Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

ARTICLE

Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home: The Importance of Background Investigations for NAGPRA Claims DESIREE R. MARTINEZ, WENDY G. TEETER, AND KARIMAH KENNEDY-RICHARDSON

Abstract The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) claims process can be frustrating for Native American communities due to hindrances such as the lack of provenience and provenance of collections. Through historic research on and preliminary analysis of Santa Catalina Island archaeological collections assembled by Ralph Glidden and held by museums across the United States, the authors have discovered that much of the documented provenience and provenance information is missing, wrong, or at best more complicated than previously thought. The authors assert that background research of collections is imperative to ensure that ancestral remains are returned to the appropriate lineal descendants or Native American descendant community. Further, the Glidden collections show that disputed provenience and provenance information has massive implications for NAGPRA claims made by non-federally recognized tribes, such as the Gabrielino/Tongva, the Indigenous inhabitants of Santa Catalina and the Los Angeles Basin.

“It’s gross what you are doing, keeping the process.3 The NAGPRA claims process our ancestors on the shelf. Why can’t you has been frustrating to some Native American just give them back to us so we can rebury communities due to a number of hindrances, 1 them?” such as incomplete museum inventories and For those who work with Native American lack of physical location information, lack of artifacts and human remains, the above state- financial resources to conduct consultation vis- ment is not unusual. Since the passage of the its, museum and/or federal agency staff ill- Native American Graves Protection and Repa- equipped to lead successful consultations, the triation Act (NAGPRA)2 in 1990, many daunting task of gathering cultural and schol- Native American, Native Hawaiian, and arly information to prove claims, as well as hav- Alaska Native community members thought ing repatriations blocked due to personal and/ NAGPRA would finally remove their ances- or political agendas (Nash and Colwell- tors from museum shelves and send them back Chanthaphonh 2010; Alvitre 2005; Martinez to their communities for reburial. However, 2006). after 24 years, many Native American commu- NAGPRA mandates that prior to repatria- nity members still have not seen their ancestors tion, human remains and objects must have returned, and in some instances have not been documentation that summarizes “the existing allowed to participate, until very recently, in museum or Federal agency records including

Desiree R. Martinez ([email protected]), Gabrielino (Tongva), Cogstone Research Management, 1518 W. Taft Ave., Orange, California. Wendy G. Teeter ([email protected]) Fowler Museum at University of California, Los Angeles, Box 951549, Los Angeles, California. Karimah Kennedy-Richardson ([email protected]), Autry National Center, Southwest Museum, 234 Museum Dr., Los Angeles; Ph.D. Student, University of California, Riverside.

199 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

inventories or catalogues, relevant studies, or their collections were lacking. A particular other pertinent data for the limited purpose of artifact could be exchanged a number of determining the geographic origin, cultural times with provenience information being affiliation, and basic facts surrounding the lost along the way.7 acquisition and accession of human remains and Through historic research on and prelimin- associated funerary objects.”4 ary analysis of Santa Catalina Island archaeo- As Native American communities started logical collections held by a number of museums to make NAGPRA claims and visited museums across the United States, the authors have dis- to view archaeological and ethnographic collec- covered that much of the documented prove- tions, they were surprised and flabbergasted to nience and provenance information is missing, discover that many objects did not have prove- wrong, or at best more complicated than previ- nience and provenance information associated ously thought. Using the collections assembled with them.5 Reno Keoni Franklin, Tribal by Ralph Glidden, a well-known collector of Chairman of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, Channel Island material, as an example, the who has visited many museums and federal authors assert that background research of col- agency repositories for NAGPRA consultation, lections is especially imperative during the states: NAGPRA claim process in order to ensure that the ancestral remains are returned to the Collections always seem to be missing appropriate lineal descendants or Native “objects” and in the case when a federal agency American descendant community. Further, has transferred a collection, there is little to no the Glidden collections show that disputed documentation with both sides pointing the fin- provenience and provenance information has ger at each other. The lackadaisical attitude of massive implications for NAGPRA claims museum staff (not always but frequently) frus- made by non-federally recognized tribes, such trates tribal people. I find myself embarrassed to as the Tongva (Gabrielino), the Indigenous bring traditional leaders with me because of the inhabitants of Santa Catalina and the Los culture vulture attitude many of the museum Angeles Basin staffers have shown.6 The theories and interpretations drawn If there was provenience and provenance from these collections should be scrutinized, information, it was scanty at best, because even if they are considered infallible and indis- the collections were assembled early in the putable by practicing California archaeologists. twentieth century, prior to the development Detailed investigation and acknowledgment of of standardized anthropological excavation the complicated provenience and provenance and recording methods. This is especially issues respects the deceased, who have already true for collections that were the result of been harmed by disinterment, as well as pro- looting or amateur collecting prevalent in the vides the opportunity for the correct cultural late 1800s and early 1900s where the only protocols and ceremonies to be conducted by recorded location information describes a their kin. NAGPRA should not be simply con- large geographical area (such as California or sidered a matter of reburial. Instead, as others Los Angeles). Further, early museums have argued, NAGPRA provides a way for exchanged objects with each other in order Native American communities to recover their to gain depth and breadth in areas where ancestors’ inherent human right to be treated

