- lute and Councilman Chester Mahooty. 552 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December I993

I 3 June.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Wilfred Eriacho. 8 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo Hustito, 2o June.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Edmund Mrs.Alonzo Hustito,and CharlesHustito (Bear clan leader Ladd. and relatives). 2i June.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to GovernorEdison Lase- 9 October.Letter, Allen Kallestewa(Deer clan),Alonzo Hustito lute and CouncilmanChester Mahooty. (Bearclan), Chester Mahooty (councilman), and T. J.Ferguson 22 June.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to GovernorEdison Laselute (tribalarchaeologist) to Linda Eisenhart. and CouncilmanChester Mahooty. 9 October.Letter, Allen Kallestewa(Deer clan),Alonzo Hustito 26 June.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Porter Kier, Herman (Bearclan), and Bow PriestsVictor Niihi, Juan Qualo, Blair Viola,and WilliamC. Sturtevantat Smithsonian. Amesoli,Mike Leekela,Dexter Cellicion, and PerryTsadiasi 26 June.Memorandum, Bryant Rogers to Zuni Govemorand to JohnL. Marion(chairman, Sotheby Parke-Bernet). TribalCouncil and religiousleaders. io October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Victor Niihi 28 June.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meetings with Edmund Ladd, (headwar chief). ChesterMahooty, and MarkBarnes (National Park Service). Io October.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand 7 July.Memorandum, Bryant Rogers to Zuni Governor,Chester TribalCouncil. Mahooty,and religiousleaders. 17 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with 8 July.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to Dr. SidneyBrinkerhoff JamesHanson. (director,Arizona Historical Society). I8 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo Hustito I9 July.Two memoranda,T. J.Ferguson to GovernorEdison La- and TrilokiPandey. selute,Councilman Chester Mahooty, and Zuni religious I9 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meetings with Triloki Pandey leaders. and AlfonsoOrtiz. 3 August.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni religious I9 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Bryant Rogers leaders. and Hayes Lewis (governor'sson). I0 August.Letter, Howard Chapman (regional director, National 2o October.Receipt, Federal Bureau of Investigation, for Ahay- ParkService) to GovernorEdison Laselute. u:da fromSotheby Parke-Bernet. i8 August.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meetings at Zuni Pueblo. 2o October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Tri- 25 August.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to HowardChapman. loki Pandeyand meetingswith Zuni religiousleaders. 25 August.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to PorterKier. 2o October.Memorandum, James Hanson to WilliamFitzhugh, 29 August.Letter, Governor Edison Laselute to Rod Sauvageau WilliamC. Sturtevant,John C. Ewers,and MarieMalaro. (TradeWinds West Auction Gallery). 22 October.Receipt, Robert Collins (assistantU.S. attorney,state i September.Letter, Porter Kier to T. J.Ferguson. ofNew Mexico),for Ahayu:da brought by TrilokiPandey from i September.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to GovernorEdison Lase- SothebyParke-Bernet. lute and CouncilmanChester Mahooty. 24 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Bryant Rogers. 6 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni religious 24 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with leaders. DyndeAndrews (attorney provided by MaytagFoundation). 8 September.Letter, Howard Chapman to GovernorEdison La- 24 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Rob- selute. ertCollins. I3 September.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governor 25 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to PorterKier. and TribalCouncil. 25 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamC. Sturtevant. I 5 September.Memorandum, James Hanson to WilliamC. Stur- 25 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamFitzhugh. tevant. 25 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to JamesHanson. I8 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Governor Rob- 25 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to VincentWilcox. ertLewis. 25 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meetings with Bryant Rogers, 20 September."Statement of Religious Leaders of the Puebloof MichaelTaylor (Indian Pueblo Legal Services),Triloki Pandey, Zuni ConcerningSacred Zuni ReligiousItems/Artifacts, Pre- and BarbaraMills. paredby Wilfred Eriacho, Official Tribal Translator, from a 26 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Bryant Rogers. WrittenTranscript in the Zuni Languageof a Meetingof the 26 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversations with La- ReligiousLeaders of the Pueblo ofZuni k-eldon May 9, I978." Donna Harris(Americans for Indian Opportunity) and James 2i September."Request to the NationalMuseum of Natural His- Steinbaugh(U.S. Fish and WildlifeService). tory,Smithsonian Institution, for Assistance in Securing 27 October.Memorandum, James Hanson to WilliamFitzhugh, Achievementof Goals Identifiedin the 'Statementof Religious WilliamC. Sturtevant,John C. Ewers,and MarieMalaro. Leadersof the Puebloof Zuni ConcerningSacred Zuni Reli- 3I October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Barbara Mills giousItems/Artifacts,' Dated September2o, I978." and DurkusMannheim. 23 September.Resolution No. M70-78-99I, Zuni TribalCouncil. 3I October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Mag- 26 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting between Zuni and gie Gover(Americans for Indian Opportunity). Smithsonianrepresentatives at the Smithsonian. 3I October.Letter, Governor Edison Laselute to Ann L. Maytag 26 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Edmund Ladd. (Maytag Foundation). 29 September.Letter, William Fitzhugh to T. J.Ferguson. 3I October.Note, Marie Malaro to JamesHanson. 29 September.Memorandum, William Fitzhugh to WilliamC. 2 November.Affidavit, Triloki Pandey. Sturtevant,John C. Ewers,Bruce Smith, Vincent Wilcox, James 6 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversations with Hanson,Marie Malaro, and PorterKier. MaggieGover, Robert Collins, Dynde Andrews, and Bryant 29 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Rogers. WilliamC. Sturtevant. 7 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Barbara Mills 29 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo Hus- and ThaddeusBejnar (Indian Pueblo Legal Services). tito,Edmund Ladd, Durkus Manning (Indian Pueblo Legal Ser- 7 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Mr. vices),Bryant Rogers, and BarbaraMills (Zuni Archaeology Waldo(U.S. attorney,state of Washington). Program). 8 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Bruce Boynton i October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni religious (IndianPueblo Legal Services)and BryantRogers. leaders. 9 November.Letter, B. Reid Halton (Norhaus,Moses, and Dunn) 5 October."Request to SothebyParke-Bernet, Inc., for Assistance to LaDonna Harris. in SecuringAchievement of Goals Identifiedin the 'Statement IO November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Ed- ofReligious Leaders of the Pueblo ofZuni ConcerningSacred mundLadd. Zuni ReligiousItems/Artifacts,' Dated September20, I978." i I November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Steve LaBlanc MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:daI 553

(MimbresFoundation), Bryant Rogers, Thaddeus Bejnar, Alonzo withthe Denver Art Museum Board of Trustees and Collec- Hustito,Lowell Panteah,Chester Mahooty, and AndrewNapet- tionsCommittee. cha (tribalhistorian). I0 January."Draft of Statementto be DeliveredJan. IO, I979, to i2 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with As- theBoard of Trustees and CollectionsCommittee of the Den- sistantU.S. AttorneyRobert Collins. verArt Museum," by TimothyLaFrance. I 3 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal I I January."Notes froma Discussionon AmericanIndian Cere- Council. monialObjects and Restorationvs. Fake Objects,Held January I3 November.Letter, T. J.Ferguson Cal Seciwa (ParalegalPro- II, I979, MillicentRogers Museum." Manuscriptprepared by gram,University of New Mexico Law Center). and on fileat MillicentRogers Museum, Taos, New Mexico. I3 November.Letter, Governor Edison Laselute to PorterKier. i2 January.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand I5 November.Letter, Maggie Gover to JohnA. Tucker(Rutter TribalCouncil. and Ebert). I8 January.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to TimothyLaFrance. 2o November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo 22 January.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand Hustito. TribalCouncil. 2o November.Notes. T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Thaddeus 24 January.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Barton Martza. Bejnar. 26 January.Letter, Porter Kier to T. J.Ferguson. 2i November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal 3I January.Memorandum, William Fitzhugh to WilliamC. Stur- Council. tevant. 2i November.Letter, Porter Kier to GovernorEdison Laselute. io February.Press release, Denver Art Museum, regarding return 22 November.Letter, William C. Sturtevantto GovernorEdison ofAhayu:da to Pueblo ofZuni. Laselute. i6 February.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal 29 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Timothy La- Council. France. i6 February.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to ThomasMaytham. 6 December.Letter, Thomas Maytham to TimothyLaFrance. 24 February.Letter, Thomas Maytham to TimothyLaFrance. 8 December.Deed ofGift from David I. Olch to Americansfor I4 March.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Freder- IndianOpportunity. ick Mayer(member, Board of Directors, Denver Art Museum). i i December.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to BryantRogers. I9 March.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Freder- i i December.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to TimothyLaFrance. ick Mayer. i i December.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to ThaddeusBejnar. 2i March.Resolution, Denver Art Museum. i i December.Letter, John A. Tuckerto MaggieGover. 22 March.Letter, Thomas Maytham to GovernorRobert Lewis. I3 December.Note, Bryant Rogers to T. J.Ferguson. 28 March.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to SteveMunsinger (U.S. At- i5 December.Receipt of gift by Americansfor Indian Opportu- torney'sOffice, Denver). nity,signed by LaDonna Harris. 28 March.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to NancyDick (lieutenant i5 December.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to Tom O'Hare (Officeof the governor,state of Colorado). Solicitor,Department of the Interior). 28 March.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to MarilynYoungbird. I5 December.Memorandum, James Hanson to JohnC. Ewers, 28 March.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to EdmundLadd. JaneGlazer (program manager, Office of Museum Programs, 30 March.Press release, Denver Art Museum, entitled "Resolu- SmithsonianInstitution), William Fitzhugh, Marie Malaro, and tionof Discussionsbetween the DenverArt Museum and the WilliamC. Sturtevant. Puebloof Zuni." I9 December.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Bry- io April.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo Hustito. ant Rogers. I7 April.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamC. Sturtevant. 2o December. Resolution M70-78-Io2o, Zuni Tribal Council. 4 June.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to ThomasMaytham. 2o December.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Edmund Ladd, 4 June.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to TimothyLaFrance. ChesterMahooty, and DorothyMahooty. 7 June.Letter, Louise C. Renoux(Denver Art Museum) to T. J. 2o December.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal Ferguson. Council. I I June.Letter, Susan McGreevy(director, Wheelwright Mu- 27 December.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal seum)and CatherineHewitt (assistant curator, Wheelwright Council. Museum)to BarbaraJ. Mills. 28 December.Letter, Zuni religiousleaders to DenverArt Mu- 2i June.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni religious seumBoard of Trustees. leaders. 28 December.Letter, Bryant Rogers to Tom O'Hare. I4 August.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal 28 December.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni religious Council. leaders. 27 August.Letter, Thomas Maytham to GovernorRobert Lewis. December[no day given]."The IndianReligious Freedom Act 27 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Young Project:Results of Preliminary Legal Surveyof Indian Reli- AdultConservation Corps. giousIssues. Reportto the NativeAmerican Rights Fund and 9 November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Councilman theAdvisory Board," by the AmericanIndian Law Center,Uni- PesancioLasiloo, Zuni YoungAdult Conservation Corps, and versityof New Mexico. PerryParton (superintendent, Zuni Agency,Bureau of Indian Affairs). I979 9 November.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis (signedby Lieuten- ant GovernorTheodore Edaakie) to PerryParton. 4 January.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson, to Zuni Governorand 9 November.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to VirgilPablo (Zuni TribalCouncil. Agency,Bureau of Indian Affairs). 4 January.Letter, Timothy LaFrance to Thomas Maytham. 2o November.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamC. Sturtevant. 4 January.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversations with Timo- 28 November.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to Elizabeth thyLaFrance. Childs. 4 January,Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal Council. 9 January.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting of Zuni delegationto I980 theDenver Art Museum with staff of theNative American RightsFund, Boulder, Colorado. 22 January.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to ThomasMaytham. io January.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting of Zuni delegation 22 January.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to ThomasMaytham. 554 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993