200 Article: Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

with dignity after death and to assert their sov- ethnographic, and archaeological cultural affili- ereign right to their past. ation (McCawley 1996). At the time of Euro- pean contact by Juan Cabrillo in 1542, the PIMU CATALINA ISLAND ARCHAEOLOGY Tongva lived in autonomous villages comprised PROJECT of related lineages with populations numbering 50 to 100 people and larger villages containing The arguments presented here are based on 300 people. The Tongva used a wooden plank the authors’ first hand experiences as museum canoe called a ti’at to travel to and from the professionals, working with Native American Channel Islands, allowing for intra-island and communities and their objects, both now and in island-mainland trade, exchange, and commu- the past. The authors have witnessed the emo- nication. Santa Catalina Island items such as tional reactions of Native American community soapstone artifacts, dried fish, and marine mam- members as they have viewed museum collec- mal pelts and meat were traded for mainland tions. Furthermore, each author has had exten- resources including furs, skins, grass seeds, sive experience researching the provenience and worked deer bone, chert, and obsidian (Bean provenance of collections in preparation for and Vane 1978; Meighan 1959; Schumacher Native American consultations under NAG- 1879, 11). These are the tataayiyam honuuka’— PRA. Wendy Teeter has been the NAGPRA the “ancestors” of our title.8 coordinator for the University of California, In addition to the three southern Channel Los Angeles since 1998 and has overseen doz- Islands, Gabrielino (Tongva) traditional terri- ens of repatriation requests and returns. Desiree tory included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Martinez is a Gabrielino (Tongva) community San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The member and has participated in the NAGPRA term Gabrielino was used by the Spanish to claim process both as a claimant and as a liaison identify Native Americans who were baptized at for other Native American communities. the Mission San Gabriel during the Spanish Karimah Kennedy Richardson is the staff colonial period. Prior to European contact, archaeologist for the Southwest Museum of the there was no collective overarching label that American Indian, Autry National Center and is identified people who lived in the Los Angeles charged with performing the osteological Basin. Instead, people would identify them- inventories and organizing and assisting selves as belonging to a particular village. Most research for NAGPRA inventories and notices. of these names have since been lost. As an alter- The authors are also practicing archaeologists, native to Gabrielino, which only reminds the co-directing the Pimu Catalina Island Archae- community of their painful past, a number of ology Project (PCIAP), which investigates over descendant community members are using the 8,000 years of cultural history on Santa Cata- term Tongva. This term will be used through- lina Island. out the rest of the article. Located 22 miles off the coast of Southern Since 2007, PCIAP has investigated how California, Santa Catalina (Pimu or Pimungna) the connections between various communities is one of three southern Channel Islands includ- of Tongva—both physical and social—were ing San Clemente (Kiinkepar) and San Nicolas constructed and maintained. The primary (Xaraashnga) that were inhabited by the method of this investigation is compiling and Gabrielino (Tongva) based on linguistic, re-analyzing previous research; re-mapping,