24 January.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to RichardHill (NorthAmeri- ihi and BartonMartza to retrievethree Ahayu:da from the Den- can IndianMuseums Association). verArt Museum. i February.Letter, Richard Hill to T. J.Ferguson. 2i October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Edmund Ladd, 4 February.Letter, Kenneth Canfield (Editor, Native Arts/WEST) AllenKallestewa, and Ben Kallestewa. to T. J.Ferguson. 22 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni religious 25 February.Letter, Thomas Maytham to GovernorRobert leaders. Lewis. 22 October.Letter, Bruce W. Chambers(director, University of 5 March.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to KennethCanfield. Iowa Museumof Art) to GovernorRobert Lewis. IO March.Letter, Kenneth Canfield to GovernorRobert Lewis. 23 October.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to Thomas Maytham. i2 March.Notes, T. J.Ferguson and EdmundLadd, meeting with 28 October.Letter, Arthur Wolf to GovernorRobert Lewis. Zuni TribalCouncil, Chester Mahooty, and Ben Kallestewa. 28 October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Ben Kallestewa. I4 March.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to ThomasMaytham. 29 October.Letter, Richard Conn and ThomasCongdon (chair, I4 March.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to RichardHill. CollectionsCommittee, Denver Art Museum) to theTribal i8 March.Letter, Richard Hill to T. J.Ferguson. Council,religious leaders, and peopleof Zuni. 26 March.Letter, Richard Hill to GovemorRobert Lewis. 29 October.Return receipt for three Ahayu:da from Denver Art 7 April.Letter, Thomas Maytham to GovernorRobert Lewis. Museumto Puebloof Zuni. 9 April.Letter, Jim Wake (NativeAmerican Center for the Living 30 October.Press release, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Arts)to T. J.Ferguson. 3I October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal 25 April.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to ThomasMaytham. Council. I May. Letter,Thomas Maythamto GovernorRobert Lewis. 3 November.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to JoelCarson (Fed- i6 May. Notes,T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo Hustito. eralBureau of Investigation). 22 May. Notes. T. J.Ferguson, meeting of Zuni TribalCouncil IO November.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Ben Kal- withrepresentatives of Denver Art Museum at Zuni. lestewa. 22 May. Letter,George Ewing (director, Museum of New Mex- i i November.Travel voucher, Pueblo of Zuni, forVictor Niihi ico) to T. J.Ferguson. (bowpriest) for trip to DenverArt Museum to retrievethree 23 May. Letter,Richard Conn to GovernorRobert Lewis. Ahayu:da. 27 May. Letter,Governor Robert Lewis to Mr. and Mrs.Alexan- I9 November.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to ArthurWolf. derGirard (collectors). 25 November.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to VincentWilcox. 30 May. Letter,Richard Conn to T. J.Ferguson. i8 December.Letter, Richard Hill to T. J.Ferguson. IO June.Letter, Gamett Owaleon (Zuni YoungAdult Conserva- 23 December.Letter, Vincent Wilcox to T. J.Ferguson. tionCorps) to GovernorRobert Lewis. I4 June.Letter, Richard Hill to GovernorRobert Lewis. I98I 25 June.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal Council. 6 January.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to RichardHill. 5 July.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to SallyWagner (collector). 6 January.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Rose Wyaco. 8 July.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to RichardHill. I4 January.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to ArthurWolf. 8 July.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to JoanLester (Boston Chil- I9 January.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to Douglas Ubelaker. dren'sMuseum). I9 January."Request for the Returnof Zuni SacredMaterial and 8 July.Letter, Richard Conn to KennethCanfield. Recommendationsfor the Care and Curationof Objects of I2 July.Letter, Kenneth Canfield to RichardConn. Zuni ReligiousSignificance in the Collectionof the Smithson- I August.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to ArthurWolf (direc- ian Institution.Presented to the NationalMuseum of Natural tor,Millicent Rogers Museum). History,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Prepared I4 August.Letter, Susan McGreevyto GovernorRobert Lewis. byBen Kallestewaand EdmundJ. Ladd in Consultationwith I9 August.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Wil- Zuni ReligiousLeaders and Elders.Submitted by the Puebloof liam C. Sturtevant. Zuni,January 198I." 2o August.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to EdmundLadd. 2o January.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to BruceW. 25 August.Letter, Arthur Wolf to GovernorRobert Lewis. Chambers. 3 September.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to RichardHill. 22 January.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Zuni Tribal 3 September.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to RobertL. Barrel Council. (director,Pacific Area, National Park Service). 24 February.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to JohnEcho-Hawk 4 September.Contract, North American Indian Museums Associ- (NativeAmerican Rights Fund). ationand Pueblo ofZuni. 24 February.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to TimothyLa- 9 September.Letter, Richard Hill to GovernorRobert Lewis. France. 9 September.Letter, Richard Hill to T. J.Ferguson. 4 March.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to GovernorRobert I9 September.Letter, Richard Hill (director,Native American Lewis. Centerfor the LivingArts) to Rose Wyaco(Zuni Archaeology 12 March.Letter, Douglas Ubelakerto GovernorRobert Lewis. Program). i9 March.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to Ms. Cockrell(Association of 22 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Alonzo AmericanIndian Affairs). Hustito. 4 May. Letter,William L. Merrillto GovernorRobert Lewis. 23 September.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, meeting with Ben Kal- 7 May. Letter,William L. Merrillto T. J.Ferguson. lestewa. i5 May. Memorandum,T. J.Ferguson to Zuni TribalCouncil. 24 September.Travel authorization, Pueblo ofZuni, forEdmund i5 May. Notes,T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Edmund Ladd. Ladd. 25 September.Letter, Robert L. Barrelto GovernorRobert Lewis. i 5 May. Letter,Governor Robert Lewis to Douglas Ubelaker. 29 September.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to EdmundLadd. I9 May. Letter,Bruce W. Chambersto GovernorRobert Lewis. 30 September.Receipt of Transfer of Ahayu:da from Wheel- 26 May. Memorandum,T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand wrightMuseum to Pueblo ofZuni. TribalCouncil. i October.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to GovernorRobert I6 June.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand Lewis. TribalCouncil. 8 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to RichardHill. I6 June.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to BruceW. Chambers. IO October.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Eliza- i6 June.Letter. Governor Robert Lewis to Mr. and Mrs.Alexan- bethKing (University Museum, University of Pennsylvania). derGirard. 2i October.Travel authorization, Pueblo ofZuni, forVictor Ni- 22 June.Letter, Bruce W. Chambersto GovernorRobert Lewis. MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:daI 555

2o July.Receipt of deliveryof Ahayu:da, University of Iowa Mu- 28 March.William L. Merrill,"Report on the Requestfor the Re- seum ofArt, Jean Weber (director, Museum of New Mexico). turnof SacredObjects from the Collectionsof the Department 28 July.Receipt of deliveryof Ahayu:da from University of Iowa ofAnthropology, Smithsonian Institution." Museumof Art to the Pueblo ofZuni. 23 October.Letter, Adrienne Kaeppler to GovernorChauncey 28 July.Letter, Jean Weber to BruceChambers. Simplicio. 29 July.Letter, Alonzo Hustito,Chester Mahooty, and Charles 29 December.Letter, Governor Chauncey Simplicio to Adrienne Hustitoto BruceChambers. Kaeppler. 29 July.Letter, Alonzo Hustito,Chester Mahooty, and Charles Hustitoto JeanWeber. I987 29 July.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand TribalCouncil. 7 December.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamL. Merrill. 7 January.Notes, William L. Merrill,phone conversation with 2i December.Letter, William L. Merrillto T. J.Ferguson. GovernorRobert Lewis. February[no daygiven]. Joint statement by Pueblo ofZuni and Smithsonian i982 Institutionregarding return of two Ahayu:da. i8 February.Memorandum, William L. Merrillto MaryJo Ar- 2 February.Memorandum, William L. Merrillto Douglas Ube- noldi(chair, Accessions Committee, Department of Anthropol- laker. ogy,Smithsonian Institution). 2 April.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamL. Merrill. 3 March.Memorandum, Adrienne Kaeppler to RobertHoffman (director,National of Smithsonian I3 April.Letter, Joan Lester to GovernorEdison Laselute. Museum NaturalHistory, I9 April.Memorandum, Marie Malaro to Douglas Ubelaker. Institution). 4 May. Letter,Douglas Ubelakerto GovernorRobert Lewis. i i March.Memorandum, William L. Merrillto MargaretSanti- 4 May. "The SmithsonianInstitution's Response to the 'Request ago (registrar,National Museum of Natural History, Smithson- forthe Returnof Zuni SacredMaterial and Recommendations ian Institution). forthe Care and Curationof Objects of Zuni ReligiousSignifi- i i March.Memorandum, William L. Merrillto Katherine cance in the Collectionof the SmithsonianInstitution,' Sub- Sprague(Office of Grantsand Risk Management,Smithsonian Institution). mittedby the Puebloof Zuni, JanuaryI98I." I4 March. for returned SmithsonianInstitu- I7 May. Letter,William L. Merrillto EdmundLadd. Receipt Ahayu:da by tionto Puebloof Zuni. I7 May. Letter,William L. Merrillto T. J.Ferguson. I5 March. forreturn of the Zuni war fromthe I3 September.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to WilliamL. Merrill. Tripreport gods Smithsonian Zuni Archaeol- 28 September.Letter, William L. Merrillto T. J.Ferguson. Institution,Roger Anyon (director, ogyProgram). I7 July.Letter, Linda Cheetham(research assistant, Pitt Rivers I983 Museum)to WilliamL. Merrill. 30 October.Letter, Governor Robert Lewis to JordonP. Davis I6 May. Letter,William L. Merrillto GovernorQuincy Panteah. (MorningStar Gallery). 25 May. Letter,Alvin Abrams (Eagle Properties, Inc.), to Susan i2 November.Notes, Edmund Ladd, meeting of Zuni delegation Collins (Zuni ArchaeologyProgram). withMorning Star Gallery, Santa Fe. 3 June.Letter, Governor Quincy Panteah to AlvinAbrams. I7 November.Letter, Linda Cheetham(n6e Mowat) to William L. Merrill. I984

i February.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Rich- I989 ardHart. i i July.Notes, T. J.Ferguson and RichardHart, meeting with I3 February.Letter, William L. Merrillto T. J.Ferguson. Zuni TribalCouncil. I7 July.Letter, Governor Chauncey Simplicio to Douglas Ube- 1990 laker. I7 July."Request for Immediate Return of the Zuni Ahayu:da 24 January.Notes, William L. Merrill,interview with Margaret and Reformulationof Zuni Positionon OtherSacred Objects Hardin. in the Collectionof the SmithsonianInstitution. Prepared by 5 February.Notes, T. J.Ferguson, phone conversation with Bar- the Puebloof Zuni and Submittedto the SmithsonianInstitu- tonMartza. tion,July I984." I7 July.Letter, Governor Chauncey Simplicio to AlvinAbrams. i6 October.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Celia Tsabetsaye I99I (Zuni TribalAdministrator). 28 June.Notes, William L. Merrill,interview with William I7 October.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to AlvinAbrams. Fitzhugh. 24 October.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Zuni Governorand I 5 July.Notes, William L. Merrill,interview with William C. TribalCouncil. Sturtevant. 26 October.Letter, Governor Chauncey Simplicio to Charles I6 July.Notes, William L. Merrill,interview with James Hanson. Rippy(Tulsa ZoologicalPark). 27 September.T. J.Ferguson, interview with Edmund J. Ladd. 5 November.Letter, Alvin Abrams to Pueblo ofZuni. I5 November.Memorandum, T. J.Ferguson to Governor ChaunceySimplicio and Zuni TribalCouncil. I992

i985 22 December.Letter, Marie C. Malaro to WilliamL. Merrilland T. J.Ferguson. 28 February.Letter, T. J.Ferguson to AlvinAbrams. I993 I986 7 January.Letter, Richard Cowan to WilliamL. Merrill. 28 March.Memorandum, William L. Merrillto Adrienne 29 January.Letter, Lauryn G. Grant(Office of the GeneralCoun- Kaeppler. sel, SmithsonianInstitution) to T. J.Ferguson. 556 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993

Comments religiousand political ideals of the North AmericanIn- dians,whereas little creditis allottedto the importance of the scientificstudy of the materials,particularly bio- ELIZABETH CRUWYS medical researchon skeletal material.In a way, Merrill Scott Polar Research Institute,University of et al. are guiltyof the same charge. Cambridge,Lensfield Rd., Cambridge CB2 iER, Zimmerman(i989:2ii), has notedthat the return of U.K. I7 VI 93 artefactsmay be used by reactionarygroups as a means to attractpublic attentionto theircause. It is important The debate concerningthe repatriationof culturalarte- thatcuration and ownershipof museum collectionsnot facts and human skeletal remains has been gathering become political tools, eitheras an example of oppres- momentum during the past 20 years, and, although sion of and insensitivityto minoritycultures or as an there are several examples of compromises between insularantipathy to scientificresearch. NorthAmerican indigenous peoples and archaeologists, The legal positionregarding the repatriationof archae- anthropologists,and museums (Ubelaker and Grant ological artefactsand human skeletal remainscontinues i989), no clear solution has yet emerged.As Zimmer- to be uncertain and varies between countries and, in man (i989:28i-82) has pointedout, no solutionis likely America,between states. Perhaps this is advantageous to be achieved until fundamentalquestions have been bothfor groups requesting the returnof ancestralcollec- answered,or at least considered,relating to the past and tions and for archaeologists and anthropologistscon- to culturalrelativism (e.g., can anyone "own" the past cernedto preservethese collectionsin museums forfur- and its relics,and, if so, who?). ther research and education. My interpretationof the These issues are consideredin detail by Merrillet al. protractednegotiations between the Zuni and the using the example of the Zuni Ahayu:da. I found the Smithsonianis that each groupreached a greaterunder- nonconfrontationalmanner of the Zuni-Smithsonian standingof the position of the other, allowing an in- negotiationsencouraging and was impressedby the care formedconclusion to be reached. It would seem from and concernvoiced by both sides, coupled with a genu- the Zuni example that it is importantthat each case ine desire not only to take the correctdecision legally be consideredon its individualmerits and that any law and ethicallybut to base the decision on carefulresearch designedto apply to all claims by all ethnic groupsfor and an understandingof the particularimportance of all claimed items will be cumbersomeand may result these artefactsto Zuni religion.The returnof these par- in unsatisfactoryconclusions for both parties. The ticular items highlightsone of the basic problems in Smithsonian representatives,after appropriatediscus- the debate. Merrill et al. note that in April I978 the sion,research, and consideration,reached a decisionthat Smithsonian representatives'position was that they theyconsidered ethical. It would seem that othermuse- "had a trustresponsibility to preservethese collections ums and institutionsshould be permittedto make their forall people ... theycould not in good conscience turn own decisions, in the same way that ethnic groupsare overany objects withoutassurances that theywould be able to make their own claims for the repatriationof affordedthe care and securityrequired by modem mu- specificartefacts, on the basis of informedopinion and seum practices." But Ladd indicates that "the whole negotiationrather than generallaws. museum concept of preservationof artifactsis alien to Zuni religiousculture" and thatprolonging the "process ofdisintegration. . . is .. . wrong."It has been suggested ALAN S. DOWNER thatsome artefactsshould be givento indigenousgroups Navajo Nation Historic PreservationDepartment, to curatein theirown museums; because the Zuni reli- WindowRock, Ariz. 86515, U.S.A. 24 VI 93 gious leadersbelieve thatpublic displayof the Ahayu:da is wrong,this compromisewould not have been a viable Merrill,Ladd, and Ferguson'simportant and timelyarti- optionfor this case. There could be no compromisehere, cle offersinvaluable historical perspectiveand insight and one side had to yield to the other-in this case, the into the process leading to the returnof the Ahayu:da Smithsonianto the Zuni. The Ahayu:da are in a shrine, and providesadvice based on this experiencethat will albeit fortified,in the open air, graduallyreturning to be ofconsiderable value in facilitatingdiscussions under the earth throughexposure to the elements in accor- the provisionsof the Native American Graves Protec- dance with Zuni religiousbeliefs. Even models of them tion and RepatriationAct (NAGPRA). This provocative have been deemed sensitiveand inappropriatefor public articleraises many issues and invites many comments, display.If and when new methods of scientificanalysis but I restrictmyself here to considerationof the muse- are developed,no matterhow manyphotographs or mea- ums' fiduciaryobligations to Native Americans. surementswere taken (and Zuni religious leaders may Merrill,Ladd, and Fergusonurge both museums and question whetherthis would be acceptable), they will American Indians to commit themselves to "under- not be applied to these Ahayu:da. The originalAhayu:da standingthe concernsand perspectivesof the otherand will yield no more informationto the Zuni people or to reachinga mutuallysatisfactory agreement in a non- other researchersabout the historic culture of North confrontationalfashion." This is certainly a worthy America.Ubelaker and Grant(i989) have suggestedthat goal, one that we can hope will characterizeall discus- media attentioninvariably centres on the offenceto the sions of repatriationrequests, but the fact that the MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:daI 557