Desiree R. Martinez, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah Kennedy-Richardson 201 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

re-assessing and re-documenting previously As a result of adhering to these principles, recorded sites using GPS and GIS technology; PCIAP’s research has been shaped through as well as identifying and documenting new sites continued discussions, during all research while working with members of the Tongva phases, with Tongva community members who community and living multi-generational Cata- have special interests and familial ties to Santa lina Island residents. The project also explores Catalina Island. the span of time and location of human occupa- For decades, Tongva community members tion through geomorphological analysis and have actively fought against the notion that the landscape studies (Teeter et al. 2013). Taken Tongva are extinct or are latecomers to the together, PCIAP’s research goals aim to dispel southern California area, as well as the distorted the imagined history of Santa Catalina Island stereotype that they are a group of delusional and to educate the public about who the Tongva Mexicans who are lying about their heritage for were and are—an objective considered essential personal gain (Alvitre 2006; Jurmain and by the Tongva community. McCawley 2009; Martinez 2010b; Teeter and PCIAP is unique within the southern Cali- Martinez 2009). These perceptions are based on fornia archaeological research community due studies completed by early ethnologists and to its use of an Indigenous Archaeology anthropologists who had a limited definition of approach. Indigenous Archaeology was first who was Tongva and who wasn’t. defined by George Nicholas in 1990 as “archae- At the end of the nineteenth and beginning ology done with, for and by Indigenous people” of the twentieth centuries, many scholars (Nicholas and Andrews 1997, 3). Nicholas engaged in “salvage ethnography,” the record- expanded his definition to include at least eight ing of California Native American lifeways principles that further the deconstruction of the before they “vanished.” However, the scholars colonial enterprise inherent within archaeologi- focused solely on gathering pre-Columbian life- cal research. They are: ways practiced prior to “corruption” by outside (European) influences. This strategy was based (1) The proactive participation or consulta- on the idea that one could lose his or her culture tion of Indigenous peoples in archaeology; (2) A by incorporating “foreign” ideas and objects into political statement concerned with issues of “traditional” lifeways. In reality, lifeways were Aboriginal self-government, sovereignty, land an accumulation of hundreds of changes, some- rights, identity, and heritage; (3) A postcolonial times spurred by outside influences, over thou- enterprise designed to decolonize the discipline; sands of years. As a result, anyone who did not (4) A manifestation of Indigenous epistemolo- participate in the “pure”—and basically fictional gies; (5) The basis for alternative models of cul- —culture was not considered a California tural heritage management or stewardship; (6) Native American. Alfred L. Kroeber used this The product of choices and actions made by benchmark when he searched for Tongva in individual archaeologists; (7) A means of 1910. When he didn’t find anyone who fit his empowerment and cultural revitalization or strict definition, he declared the Gabrielino political resistance; and (8) An extension, evalu- extinct. “Since Kroeber is considered the father, ation, critique, of current archaeological theory the authority, of Native California ethnogra- (2008, 1660). phy, his perspective is given precedence over