NAGPRA was necessarysuggests that this may not al- sentingthe culture of their originalmakers and users. ways be the case. Neitherthe case itselfnor the way it was handledshould The nonconfrontationalattitude characterizingthe be regardedas typical.Most of the claims forthe return Zunis' approachto the Smithsonianis more than admi- of the "cultural heritage" of indigenous peoples are rable,as is theirwillingness to "educate" the museum much less well founded,and in many of the resulting professionalsand anthropologistsmanaging the Ahay- cases mutual insinuationstake precedenceover careful u:da, particularlysince the initial request fortheir re- deliberationsover the factual evidence. turnwas made in I970. As Merrill,Ladd, and Ferguson The paper is typical of the currentdiscussion, how- point out, this nonconfrontationalapproach is deeply ever,in largelyphrasing the museum's point of view in rootedin Zuni culture,and museums have no rightto supposedlyuniversalist terms of law, ethics,and sensi- expect that other tribes will display such remarkable tivityfor the needs ofother cultures, whereas the Native forbearance. American side is given the privilegeof arguingon the Museums do have a fiduciaryresponsibility to the basis ofparticularistic cultural beliefs and practices(see "public" for their collections. When those collections Ferguson'scomment: "The schedule should reflectthe include American Indian human remains, sacred and culturalneeds of Indian people and not the bureaucratic ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony, and administrativeconvenience of museums"). Anthro- which under the NAGPRA are no longereven arguably pologistscould profitby reflectingon the factthat their "owned" by the museum, however,the museum's trust own discipline and the practice of collecting artifacts is no longer a public one. It is one owed directlyand (specificallythose of othercultures) are historicallycon- solely to the sources of the collections and to theirde- stitutedcultural practices as well. Removed fromthe scendants. Accordingly,the burden of learning about, meaningfuland functionalcontext of their culture of understanding,and respectingthe perspective"of the originand placed in the meaningfuland functionalcon- other"rests first and foremostupon the museum. textof the cultureof collecting,artifacts in factundergo Museums' fiduciaryresponsibility with respectto sa- a significanttransformation. In a Euro-Americanmu- credand ceremonialitems, items of culturalpatrimony, seum context,even the Ahayu:da are no longerobjects and human remains is to ensure that these are treated of Zuni religious observancebut Euro-Americandocu- with respectin accordancewith the culturalvalues and ments of the fairlyunique Westerncultural practice of traditionsof the people who were their sources and of showinga systematicinterest in othercultures. theirmodern descendants. The NAGPRA does provide Both the case discussed and the question of repatria- a real and important opportunityfor museums and tion in generalinvolve questions of interculturalunder- AmericanIndians to learn fromone another,and it also standingthat are only indirectlynoted by Merrill,Ladd, providesan unparalleledopportunity for them to estab- and Ferguson.As one side presentsthe case largelyas a lish new partnerships.Whether these opportunitiesare legal one and the otherside as a religiousone, it might soon realized depends more on the museums than on be fruitfulto address the compatibilityof legal notions the AmericanIndians. Museums that approachtheir fi- such as "communallyowned property"and conceptsof duciary responsibilitiesfrom this perspective are far "religion"and especially "freedomof religion."If free- more likely to benefitfrom these opportunitiesthan dom of religion under the First Amendment was in- those thatassume thatthey can continueto do business tendedto keep governmentout of religionand religion as usual, behavingas if the American Indians firsthad out of government,how does this apply to largelytheo- to prove themselves worthyof serious consideration. craticsocieties such as the Zuni? Can it be usefullyap- Museums cannot assume nor should theyexpect a non- plied to "pre-Enlightenment"societies, in which reli- confrontationalattitude as the basis for discussions of gion more or less evenlypervades all aspects of culture repatriationissues. Whateverthe attitudeof American ("Ladd indicated that in one sense almost all Zuni ob- Indians when they initially approach a museum, the jects are sacred"). museum must pursueits statutoryand fiduciaryrespon- Tribal "factionalpolitics" are noted as a factorcom- sibilities to the fullest,without preconceptionsor pre- plicatingcurrent negotiations; the possible role of dif- conditions. feringpoints of view in the past as one reason forthe originalalienation of objects fromtheir traditional con- texts is not considered,perhaps because of a view of CHRISTIAN F. FEEST traditionalculture(s) as highlystatic and homogeneous. Institutfur Historische Ethnologie, Johann Wolfgang Despite thepromise of "valuable lessons formuseums Goethe-Universitat,D-60054 Frankfurtam Main, and tribes" in view of recent U.S. legislation on this Germany. 20 vI 93 subject,some of the implicationsof the experiencestill need to be spelled out. For example, given the "tens of In theirbalanced contributionto the currentdiscussion thousands of dollars and several years of stafftime to about the repatriationof Native American and other reach a mutually satisfactoryagreement" in the fairly non-Westernartifacts, Merrill, Ladd, and Fergusonpre- simple case under discussion, the recommendedand sent a case for the returnof a specific class of objects seeminglysensible suggestionof handling all repatria- fromthe ownershipof ethnographicmuseums and pri- tionrequests by carefulbilateral consideration on a case- vate collectorsto the control of the communityrepre- by-case basis will require almost unlimited funds and 558 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 manpower-and in the process seriouslyconflict with New Age movement followers, many of whom are otheraspects ofmuseum work.It may,in fact,paralyze, "Wannabe Indians." Until collectingothers' sacred ob- if not doom, ethnographicmuseums fordecades. Given jectsbecomes devalued and such marketsare shutdown, that"public reaction[is] largelyin supportof the Ameri- AmericanIndian spiritualbeliefs, practices, and objects can Indian position," ethnographicmuseums may be will continue to be subjected to defamation,imitation, faced by the choice of either better explainingto the appropriation,and abuse by outsiders. public the socially redeemingvalue of their collecting The documentationof the Ahayu:da repatriationsby activitiesor devotingtheir full attention(and the pub- multiple voices is highlyinstructive. It illustratesthe lic's money)to repatriation. importanceof strategieswhich make sense within the tribalreligious and political spheresand have tribalsup- port, culturally appropriatenegotiation styles, under- standing of legal rights,precedents, and the services CHARLOTTE J. FRISBIE available fromoutsiders, and understandingof variable AnthropologyDepartment, Southern Illinois decision-makingprocesses and models both within Universityat Edwardsville,Edwardsville, Ill. 62026, tribesand withinthe bureaucratichierarchies of outsid- U.S.A. I9 VI 93 ers' museums, other institutions,and agencies. It also identifiessome of the manypitfalls resulting from inter- This articleprovides welcome, detailed documentation nal/externaland closed/open communications,differ- ofwhat is currentlythe best-knownand most successful ent perceptionsof meetings, interpretationsof docu- example of the repatriationof Native American sacred ments attitudestoward time and space, publicity,and objects. As it demonstrates,the repatriationprocess is the use of legal or other assistance, lack of consistent complex,lengthy, and expensive.It is complicatedfrom rationales,record keeping, and funding,and changing the outsetbecause it requiressensitive, patient commu- political winds, new administrations,new employees, nicationand negotiationamong individualswho live in factionalism,and bureaucraticbungling. Finally, the ar- differentprofessional, religious, and culturalworlds and ticle illustratesboth insider and outsider anthropolo- who have differentviews on museums' roles,practices, gists'roles duringrepatriation processes and the benefits and responsibilities.The U.S. contextinvolves histori- of interagencyand interinstitutionalcooperation. cal relationshipsbetween tribesand the federalgovern- While the Zuni example certainlyis positive,it is un- ment-centuries of oppressionand flip-floppolicies and productiveto assume that it provides a model which, only now signs of respect for Native Americans' right with slight modifications,is applicable to all other to self-determinationand sovereignty.It also involves tribes.Understanding that Native Americans and their anthropologyas a discipline with its own colonial- culturesare diversewill be the key to the implementa- ist roots, its currentcritical reflectionson these, and tion of the NAGPRA and successfulrepatriation negoti- its fieldworkprocesses and the understandingsthey ations. Each tribemust decide foritself what repatria- produce. tion means and whetherrequests should be made for Since the late I96os, when interestin preservingeth- human remains, funeraryobjects, and cultural patri- nic and culturalheritage grew internationally as a corol- mony. Before starting repatriationdiscussions, each laryof newly achieved independenceand nationalismin must answer the who, what, when, where, and how Third World countries,ethical, legal, and moral ques- questions,taking into account the diversityof ideas and tions about cultural property,culturally sensitive ob- voices withinthe tribe.Just as thereis no singleAmeri- jects, and human remains have proliferated.Museums can Indian language,political organization,religion, or have respondeddifferently to increasingdemands for re- response to self-determinationand sovereigntyor eco- spectfulportrayals of the religiousaspects of individual nomic developmentissues, so, too, therewill be no sin- cultures,equal-voice dialogues in exhibitplanning and gle answer to the legal, ethical, political, religious,and presentation,and repatriation.Some have had to be otherquestions raised by the NAGPRA. pushed by activist groups and/or threatsof litigation; No law is perfect,and like others,the NAGPRA will othersbegan repatriationefforts in the I97os, beforethe be open to interpretationand court tests. Its potential I975 Self-DeterminationAct and the American Indian forcurtailing trafficking in sacred objects remains un- Religious Freedom Act of I978 and long before the clear. As does the AIRFA, it creates double binds for NAGPRA. Native Americans who, in order to protecttheir reli- Will the NAGPRA, like the AIRFA, be shown to be gious freedomsand intellectual propertyrights, must ineffectiveas its regulationsare developedand agencies, make sacred matterssecular, with no assurance of con- institutions,and the courts move into implementation fidentiality.Additionally, Congress has yet to appro- and interpretation?Attempts to amend AIRFA have yet priatefunds to supportthe enormous amount of work to reach fruition,and one may wonder whethersuch formuseums that compliance with deadlines forsum- amendmentsas eventuallyemerge fromCongress will maries necessitates. However, repatriationis proceed- reallyensure the protectionof American Indian religious ing.The days of pro forma,token consultationwith Na- freedoms.The international"esoteric art" market for tive Americans are over at last; the dialogues, creative sacred objects continues to thrive,and in America it is solutions,and new partnershipswhich lie ahead prom- being additionallystimulated by the spiritualquests of ise to be challenging,exciting, and enrichingfor all. MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:daI 559

JOYCE HEROLD dling,appropriate storage in separate controlledareas, Departmentof Anthropology,Denver Museum of ceremonial attentionwhere required,and response to Natural History,2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, Colo. researchor tribalinquiry. Relative to Ahayu:da, advice 80205, U.S.A. 30 VI 93 was solicited from several traditional Pueblo leaders (includingthe late Fred Kabotie), whose admonitions Fouryears after the Smithsonian-ZuniAhayu:da repatri- againstdisplay and forseclusion of any Pueblo mask or ation, the largestgroup of Ahayu:da yet returned-six shrineobject were heeded. However,our Native Ameri- figureswith associated materials-were handed over to can advisors never directlycontacted Zuni representa- the Pueblo of Zuni by RobertB. Pickeringand me for tives. Over 23 years,no requests forinformation or ac- the Denver Museum of Natural History.This voluntary cess to the protectedAhayu:da were received. repatriationwas a simple and cooperativeevent follow- In the late I970S repatriationactivism reached Den- ing a relativelybrief and quiet stewardshipof the figures ver. At the Natural HistoryMuseum an Iroquois group by the Denver Museum. The exemplarygroundwork of advised the return of all wooden False Face Society Zuni religious and other leaders and the model of the Masks to the Hodenosaunee Council. (This issue is as Smithsonianrepatriation were vital to our museum's yetunresolved.) At the Denver ArtMuseum in I979-80 learningcurve and the satisfyingfinale. Our concerns the Zuni war god exhibitconfrontation and subsequent focusedon public trustresponsibilities within a frame- repatriationreceived much local publicity,and its acri- work of strongdonor-museum and Native American- monious tone caused negativereaction among our staff. museum relationships,in contrastwith the research- Fortunately,the more measured Zuni-Smithsonianne- oriented Smithsonian situation. Even so, our conser- gotiationsalso came to our attention,having been re- vativelydeliberate yet sensitivelyconcerned approach portedby Fergusonat the NorthAmerican Indian Muse- dependedprimarily for final resolution on the coming ums Association meetingheld at the museum in I979. togetherof Zuni knowledgeand national museum pro- Follow-up discussions with our directorresulted in a fessionalism. conservativeAhayu:da policy; directconfrontation with The originsof our "war gods" were quite in contrast the repatriationissue was to be avoided until the Smith- to those of the Smithsonian's:the six figureswith seven sonian's policy became known or the Zuni Tribe made associated materialswere donated in I968 by the Mary a formalrequest. Like Denver ArtMuseum officials,we W. A. and Francis V. Crane Foundation as part of the were concerned that our trust as a public institution Crane AmericanIndian Collection. The Cranes had as- would be violated by turning over Ahayu:da to the sembledtheir broadly based collection (some 2o,ooo ob- Zunis. The implied threat of litigation was equally jects fromthe Americas) mostly duringthe I950S and onerous. The donor appeared satisfied that we were I960s froma varietyof primaryand secondarysources prudentlysafeguarding the Crane Collection while re- and operated the private Southeast Museum of the spondingappropriately to Indian concernsother than re- AmericanIndian at Marathon,Florida, until the collec- patriation.Mary Crane continued to "fill out" the col- tion moved to Denver in I968. They had purchasedthe lection until her death in i982. Ahayu:da fromthree New Mexico and Californiadeal- The landmarkrepatriation statements by the Zunis ers-one figurein I964, two figures,a ceremonialwand, and the Smithsonianin i987 providedclear documenta- and threeprayer sticks in i965, and threefigures, each tion of the pointsmost salient to us: Ahayu:da are com- with a prayerstick, in I968. The figuresvaried from munally owned by Zuni Pueblo; Ahayu:da outside the highlyweathered to new in appearance. Though they Zuni tribal boundary had been unlawfully removed; revealed little provenance information,all the sellers Ahayu:da are needed for the currentpractice of tradi- probablytook at least secondarypositions in chains of tional religionby the Zuni people; and the appropriate privateholders after the figures'removal from the reser- religiousspokespersons, the bow priests,have requested vation. the returnof all Ahayu:da. By I988, I knew that we Afterher husband's death in I968, Mary Crane con- must follow the Smithsonianexample, but changes in tinued a productivemuseum relationshipas donor and leadership and staffingkept us from initiatingaction trustee,with the resultthat a major new Native Ameri- quickly.Soon enough,however, our administration'sat- can hall was completedwithin ten years.No Ahayu:da tention to repatriationwas demanded by the pending were displayed,our staffand the donor having agreed Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation thatthey should be secluded. Their sensitivenature had Act,and in its own RepatriationPolicy Statement(I990) been flagged,in fact, by the stipulation of one source the museum reflectedmuch of the proposedlaw's lan- thatno exhibittake place forten years. guage. Our policy(from I973, underthen Anthropology Head The November i6, I990, passage of the NAGPRA ArmintaNeal) reflectedcommitment to a progressive made the need to repatriatethe Crane Collection Ahay- programof collection review and exhibit planning by u:da clear, and we decided to do so voluntarily.The a Native American staffmember and advisorycouncil. deaccession process began on FebruaryI2, I99I, and Tribal consultationsand managementpolicies were set curatorial-to-trustee-levelapprovals were quickly ob- forsensitive materials such as medicine bags, Kachina tained.By March 4, our unexpectednotification of Zuni masks,and Iroquois masks. In general,guidelines called Governor Robert E. Lewis had activated plans for a for normal cataloging,photography with special han- March i9 transfermodeled on previous Zuni repatria- 56o I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993 tions in Santa Fe. Participantswere PerryTsadiasi, Bow encouragingthose few museums elsewherewhich have Priest,Joseph Dishta, Head Councilman,two otherZuni such objects to hang onto them. representatives,the tribe's advocate and legal advisor, A notable featureof effortsby Zuni to recovertheir and the "old hands" Ladd and Ferguson.An affirmation Ahayu:da is that at no time did theypursue legal action of returnand receipt was preparedby the museum on throughthe courts,preferring instead to make what they the Smithsonianmodel and approvedby the Pueblo of regardedas reasonablerequests in a reasonablemanner. Zuni. Object documentationwas completed,and copies Doubtless the existence of legislationhad the effectof ofphotographs and recordswere preparedfor the Zunis. concentratingmuseum minds and encouragedcurators A draftpress release fromthe Zuni Tribal Council was to deal with the problemas a matterof some urgency. reviewedby the museum. Nevertheless,as Fergusonremarks, "The Pueblo ofZuni I followedscrupulously the few deliveryinstructions, and the SmithsonianInstitution invested tens of thou- and RobertPickering, the museum's AnthropologyDe- sands of dollars and several years of stafftime in reach- partmenthead, assisted as the requiredmale handlerof ing a mutually satisfactoryagreement." Merrill notes the Ahayu:da. Laid on a large table at the Laboratoryof thathe spent "over a year of full-timework" in prepar- Anthropology,the figureswere brieflyinspected. The ing a "comprehensiveresponse" to a statementwhich figureswere then wrapped ceremoniallyand prayerof- the Zuni submittedto the Smithsonianon the collec- feringsgiven. We were told that the Ahayu:da would be tions. One can only envy museums that have such re- taken that afternoonto Zuni lands, a purificationcere- sources,both human and financial. mony conducted beforepassage across the reservation It is not difficultto sympathizewith and supportZuni boundary,and the figuresplaced at a speciallyprotected effortsto obtain the returnof Ahayu:da or any cultural shrine.The museum was thanked many times for its propertywhich can be shown to have been stolen from goodwilland was presenteda certificateof appreciation. theirshrines. Some readers,however, may findit more Finally,I was struckby a sense ofinevitability and com- difficultto fullygrasp the Zuni idea thatany representa- pletion.Was this akin to the "heavy" feelingthat Ladd tion ofZuni religiousobjects made by anyone should be describes?Was it shared by the others in attendance, handed over to the Zuni authorities.If it looks Zuni, Zuni or not? Were we, in a small way, "restoringhar- even thoughmade of cardboard,then it has been made monyto theworld"? The Denver Post (March 30, I99I) on the basis of Zuni knowledgeand as such belongs to laterjudged the repatriation"laudable not only because the Zuni people even if made by non-Zunis. Museums it demonstratedproper professional conduct. It simply or privatecollections are not the place in which such was the rightthing to do, by any civilized standard." objects should be kept. In the case of Ahayu:da, they should be placed out in the elements and allowed to disintegrateso that their spiritsare freedand returned SCHUYLER JONES to a state where they can work for the benefitof all Pitt RiversMuseum, OxfordOXI 3PP, England. peoples. As museum curatorsspend theirworking lives II VI 93 tryingto ensure the long-termpreservation of artefacts forpurposes of scholarlystudy, this last may be particu- This importantdocument should be requiredreading for larlydifficult to accept. all museum curatorsin charge of ethnographiccollec- One must admire the methodical patience of Zuni tions. Because of recentlegislation the issues discussed leaders in handling their campaign. As results have are of particularimportance to U.S. museums, but col- shown,they were wise to turndown enthusiasticoffers lectionsoutside the United States are increasinglycom- by FBI agentsto confiscateAhayu:da frommuseum col- ingunder the scrutinyof "native peoples" and it is clear lections in orderto achieve a speedyreturn to the Zuni that the whole question of the returnof "sacred ob- people. The high Zuni success rate must, however,be jects,"like thatof human remains,can no longersimply due at least in part to the existence of U.S. legislation be ignored.The issues under considerationneed to be enacted in I989 and I990 requiringrepatriation of hu- addressedregardless of the existence of legislation. man remains,grave goods, sacred objects, and commu- Amongother things, this reportshows a way forward nally owned "culturalpatrimony" if requestedto do so. fordealings between museums and the peoples whose The laws also requiremuseums to draw up inventories culturesare representedin the collections.It also reveals of such materialsand to make them available to Indian some of the problems,even when thereis goodwill on tribesand native Hawaiian organizationsand, presum- both sides, for example, the complicated issue of de- ably, anyone else who asks. This last is, or should be, terminingwhat is "sacred." Sometimes definitionscan standardprofessional museum practicein any case, re- be equally difficultfor museum staffand forZuni reli- gardlessof legislation.In countrieswhere such laws do gious leaders.Nor will all such dealingshave a satisfac- not exist and where the same kinds of pressurecannot toryoutcome, if only because what is consideredsatis- be broughtto bear on institutions,the responseis likely factoryby one partymay be unsatisfactoryto the other. to be different.In Britain,for example, where museums And if all known Ahayu:da in the United States are re- are geographicallyisolated from the "native peoples" turnedto the Zuni people and allowed to disintegrate, whose collections they hold, there may well be resis- as seems to be happening,this may have the effectof tance to such requests. We have alreadyseen it here in MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:daI 56I regardto AustralianAboriginal requests forthe return the I940S and includingbones up to is,ooo years old, of human remains. Some museums have cooperated, was in I989 returnedto Aboriginalcommunities in New othershave not. In any event, the only way forwardis South Wales and Victoria.The bones were reinterredat on a case-by-casebasis, as both Zuni leaders and Smith- six differentlocations-some, forexample, on thebanks sonian anthropologistsfully recognize. of the MurrayRiver, some beneath a seven-tongranite boulderwithin the city of Melbourne. Currentgovern- ment measures in support of the returnof Aboriginal skeletal material in museum collections are described by Bromilow(I993). ROBERT LAYTON Merrillet al.'s paperwell illustratesthe way in which AnthropologyDepartment, University of Durham, the engagementof anthropologywith indigenousrights Durham DHI 3HN, England. IO vI 93 gives a practicaledge to issues that mightotherwise be dismissedas postmodernscholasticism. A key issue in Probablythe three most importantingredients for the thisregard is the appropriatetranslation of culturalcon- successfulrecognition of indigenousrights are (a) recog- structssuch as "curation,"caring for places and objects. nition of indigenous title in the laws of the dominant This issue has repeatedlyarisen in AustralianAboriginal community,(b) a practicalincentive to settlethe indige- land claims (see, forexample, Toohey I980: I i-20; Kear- nous claim, and (c) popular supportfor a settlement. ney I985:I3-I4). The fundamentalpoint is that the The need for appropriate legislation is stressed meaningof artefactsand even natural objects is cultur- throughoutMerrill et al.'s paper.The paper also demon- ally constructed,not intrinsic to the material items, stratesa close link between land rightsand rightsto whetherthey be sacred sites or wooden "images" (or culturalproperty. Non-Western concepts of ownership are the Ahayu:da animate beings?).Merrill et al. give a have proved fatal stumblingblocks to the recognition strikingdemonstration of this when theywrite that all of indigenousrights in the past (see Layton I985 and objects made on the basis of Zuni religiousknowledge, Williams I987 on Australian Aboriginal land rights). even those made by non-Zuni, belong to the Zuni. If Anotherimportant, related issue noted here is the iden- thereare no "natural" meanings,is it (as is argued,for tificationof legitimatelinks between the livingand the example, by Shanks and Tilley i987:59) nothingmore remains of the dead, which in the past demanded that than a contest of power to determinewhose meanings native people demonstratea genealogical ratherthan a prevail? general ethnic or community affiliation(cf. Moore The Zuni ethic of conservationis shown to be strik- i989). The question of continuityin indigenousknowl- inglydifferent to thatof the Smithsonian,although sim- edge and practicehas also been posed in othercontexts, ilarto thatof many indigenous peoples who have partici- forexample, in the requirementof the AustralianNorth- pated in the reburial debate. Yet another ethic of ern TerritoryLand Rights Act that claimants demon- conservationhas been highlightedby Byrne(I99I:275), strate "strengthof attachment" to sites on the land who points out that "heritagemanagement" is a West- claimed (see AboriginalLand Commissioners' reports, ern concept and a product of the Enlightenment.He e.g.,Kearney i985:26-27 and TooheyI980:26-27). cites the continualrestoration and extensionof the Chi- Popular support for the returnof the Ahayu:da, at nese Confuciantemple of Qufu,first constructed in 478 least amongst anthropologistsand Smithsonian Mu- B.C. but enlargedand rebuiltmore than 5o times since: seum staff,was also evidentlysignificant in the Zuni "Althoughthe physicalform may change,the spiritand case. Whetherthere was a practical incentiveto settle purposeof the originalis not only preservedas a conti- the dispute is less clear. Was the museum fearful,for nuity,but can be enhancedthrough the contributionsof example, of adverse publicitythat mighthave affected succeedinggenerations " (ByrneI 9 9 I: 2 7 5, citingWei and attendance figures?Evidently there was no economic Aass i989). sanctionof the magnitudethat broughtthe government The clear distinctionwhich Merrill et al. draw be- of Quebec to the negotiatingtable duringphase I of the tween the constitutivepropositions of Zuni cultureand JamesBay hydroelectric project (see Feit i983:420). the regulativeprocedures of Zuni etiquette could well Australianpolicy towards the returnof perhaps the be comparedwith Ahern's (i982) reanalysisof Azande most contentiousform of cultural property, human skel- rationality. etons, has developed since the stage cited by Merrill Perhapsthe most striking"postmodern" issue is that et al. At the request of the governmentof Victoria, of privilegingscientific knowledge. Can Zuni beliefsre- the Australianfederal government included in the Ab- ally be equated with those of fundamentalistreligious originaland Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection groups,as some Smithsonianstaff argued, and opposed AmendmentAct of I987 a clause acknowledgingthat to the scientificstudy of Zuni culture?Does public edu- "the Aboriginalpeople of Victoriaare the rightfulown- cation have precedence over indigenous control of ers of theirheritage and should be given responsibility knowledgewhere control confersauthority? Merrill et forits futurecontrol and management."Under this pro- al. rightlyreject both these arguments,but it should be vision, the skeletal collection made by MurrayBlack, noted that opponentsof reburialhave repeatedlyadvo- obtainedfrom Aboriginal graves from the I920S through cated them (see Layton I989:5-I5). 562l CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December I993