202 Article: Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

other perspectives,” one of us wrote (Martinez PCIAP’s first task was to identify where Cata- 2010a, 216). “Later studies followed his lead; if lina archaeological collections are physically Kroeber said it, it must be true.” located and to become familiar with the As will be discussed later, these misin- amount and types of artifacts that have been formed ideas and studies have hindered the previously collected. A number of research Tongva community’s ability to assert sovereign expeditions to Catalina occurred during the late rights over the treatment and care of their cul- nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (For a tural items and ancestors. complete list see Wlodarski 1982.) For exam- Tongva community members have devel- ple, from 1873-1874, naturalist William Dall, oped public educational programs (Kuruvungna best known for his documentation of Native Springs, for instance9) to dispel these myths, Alaskan cultural practices and material, jour- and are working with scholars, such as the neyed with the United States Coast Survey to authors, to create research agendas that show collect natural resource specimens along the they have continued to be a vibrant community Pacific Coast (Smithsonian 2011). Dall in spite of historic and modern colonial pres- returned with a number of Santa Catalina sures. Further, they will no longer allow their Island artifacts and presented them to the histories and contributions to be silenced or United States National Museum, now the solely conveyed by non-community members. Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural PCIAP also addresses the concerns of the History (House of Representatives 1877, 533). Tongva community by exposing archaeology Under contract with the United States students to an Indigenous perspective during the National Museum and the Harvard Peabody Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Field School Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Paul (Martinez 2012). Students are introduced to the Schumacher joined the Expedition for Explora- cultural beliefs and deep history of the Tongva tions West of the One Hundredth Meridian to as they are taught rigorous archaeological meth- collect additional artifacts from California’s ods reviewed by the Register of Professional Channel Islands and from sites on the southern Archaeologists (RPA). Students learn that sites California mainland. Schumacher’s investiga- and objects are not valued solely based on their tions from 1875 to 1879 included documenting research potential, but are seen by the Tongva Catalina’s soapstone quarries, gathering sam- community as being infused with power and ples of native plants, as well as assembling exam- symbolism. By learning directly from Tongva ples of mainland basketry.10 Schumacher’s community members about the importance of collections were divided between the Harvard the island’s cultural resources to the Tongva Peabody Museum and United States National community, students—it’s hoped—will recog- Museum. nize that various communities have a different Although these early expeditions were sci- sense of place and space and will take this reali- entific and scholarly explorations with published zation to their future archaeological endeavors. results, detailed descriptions of context were non-existent. Generally only vaguely descriptive EARLY RESEARCH AND COLLECTIONS terms were used—Johnson’s Landing, Whitney’s Place, and Potts Valley, for instance—which In order to understand cultural materials identified large swaths of land that included a that have been removed from Catalina, number of activity and habitation areas.

Desiree R. Martinez, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah Kennedy-Richardson 203 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

It wasn’t until the UCLA Archaeological of the past. His big “break” came when George Survey, running from the late 1950s until the Heye, director of the Museum of the American 1970s, that a systematic and research-oriented Indian located in New York City, hired Glidden approach was applied to Santa Catalina Island over Chappell—Heye had described Chappell (see Meighan 1959; Finnerty et al. 1970). as a horrible looter—to assemble a collection of Environmental-compliance-driven archaeolog- Channel Islands artifacts for his museum ical work as well as smaller research and field (Wlodarski 1982, 8). school projects were completed from the 1970s Glidden excavated mainly on Santa Catalina, to the present, through the University of Cali- SanNicolas,andSanMiguelIslandsbetween fornia, Riverside; California State University, 1919 and 1923. Photographs and journals, now Los Angeles; and California State University, held by the Santa Catalina Island Museum, Long Beach.11 Although these later projects record the hundreds of burials and thousands of identified and recorded many sites, the haste objects removed under the sponsorship of the with which they were conducted, often by stu- Heye Foundation. The patronage ended by 1923 dents, resulted in often imprecise location data when Heye realized that Glidden was selling and incomplete site characterizations not useful objects to other collectors and publicizing his today. findings at the expense of his benefactor. PCIAP has found that some of the most In 1924, Glidden built his own Museum of unique items were in assemblages amassed by the American Indian of the Channel Islands in individuals who lived and/or vacationed on Cat- Avalon with the remains and cultural materials alina Island, such as Ralph Glidden, Frederick not sent to the Heye Foundation or to Chicago’s Holder, George Schaffer, Louella Blanche Field Museum (at the request of board member Trask, William Henry Holms, and Arthur William Wrigley). Glidden decided on a very Sanger. Some of these individuals eventually particular way of displaying his finds. This donated their collections to various museums included using various skeletal elements nailed nationwide, such as the National Museum of to walls and structures to create shelving brack- American Indian and others. Glidden, whose ets and wall decorations. As one newspaper collections are described here, was the most article described it: prolific and well known. But—the little museum itself is lined with RALPH GLIDDEN AND HIS COLLECTIONS human bones. The window frames are finger bones, the sills, toe bones, great rosettes grace Born in 1881 in Lowell, Massachusetts, the ceilings, these are human shoulder blades, Ralph Glidden moved with his parents to shank bones form the braces of shelves upon Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, when he was 15. which rest grinning skulls of noble chieftains... Although Glidden learned to be a carpenter like bones, bones, everywhere bones (Anonymous his father and helped with the family business, 1926). he joined the crew of Captain A. B. Chappell (another early relic hunter) to explore San Glidden hoped that his collections would Nicolas Island in search of abalone pearls in bring him fame and glory. Alma Overholt, his 1915 (Wlodarski 1978). Instead of pearls, he publicist and greatest champion, wrote a became more interested in digging for treasures number of sensationalist newspaper articles for