LARRY J. ZIMMERMAN Ruth Benedict were around, she might point out that ArchaeologyLaboratory, University of South Dakota, the Zunis were hermodel forthe Apollonian ethos,with Vermillion,S.D. 57069-2390, U.S.A. IO VI 93 sobriety,measure, and distrustof excess as important values (BenedictI932:4). CertainlyZunis value noncon- The Smithsonian'sinitial handlingof the Zuni request frontation.Benedict might also have classified anthro- forreturn of the Ahayu:da is typicalof the responsesof pological academics and especially administratorsas many museums and other repositoriesto repatriation Apollonian.They too are afraidof excess and open con- requests. Paranoia about settingprecedents, questions frontation.The formermay feel that theyare somehow about how materialswould be handledupon return,and poor anthropologistsif they can't get along with mem- worriesabout fulfillingresponsibilities of public trust bersof othercultures, the latterthat theywill be judged appeared in early considerations.To the credit of the as lacking management skills. The Plains tribes with Zuni, the Smithsonian,and othersinvolved, these and which I have worked most oftenon repatriationwere relatedissues eventuallywere resolvedthrough cultural Benedict'smodel forthe Dionysian ethos,in which "ex- sensitivityand mutual respect. cess" is valued. The Lakota, forexample, enjoy and use Importantissues are raised by this fine paper. Most confrontationto help build an eagerlysought consensus. compellingis the drivinginfluence of religious leaders Afterconfrontational "rhetorical" position statements, in the process. Many non-Indianshave concluded erro- participantsmove towardcompromise and thenconsen- neouslythat the issue is largelypolitical. They have not sus. Confrontationcan also bringabout mutuallysatis- understoodthat the morevocal Indians,adept in dealing factoryagreements, and sometimesvery quickly. Other withnon-Indians, are often"front" persons taking guid- Smithsonian/NativeAmerican negotiations, such as ance fromspiritual leaders and elderswho tendto speak those in the Larsen Bay repatriation,have not been so of "a spiritual imbalance in the world which has re- smooth(Knecht and Hausler-KnechtI992), but they sultedin 'adverseeffects"' (Rhodd I990:374). Certainly have resultedin successfulrepatriation much more rap- politics is involved in the sense that repatriationis a idly than in the Zuni case. One simplyneeds to recog- contestfor "control" over cultural materials and intel- nize the approach to negotiationsthat is in operation, lectual propertyrights about them, and in some cases not personalizeissues too much,and "go with the flow." there has indeed been open pursuit of publicity and Generallyspeaking, Indian religious people and elders, power. Only in the rarestof cases, however,is control whatevertheir tribe, have been verypatient with us aca- or publicityparamount. demics,museum specialists,and administrators,as well Other core repatriationissues relate to the meanings as with their own tribal councils. As the Lakota elder of "ownership," "curation," and "law." Among tradi- MatthewKing told me, theirrole is to teach, and teach- tional peoples many culturalmaterials or remains sim- ers need to be patient even thoughthey may feel frus- ply cannot be "owned," except,perhaps, in a collective tratedover the process.The Zuni religiousleaders' con- sense-an idea surprisinglysimilar, by the way, to mu- cern that the repatriationcase be well documented"so seum concerns about maintaininga collective, public that a historycould be writtenthat explained to future world heritage.The stunningdifference between Zuni generationsof Zunis what theydid and why" carriesan and museum notions of curationhelps us assess the pos- especially importantand caringlesson; anthropologists sibilitiesof the "keeping places" or tribalmuseums of- should be equally responsibleto the futureand docu- feredas a compromiseon repatriation.Depending on the ment the issue thoroughly. culture,keeping places may not work; museum con- Merrill,Ladd, and Fergusonlearned well fromthe pro- cepts of preservationand curation may actually be cess. Not only have theyhelped to explain the circum- anathema to Indian views. Adjudicativelaw may have stancesof the Ahayu:da repatriationbut theyhave given no meaning in sacred matters,in which natural law one good example ofhow successfulrepatriation negoti- must take precedence; rigid adherence to human law ations can be accomplished. Their willingnessto share may actually be disrespectful-a complicationthat im- these experiencessuggests that they are also good teach- plementationof the NAGPRA increasinglywill face. ers with importantlessons. Merrill,Ladd, and Fergusonsee the Zuni-Smithsonian repatriationnegotiations as providingguidelines for im- plementationof the NAGPRA and similarnegotiations, dulynoting that "the procedureswill undoubtedlydiffer Reply somewhatfrom case to case." Many oftheir suggestions are absolutelyon the mark. The one exceptionis their view that "nonconfrontational"negotiations work best WILLIAM L. MERRILL, EDMUND J. LADD, AND to accomplish mutually satisfactoryagreements. A T. J. FERGUSON nine-yeartime frame simply would not do for some Tucson,Ariz., U.S.A. 20 VII 93 groups.More important,suggesting how a tribe'snegoti- atorsshould behave seems a bit presumptuous.How for- We are gratefulto our colleagues for their insightful tunate all parties in this case were that Zuni ideas of commentson our article.They identifythe most impor- appropriatebehavior coincided with the wishes of mu- tantissues associated with repatriationand indicate the seum staffand administratorsfor little confrontation!If difficultiesthat confrontmuseums and tribes as they MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da| 563 attemptto resolvethese issues. On the whole we concur conclusion. Our perspectiveis quite different.The Zu- with theirobservations and offerhere only a few com- nis firstrequested the returnof the Ahayu:da in I978 mentsto complementtheir perspectives or to clarifyour (not I970) but did not submit a formalrepatriation re- position. quest forthem until January I98I. By May I982, the Althoughthe Native AmericanGraves Protectionand Smithsonianhad agreed to returnthe Ahayu:da. This RepatriationAct encompasseshuman remains,funerary decision was made strictlyon the basis of a carefulcon- goods, communallyowned cultural patrimony,and sa- siderationof the legal and moral issues involved,not (to credobjects, the issues surroundingthe returnof human answerLayton) because of the fearof adversepublicity, remainsand funerarygoods are somewhatdifferent from economic sanctions,or any otheroutside pressure.The those associated with the repatriationof culturalpatri- negotiationscontinued for five more yearsprimarily be- mony and sacred objects. In the case of the former,the cause the requestincluded many additional items which principalmatter museums must resolve is establishing werethe responsibilityof a numberof different religious affiliationof the material with a particular cultural leaders,all of whom had to be consulted.Had the repa- groupor groups; the Native Americangroups must de- triationrequest focused exclusively on the Ahayu:da, terminewhether or not to repatriateaffiliated remains the negotiationswould have been concludedin a matter and how theyshould be treated.In the latter,museums of monthsat most and much of the expense avoided. In and tribesmust apply complex and abstractdefinitions contrast,if the Zunis had chosen a more confrontational of sanctity,ownership, and propertyto specificobjects. approach,and especially if they had sued the Smithso- Moreover,while the NAGPRA treatshuman remainsas nian forthe returnof these items, the repatriationpro- property,it is likely that many tribeswill not sharethis cess undoubtedlywould have taken much longer. We view. The Zuni people conceive of human remains as believe thatit is imperativethat tribes and museums be dead people and thereforetreat them quite differently allowed adequate time to formulatetheir positions as fromartifacts. At the presenttime, the Pueblo of Zuni's long as both understandthe reasons forpossible delays policy is not to request the repatriationof skeletal re- and museums do not attempt to postpone reaching a mains frommuseums but to insist that all ancestral decision as a tactic to avoid repatriation. gravesbe protectedfrom future disturbance or destruc- Feest and Jonesexpress concern about the impactthat tion. If such disruptionis inevitablethe Pueblo of Zuni repatriationwill have on the abilityof museums to ful- requeststhat the gravesbe respectfullyexcavated by pro- fill theirroles as researchand educational institutions, fessionalarchaeologists, the human remains and grave emphasizingthe enormous time and expense that re- goods documentedthrough nondestructive techniques, spondingto repatriationrequests entails. We are con- and then both the remains and the grave goods rein- vinced that adequate funds must be made available to terred. both museums and tribesif the repatriationprocess is Several commentators applaud the nonconfronta- to be carriedthrough properly without jeopardizingthe tional tone that characterizedthe Zuni-Smithsonianne- functioningof either.Having judged repatriationsuffi- gotiations,but both Downer and Zimmerman suggest cientlyimportant to legislate it though the NAGPRA, thatmuseums should not expect othertribes to adopt a Congressshould appropriatethese funds.Otherwise, as similarapproach. Zimmerman points out that confron- Frisbiefears, the NAGPRA will be as ineffectiveas the tationis an integralcomponent of the negotiationstyles AmericanIndian Religious FreedomAct. of the Plains tribes with which he has worked and a In a similarvein, Cruwyscomments that the repatria- strategythat theywill probablyadopt when theyinter- tion ofmuseum collectionstypically precludes their use act withmuseums on repatriationmatters. We fullyrec- in futurescientific research. The possibilitythat tribes ognizethat not all tribesshare the Zuni ethic ofnoncon- will allow researchersaccess to collections once they frontation,but we believe thatnonconfrontation will be are repatriatedis remote, but the loss of potential the most effectiveapproach for all tribesin theirnegoti- knowledgewould seem to be greaterin the case of pre- ations with museums. Tribal representativesshould be historicskeletal materialsthan in that of ethnographic aware that the approach theyfollow in reachinga con- objects. Skeletal materials representone of a verylim- sensus among themselves may be counterproductive ited arrayof sources ofknowledge about prehistoricpeo- when adoptedwith museum staffmembers and be will- ple and theirlives, and theirpotential for revealing addi- ing to adjust theirapproach accordingly.Confrontation tional informationincreases with each advance in tends to engendera confrontationalresponse and may biomedical technology.While the importanceof ethno- preclude the formationof the positive relationships graphicobjects as sources of informationon the past upon which futurecooperation among tribesand muse- should not be underestimated,ethnographic research ums depends.Moreover, while the NAGPRA encourages tends to focus more on theircultural contextsthan on nonconfrontationalnegotiations between tribes and mu- the objects themselves.Ethnographic research also has seums,it also providesfor increasingly adversarial forms access to a much broaderrange of data sources,includ- of negotiationsif initial negotiationscannot produce a ing the contemporarymembers of the culturesthat pro- mutuallysatisfying resolution. duced the objects. The failureto respondto legitimate Downer and Zimmermanalso suggestthat the Zunis' requestsfor repatriation might result in a more exten- nonconfrontationalapproach was in partresponsible for sive loss of knowledgethan returningthe objects. the delay in bringingthe negotiationsto a successful In the case of the Ahayu:da, we think that a proper 564 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993