204 Article: Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

the Los Angeles Times detailing Glidden’s “dis- tion information of “Santa Catalina Island” coveries,” including “White Indian Giants” and (National Museum of the American Indian Indian Princesses, one said to have been found 2009). buried and clutching the side of a large urn sur- Further complicating collection prove- rounded by 65 children (1930; 1932). Although nience, a recent inventory and preliminary phys- he tried desperately to find credible museums to ical documentation of the human remains purchase his collections and sponsor his within the Glidden collection shows numerous research, he was unsuccessful and the museum ethnicities being represented, including non- closed by 1950. Glidden sold the museum col- Native Americans and partial remains such as lection to the Catalina Museum Society12 for an Egyptian mummy hand and foot. Previous $5,000 in 1962; it became the foundation for researchers have always assumed that the the Catalina Island Museum’s archaeological human remains collected by Glidden were collections (Sahagun 2012). either Chumash or Tongva, based on Glidden’s documented Channel Island expeditions. How- GLIDDEN’S COLLECTION AND DISPLAY ever, we now know that this is not the case. PRACTICES After reviewing some of Glidden’s docu- ments, Martinez found that Glidden purchased The history of Glidden’s collection and many display pieces that were generically Native display practices highlights a number of American, such as model canoes, teepees, and important issues that affect NAGPRA claims dolls from dealers across the country. He was made to museums that hold remains and especially fond of one business in particular, items acquired by Glidden. First and foremost Smith’s Coin and Curio Company located in is the problem of provenience. In order to Sacramento. Glidden bought a number of arti- accurately culturally affiliate human remains facts from this company, including shell beads, and cultural objects, one must know the exact spear points, soapstone pendants, as well as skel- location of the burial or object and be able to etal material. In his letters to Glidden, proprie- demonstrate that they are Native American. tor Carl Smith states that the human remains Although Glidden briefly documented his and other items came from a number of shell finds in journals and took pictures, linking the mounds located within the Sacramento Valley. human remains and burial objects back to It is not known if any of these items ever made it those notes is almost impossible. Glidden used into the collections assembled by Glidden and a basic sequential numbering system in his passed off as being from the Channel Islands. journal to keep track of his finds, but did not However—according to Ernest Windle, one of write those numbers on the remains or on his many who accompanied Glidden into the Santa photographs. This problem extends also to the Catalina Interior to dig—Glidden thought that Glidden collections sent to other museums, the Shoshonean Indians, such as the Tongva, such as the Field Museum and the Heye came from South America, while the Chumash Foundation’s Museum of the American came “from the north, of Mongolian extraction, Indian.13 It appears that only brief catalogue and are the same type of Indian as those found cards were sent with the cultural items, pro- in and around Sacramento” (Windle 1931, 23- viding a generalized description and little if 25). If this is true, it may explain why Glidden any context beyond the basic geographic loca- thought buying skeletal material from the

Desiree R. Martinez, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah Kennedy-Richardson 205 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