balance has been struckbetween the rightsof the Zunis Feest and Laytonargue that the meaningof artifacts is and the academic interestsof scholars. The Zunis have culturallyconstituted and thus varies fromone cultural approvedand encouragedthe thoroughdocumentation contextto another.While we accept this observationin ofAhayu:da by photographs, measurements, and materi- principle,we do not agree with Feest's conclusion that als analysis prior to their repatriationfrom museums. in a "Euro-Americanmuseum context,even the Ahay- While this informationis no substitutefor the images u:da are no longerobjects of religiousobservance." De- themselves, it will serve to answer many questions spite being appropriatedby non-Zunis and endowed about the Ahayu:da that mightarise in the future.The with a new set of meanings,these images continue to Zuni Tribe considers this documentation to provide be centralto Zuni religionand theirrepatriation of great veryimportant information that can be used in law en- significanceto the Zuni people. Also, many Zunis and forcementinvestigations should any repatriatedAhay- other American Indians envision sacred objects and u:da be stolen. The tribe's own project to document places as endowed with meaning and power derived Ahayu:daat shrineson the Zuni Indian Reservationem- froma divine or spiritual source. Acknowledgingthat ployed a suite of i8 measurementsdeveloped by the meaningis a culturalconstruct that can be contestedin BrooklynMuseum in consultation with the Smithso- a political arena is helpful in explaining how non- nian Institution. Indians may understandthe cultural and legal aspects Cruwys's comments touch upon the basic issue of ofrepatriation, but it is also importantto recognizethat conflictbetween scientificresearch and museum prac- the Zunis seek to recoverAhayu:da not because they tices, on the one hand, and the rightsof Indians to con- want theirmeanings to prevailbut because theybelieve trol their cultural propertyand knowledge about that that the world is endangeredif the Ahayu:da are not at property,on the other. Layton also raises this issue in theirshines where Zuni priestscan attendto them. his instructivecomparison of the Zuni-Smithsonianne- Frisbiecorrectly notes that the Zuni-Smithsonianne- gotiationswith repatriationcases from Australia and gotiationsdo not provide a model that can be adopted otherparts of the world. Given the vast differencesbe- by all tribes and museums, a view echoed by several tween the Westernscientific tradition and the cultural othercommentators. Herold, in her detailed account of traditionsof many non-Westernpeople, such conflict the returnof six Ahayu:da fromthe Denver Museum of is inevitable,and where perspectivesare diametrically Natural History,indicates that her institutiondid, in opposed (as in the case of Zuni and Smithsoniancon- fact,rely on these negotiationsas a model; a numberof cepts of proper curation of certain kinds of objects) othermuseums have done likewise. However,our inten- theremay be littlepossibility of compromise.However, tion was not to propose these negotiationsas an algo- we are convinced that privileginga priorione perspec- rithmfor repatriation but to point out generalfeatures tive over another will be unproductive.In the Zuni- thatwe considereduseful and applicable to most repatri- Smithsoniannegotiations, the differentperspectives on ation cases. Repatriationmust proceedon a case-by-case repatriationand curationwere carefullyevaluated and basis because the circumstancesof each case are unique, discussed by both parties beforea final agreementwas and not simply because of the cultural diversityof In- reached. The Smithsonian accepted the legitimacyof dian tribes.Different museums also have differentper- the Zunis' claim to the Ahayu:da and agreed that this spectivesand concerns,reflecting their status as private claim outweighedany argumentfor keeping the Ahay- or public museums,the emphasis theyplace on research u:da in the museum as a source of data. At the same or public education, and their location in the United time, the museum did not concur with the Zuni argu- States or abroad. ment that all objects made on the basis of Zuni knowl- The impact of the NAGPRA on museums and tribes edge belong to the Zuni people. As Jonesindicates, this has already begun to be felt. The majority(over 8o%) perspectivewill be difficultfor many people to accept, of the Ahayu:da returnedto the Zuni Tribe have been and its far-reachingimplications undoubtedlywill be- repatriatedsince its passage, and Herold indicates that come the focus of the next round of negotiationsbe- it influencedthe timing of her museum's decision to tween the Pueblo of Zuni and the SmithsonianInsti- returnthe six Ahayu:da. In May I993, the PeabodyMu- tution. seum of Archaeologyand Ethnologyat HarvardUniver- As most commentatorspoint out, the necessity to sitybecame the firstmuseum to repatriatean Ahayu:da translateand, if possible, reconcile such divergentper- explicitlyusing the proceduresspecified in the NAG- spectivesrepresents the greatestchallenge to futurere- PRA. Yet no one should have any illusions that the im- patriationnegotiations. By providinggeneral definitions plementationof such broad legislationwill resolve the of the kinds of materials subject to repatriation,the myriadcultural issues associated with repatriationor NAGPRA limits to some degree the universe of dis- automaticallyresult in the repatriationof all items that course in terms of which these negotiationswill take tribesrequest. The NAGPRA acknowledgesa museum's place, but the range of concepts and issues to be dis- "rightof possession" to an object, even a sacred object, cussed remainsimmense. We do not expect that muse- if the museum acquired the object "with the voluntary ums and tribeswill ever come to share a perspective, consentof an individual or groupthat had authorityof but we hope that a common groundof understandings alienation." Native Americans may not like the fact can be established that will facilitatereaching agree- thattheir ancestors voluntarily transferred possession of ments on the properdisposition of items in museum these objects to museums, but the NAGPRA does not collections. mandate that theybe repatriated.The ultimate disposi- MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da| 565

tion and treatmentof such objects will be determined BENEDICT, RUTH. I932. Configurationsof culturein North primarilyby moral considerationsrather than legal dic- America. AmericanAnthropologist 34:I-27. [LJZ] tates.As Jonesnotes, these issues "need to be addressed BLAIR, BOWEN. I979a. American Indians vs. American muse- ums: A matter of religious freedom.American Indian Journal regardlessof the existence of legislation." 5(5):I 3-21I. In this regard,we do not agreewith Downer's reading . I979b. Indian rights: Native Americans versus American of the NAGPRA as instantlyshifting a museum's trust museums-a battle for artifacts.American Indian Law Review responsibilityfor materials covered by the legislation 7(I):2I5-54. BOYD, THOMAS H., AND JONATHAN HAAS. i992. The Native fromthe public at large to specifictribes. The status of American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Prospects certainitems as sacred objects or culturalpatrimony is fornew partnershipsbetween museums and Native American notalways apparent,and in many cases determiningthis groups. Arizona State Law Journal24:25 3-82. status will depend upon the exchange of information BRASCOUPE, s. Editor. I980. Directoryof NorthAmerican In- between museums and tribes. If a museum's rightof dian museumsand culturalcenters. Niagara Falls: North American Indian Museums Association. possessionto any of these objectsis confirmed,then the BROMILOW, G. I993. Finders keepers? Museums Journal NAGPRA does not require that the museum curate 93(3):3 I-34. them accordingto the tribe's wishes. In many cases, a BUNZEL, RUTH. i929. The Pueblo potter:A studyof creative tribe's view of the propertreatment of an object will imagination in primitive art. New York: Columbia University of and Press. violate standardmuseum practices conservation BYRNE, D. I99I. Western hegemony in archaeological heritage curation. We hope that in such cases museums and management.History and Anthropology5: 269-76. [RL] tribeswill work togetherto arriveat mutuallysatisfac- CANFIELD, ANNE S. I980. Ahayu:da: Art or icon? NativeArts! torycompromises, but sometimes reachingsuch agree- West, July,pp. I, 24-26. ments will be quite difficult,particularly when the CHILDS, ELIZABETH C. 1980. Museums and the American In- dian: Legal aspects of repatriation.Council forMuseum An- tribe's wishes conflictwith more general legal princi- thropologyNewsletter 4:4-27. ples. For example,many tribesinsist that sacred objects CLIFFORD, JAMES. I988. The predicamentof culture: shouldnot be handledby women, but museums are sub- Twentieth-centuryethnography, literature, and art.Cam- ject to federallaws and regulationsthat prohibitsexual bridge: Harvard University Press. . I99I. "Four Northwest Coast museums," in Exhibiting discriminationin the workplace. cultures:The poetics and politicsof museum display. Edited The importantpoint is that while the NAGPRA is a by Ivan Karp and Steven D. Lavine, pp. 2I2-54. Washington, crucial firststep towardtransforming the relationships D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. between tribes and museums, completingthis process CLURMAN, IRENE. I979. Zuni war god spurs clash; Indians, mu- will dependon the abilityof museums and tribesto co- seum in dispute. Rocky Mountain News, FebruaryI4. CONN, RICHARD. I979. NativeAmerican art in theDenver Art operatein addressingthe diverseissues-many of them Museum. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ethicalrather than legal-not encompassedby the legis- CULIN, STEWART. I907. "Games of the North American Indi- lation. Despite its "colonialist roots,"anthropology has ans," in 24thannual reportof the Bureauof American Ethnol- done more than any otherWestern academic discipline ogy, 1902-1903, pp. 29-846. Washington, D.C.: Government to challengethe tenets and practicesof Euro-American PrintingOffice. CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON. n.d. Copy of undated letter to ethnocentrism,and anthropologistshave played crucial E. B. Tylor. Envelope 330 in Hodge-Cushing Collection, South- roles in the developmentof the repatriationprocess. By west Museum. continuingto work together,Indian tribesand anthro- . I883. "Zuni fetiches," in 2nd annual reportof the Bu- pologistscan forgea new, more collaborativeanthropol- reau ofAmerican Ethnology, i88o-i88i, pp. 3-45. Washing- ton, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice. ogy that will benefitboth. . I896. "Outlines of Zuni creation myths," in 13th annual reportof the Bureau of American Ethnology, i89i-i892, pp. 32I-447. Washington,D.C.: Government PrintingOffice. II90I. Zuni folk tales. New York: Putnam. ReferencesCited I920. Zuni breadstuff.Indian Notes and Monographs 8. DOCKSTADER, FREDERICK J. I96I. Indian artin America. ADAMS, ROBERT MC C. I990. Smithsonian horizons. Smithso- Greenwich: New York Graphic Society. nian 21(7):IO. ECHO-HAWK, WALTER. I986. Museum rights vs. Indian rights: AHERN, E. M. i982. Rules in oracles and games. Man, n.s., Guidelines forassessing competing legal interestsin native cul- I7:302-I-2. [RL] tural resources. Reviewof Law and Social ChangeI4:437-53. AlbuquerqueJournal. I979a. Zunis demand returnof sacred ERIACHO, WILFRED, AND T. J. FERGUSON. I979. The Zuni sculpture. FebruaryI5. war gods: Art, artifact,or religious beings, a conflictin values, . 1979b. Lawyer forZunis asks museum forretraction. Feb- beliefs, and use. Paper presented at the symposium "New Di- ruary2I. rections in Native American Art History," University of New AMERICAN INDIAN LAW CENTER. I978. The Indian Religious Mexico, Albuquerque, October 26. Freedom Act project, results of preliminarylegal survey of In- FEDER, NORMAN. I97I. AmericanIndian art.New York: dian religious issues: Report to Native American Rights Fund Abrams. and the AdvisoryBoard. MS, American Indian Law Center, Uni- FEIT, H. I983. "Negotiating recognition of Aboriginal rights:His- versityof New Mexico. tory,strategies, and reactions to the James Bay and Northern ANDRUS, CECIL. I979. AmericanIndian ReligiousFreedom Act Quebec Agreement," in Aborigines, land, and land rights.Ed- report,P. L. 95-341. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the ited by N. Peterson and M. Langton, pp. 4I6-38. Canberra: Interior. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Press. [RL] BAUGH, TIMOTHY G., TAMARA L. BRAY, AND THOMAS W. FENTON, WILLIAM N. I989. Return of eleven wampum belts to KILLION. i992. Native communities and repatriation:The the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacyon Grand River, Canada. Smithsonian Institution perspective. Federal Archeology Re- Ethnohistory36:392-4IO. port, March, pp. 23-24. FERGUSON, T. J. 1979. "Handling of sacred articles and sacred 566 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 34, Number 5, December 1993

sites,"in AmericanIndian MuseumsAssociation (AIMA), Ist request:Research, rhetoric, and recrimination.Paper presented annual conference,Denver, Colorado. Edited by MadelineRis- at thesymposium "Kodiak Island Archaeology and theLarsen ser,pp. 59-68. Washington,D.C.: Officeof Museum Programs, Bay Repatriation"at the gIst annualmeeting of the American SmithsonianInstitution. AnthropologicalAssociation, San Francisco,Calif. [LJZ] . i982. "Applicationof New Mexico Statedead bodyand LADD, EDMUND. I983. "An explanation:Request for the return indigentburial statutes to a prehistoricmummified body," in ofZuni sacredobjects held in museumsand privatecollec- AmericanIndian concernswith historic preservation in New tions,"in Exploration:Zuni and El Morro,p. 32. AnnualBulle- Mexico.Edited by BarbaraHolmes, pp. 45-5 1 . Albuquerque: tin ofthe Schoolof American Research. New Mexico ArchaeologicalCouncil. LAYTON, R. I985. "Anthropologyand Aboriginalland rightsin . I983. The impactof theAmerican Indian Religious Free- northernAustralia," in Social anthropologyand development dom Act: A case studyof Zuni pueblo.Haliksa'i (Universityof policy.Edited by R. Grilloand A. Rew,pp. I48-67. London: New Mexico Contributionsin Anthropology)2: I-I5 . Tavistock.[RL] . I989. Ahayu:da: Creation,disposition, and repatriation I 989. "Introduction," in Conflictin the archaeologyof ofZuni war gods,preliminary report to theZuni TribalCoun- livingtraditions. Edited by R. Layton,pp. i-2i. London: cil. MS, Puebloof Zuni and Instituteof theNorthAmerican UnwinHyman. [RL] West. LIVESAY, THOMAS A. I99.2. The impactof the FederalRepatria- . iggoa. The repatriationof Ahayu:da, Zuni wargods: An tionAct on state-operatedmuseums. Arizona State Law Jour- interviewwith the Zuni TribalCouncil. Museum Anthropol- nal 24:293-30I. ogy I4(2):7-I4. MAHUIKA, APIRANA T. I99I. Maori cultureand thenew mu- . iggob. Reporton the theftof threewar godsfrom No- seum. MuseumAnthropology I5(4):9-II. bonniDahna'a shrineon the Zuni IndianReservation: Report MARTZA, BARTON. I99I. "On the trailof the Zuni war gods," to theZuni TribalCouncil. MS, Puebloof Zuni and Institute in Zuni history:Victories in the I990S. Editedby E. Richard ofthe NorthAmerican West. Hartand T. J.Ferguson, section 2, p. I12. Seattle:Institute of . I99I. "Returnof war godssets examplefor repatriation," theNorthAmerican West. in Zuni history:Victories in the I990S. Editedby E. Richard MILLS, BARBARA, AND T. J. FERGUSON. I990. Preservation Hartand T. J.Ferguson, section 2, p. I3. Seattle:Institute of and researchof sacredsites by the Zuni IndianTribe of New theNorthAmerican West. Mexico. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress FERGUSON, T. J., AND WILFRED ERIACHO. I990. Ahayu:da, 2, Barquisemeto, Venezuela. Zuni war gods: Cooperationand repatriation.Native Peoples MOORE, S. I989. "Federal Indian burial policy: Historical anach- 4(I): 6-I i2. ronism or contemporaryreality?" in Conflictin the archaeol- FIRESTONE, DAVID. I988. Rescue in Manhattan:A Zuni god ogyof living traditions. Edited by R. Layton, pp. 2oi-io. Lon- goeshome. New York Newsday, May 27, section2, pp. I-3, 6. don: UnwinHyman. [RLI FRISBIE, CHARLOTTE. I987. Navajo medicinebundles or jish: O'BRIEN, SHARON. I99I. "A legal analysisof the AmericanIn- Acquisition,transmission, and dispositionin thepast and dian ReligiousFreedom Act," in Handbookof American In- present.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. dian religiousfreedom. Edited by ChristopherVecsey, pp. GallupIndependent. I979. Retractionis sought.February 2o. 27-43. New York: Crossroad. GENDRON, VAL. i958. Behindthe Zuni masks. New York: OTHOLE, ANDREW, PERRY TSADIASI, AND T. J. FERGUSON. Longmans,Green. i992. Zuni war god shrinesdocumentation project: Final re- GREEN, JESSE D. I990. Cushingat Zuni: The correspondence portto the Chamiza Foundation.MS, Zuni ArchaeologyPro- and journalsof Frank Hamilton Cushing, I879-I884. Albu- gram,Pueblo of Zuni. querque:University of New Mexico Press. PAREZO, NANCY. I982. An assessmentof the computerizedin- GREENFIELD, JEANETTE. I989. The returnof culturaltrea- ventoryof the Southwestethnological collections, prepared for sures.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. the Departmentof Anthropology, National Museum of Natural HARDIN, MARGARET ANN. I983. Giftsof mother earth: Ceram- History,Smithsonian Institution. MS, Departmentof Anthro- ics in theZuni tradition.Phoenix: Heard Museum. pology,Smithsonian Institution. . I989. "Zuni pottery:The rootsof revival," in Seasons of . I985. Cushingas partof the team:The collectingactivi- thekachina. Edited by Lowell JohnBean, pp. I33-63. Hay- ties ofthe SmithsonianInstitution. American Ethnologist ward:Ballena Press and CaliforniaState University. I2:763-74. HART, E. RICHARD. I99I. "Protectionof Kolhu/wala:wa (Zuni PARSONS, ELSIE CLEWS. I9I8. Wargod shrinesof the Laguna heaven):Litigation and legislation,"in Zuni history:Victories and Zuni. AmericanAnthropologist 20:38I-405. in the I990s. Editedby E. RichardHart and T. J.Ferguson, sec- . I924. The scalp ceremonialof Zuni. Memoirsof the tion 2, p. I2. Seattle:Institute of the NorthAmericanWest. AmericanAnthropological Association 3 I . HINSLEY, CURTIS M. I98I. Savages and scientists:The Smith- RHODD, BENN K. I990. "Reburialin SouthDakota: Two per- sonianInstitution and the developmentof American anthro- spectives,"in Preservationon thereservation: Native Ameri- pology,I846-I91O. Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution cans, Native American lands, and archaeology, pp. 369-75. Press. Navajo NationPapers in Anthropology26. [LJZ] HUBERT, JANE. I989. "A properplace forthe dead: A criticalre- RICHARDSON, LORI. I989. "The acquisition,storage, and han- view ofthe 'reburial'issue," in Conflictin the archaeologyof dling of Aboriginal skeletal remains in museums: An indige- living traditions. Editedby R. Layton,pp. I3I-66. London: nous perspective."in Conflictin the archaeologyof living tra- UnwinHyman. ditions.Edited by R. Layton,pp. i85-88. London: Unwin HUSTITO, CHARLES. I99I. "WhyZuni war godsneed to be re- Hyman. turned,"in Zuni history:Victories in the I990s. Editedby RockyMountain News. I979a. The Zuni God [editorial].Febru- E. RichardHart and T. J.Ferguson, section 2, p. I2. Seattle: aryI5. Instituteof the NorthAmericanWest. . I979b. Zunis rebutmuseum's statements on war god. JOHNSON, HARMER. I979. The auctionblock. American Indian February2o, p. 7. ArtMagazine 4(2):28-29, 82-83. SHANKS, M., AND C. TILLEY. I987. Social theoryand archaeol- JUDD, NEIL M. I967. The Bureauof American Ethnology: A par- ogy. Cambridge: Polity Press. [RL] tial history.Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Smithsonianreturns the Zuni war gods. I987. A:shiwiAwan KEARNEY, w. j. I985. Cox River(AlawaiNgandii) land claim: Ts'ina:i:shokwinne,September, p. 9. Reportby theAboriginal Land Commissioner.Canberra: Aus- STEPHENS, MICHAEL. i982. The Ahayu:da file: A case history tralianGovernment Printing Service. [RL] ofnegotiations for the returnof sacredobjects from the Milli- KNECHT, RICHARD A., AND PHILOMENA HAUSLER-KNECHT. cent Rogers Museum to the Pueblo of Zuni. MS, Millicent i992. The Smithsonianresponse to the LarsenBay repatriation RogersMuseum. MERRILL, LADD, AND FERGUSON The Returnof the Ahayu:da| 567

STEVENSON, JAMES. I883. "Illustrated catalogue of the collec- T. J.Ferguson, section 2, p. I 3. Seattle:Institute of the tionsobtained from the Indiansof New Mexico and Arizonain NorthAmericanWest. I879," in 2nd annual reportof the Bureauof Ethnology,i88o- UBELAKER, DOUGLAS H., AND LAURYN G. GRANT. I989. Hu- i88i, pp. 307-465. Washington,D.C.: GovernmentPrinting man skeletalremains: Preservation or reburial?Yearbook of Office. PhysicalAnthropology 32:249-87. STEVENSON, MATILDA COXE. I887. "The religiouslife of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. I979. Transcriptof pro- Zuni child,"in 5thannual reportof theBureau of American ceedings,United States Department of the Interior,consulta- Ethnology,i883-i884, pp. 533-55. Washington,D.C.: Govern- tionmeeting before the taskforce to implementthe American mentPrinting Office. IndianReligious Freedom Act, June 22, Pueblo ofZuni, vol. 2. . I898. Zuni ancestralgods and masks.American Anthro- . I993. NativeAmerican Graves Protection and Repatria- pologistII:33-40. tionAct regulations:Proposed rule. Federal Register 58 (i02, . I904. "The Zuni Indians:Their mythology, esoteric fra- May 28):3II22-34. ternities,and ceremonies,"in 23rdannual reportof theBu- WEI, C., AND A. AASS. I989. Heritageconservation: East and reau ofAmerican Ethnology, I90I-I902. Washington,D.C.: West.ICOMOS Information,no. 3. GovernmentPrinting Office. WILLIAMS, N. M. I987. The Yolnguand theirland. Canberra: . I915. "Ethnobotanyof the Zuni Indians,"in 3othannual AboriginalStudies Press. [RL] reportof theBureau of AmericanEthnology, ig08-igog, pp. WOLF, RON. I979. Zunis seek returnof war god frommuseum. 3I-I02. Washington,D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office. StraightCreek Journal, February I5, pp. I-2. TALBOT, STEVE. I985. Desecrationand AmericanIndian reli- YALUNG, CATHERINE B., AND LAUREL I. WALA. I992. A sur- giousfreedom. Journal of EthnicStudies I2(4):I-I8. veyof state repatriation and burialprotection statutes. Arizona TOOHEY, j. I980. Anmatjirraand Alyawarraland claim to Uto- StateLaw Journal24:4I9-433. pia pastorallease: Reportby theAboriginal Land Commis- ZIMMERMAN, LARRY J. I989. "Human bones as symbolsof sioner.Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. [RL] power:Aboriginal American belief systems towards bones and TROPE, JACK F., AND WALTER R. ECHO-HAWK. I992. The Na- 'grave-robbing'archaeologists," in Conflictin the archaeology tiveAmerican Graves Protection and RepatriationAct: Back- ofliving traditions. Edited by R. Layton,pp. 2 II-I6. London: groundand legislativehistory. Arizona State Law Journal Unwin Hyman [EC] 24:3 5-77. ZUNI YOUNG ADULT CONSERVATION CORPS. I980. Zuni war TSADIASI, PERRY. I99I. "I wantour fathersback," in Zuni his- god shelter.Youth in Action: YoungAdult ConservationCorps tory:Victories in the I99OS. Editedby E. RichardHart and Newsletter,June.

Wanted

Books and journals forthe librariesof the Universityof in any academic disciplinebut especiallyin history,po- Vilnius,the Russian State Universityof the Humanities litical science, languages,sociology, anthropology, psy- in Moscow, and the Kiev-MogilanskajaAcademy Uni- chiatry,and psychology.To participatein the project, versityand/or financial contributions to theirtransport please write:Second WorldCenter, Andr6 Koppers, P.O. and maintenance.The Second World Center has been Box 3754, Iooi AN Amsterdam,The Netherlands. assemblingmaterials in English,French, and/or German

Our ReadersWrite

In his discussion of the pig-like nature of the Kebara a collectionof refrigerator magnets. I only regretthat he hyoid,Lieberman (CA 34:I72-75) asserts,"The anatom- chose not to apply this intellectualenergy to defending ical claim that Frayer,Smith, and other adherentsof his position. The pity is that ridicule,which some call MilfordWolpoff are making... [would place] the larynx theweapon ofthe defeated,can only createheat without in the creature'schest." The commentis a real double- lightand is disappointingfrom a scholar who has pio- whammyand a greatdebating tactic. In one fell swoop neered so many innovative ideas. What is even more it managesto tar me, forhaving ideas so easily ridiculed disappointing,however, is the editorial process that (whateverthey are-he doesn't actually say, and no ref- allows commentslike this to get into printin anthropol- erenceto my work is in the bibliography),and a number ogy's most importantinternational journal. Everybody of otherscientists for mindlessly sticking to them like getsirritated with colleagues fromtime to time and can-