Sacramento area would be a good substitute for IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL HISTORY Chumash remains. Further, in the account book AND ITS INTERPRETATION documenting his expenditures on behalf of the Heye Foundation collection, Glidden includes Based on what has been discussed here, charges for items purchased from Smith’s Coin one must question the regional histories and and Curio, indicating the possibility that some of chronologies developed using data gathered the Sacramento material made it into the Heye from collections such as Glidden’s. Some have collections. argued that the Tongva are relative newcomers The treatment of the Santa Catalina to the Los Angeles Basin and Southern Chan- Island Museum’s Glidden collection after its nel Islands. Supporters of what is called the excavation by Glidden also demonstrates how Shoshonean Wedge or Shoshonean “intrusion” the provenance has implications for NAG- theory contend that the Tongva and other PRA claims. After the purchase of the Glid- Takic speakers moved toward the Southern den Museum collection by the Catalina California coast around 4,000 Before Present Museum Society, UCLA graduate students (BP) from the Great Basin area and “wedged” Keith Johnson and Fred Reinman were asked themselves between the Hokan-speaking to dismantle and inventory the collections. As Chumash, now located to the north, and the they removed the bones that were nailed to Hokan-speaking Kumeyaay, now located to the walls and shelves, many elements crum- the south (Sutton 2009). The Shoshonean bled into small pieces. Additionally, due to Wedge theory was first proposed by Alexander the sheer number of the skeletal elements, S. Taylor in “The Indianology of California,” only those that offered the most information his column published in the California Farmer to researchers at the time (cranium, pelvis, from 1860 to 1863. Originally just an observa- and femur bones) were kept; the rest were dis- tion placed as a footnote to his larger com- carded into the ocean (personal communica- mentary of California Native American tion, Keith Johnson 2014). Further, because lifeways, his idea gained legitimacy through its Glidden disarticulated and separated his finds support by Alfred Kroeber (1925) and is now in order to “decorate” his museum, and he had accepted as fact by most California archaeolo- no numbering system in place, it is impossible gists (such as Sutton 2009). Using the Glidden to reunite separated elements together. These collections, scholars have provided data to sup- issues make it impossible to know the actual port this theory by measuring the physical dif- number of people Glidden really unearthed, ferences between Tongva and Chumash which may have ranged from 800 to over skeletal material and using their documented 3,000 by his count, nor where they came from. provenience (see Kroeber 1925; Kerr 2004; Preliminary analysis shows that there are min- Sholts et al. 2010; Legler 1977). However, imally 200 people currently represented in the based on the previous discussions, it can no Glidden collection. Most egregious in this sit- longer be assumed that Glidden collections uation is the fact that it is impossible to put contain only people from the Channel Islands. people back together, something that accord- Thus, any conclusions drawn from Glidden’s ing to Tongva tradition hinders the spiritual problematic skeletal collection should be con- journey of the deceased. sidered suspect.

206 Article: Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES’ resources, services, human remains, and objects NAGPRA CLAIMS that they do not have the right to. However, this is not always the case. Instead many tribes and NAGPRA has been described as a way to communities remain unrecognized due to their remedy the differential treatment Native Amer- unique history. For the Tongva, their rights and ican remains and objects have received in the recognition as a Native American tribe was sup- past. However, even with NAGPRA in place, posed to be acknowledged by the United States Native American remains continue to be treated with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe unequally within the law. Until the recent Hidalgo with Mexico. However, through the changes made in 2010, NAGPRA only per- lobby efforts of Southern California ranch own- tained to “any tribe, band, nation, or other orga- ers on whose land many Tongva worked at the nized group or community of Indians that is time, their identity as a vibrant Native American recognized as eligible for the special programs community was purposely obscured so that they and services provided by the United States to would not be relocated to distant reservations, Indians because of their status as Indians” as other troublesome Native American commu- (NAGPRA 1990, as amended). Human nities were (Shipek 1987). The removal of the remains and funerary objects that could not be workforce from the ranchos would have caused culturally affiliated with a federally recognized great financial hardship for the owners. This tribe were labeled culturally unidentifiable, even cession of acknowledgment by the federal and if a non-federally recognized community was local governments has created a number of available. The human remains and objects often obstacles for the Tongva to have control over stayed on the shelves until a federally recognized their livelihood as well as the ability to give voice tribe could be affiliated with them or until a pro- to their history the way they want to. cess was developed in order to deal with them as On top of this failure of the U.S. Govern- culturally unidentifiable. In order to circumvent ment, scholarly theories such as the Shoshonean this obstacle, some federally recognized tribes Wedge argue against the Tongva’s claims of made claims to human remains and funerary affiliation to human remains and to items older objects and, once these were repatriated, than 4,000 BP. In order to have human remains returned them to the non-federally recognized and items affiliated, under NAGPRA, “the pre- tribe for reburial. The Tongva have worked with ponderance of the evidence—based on geo- the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and graphical, kinship, biological, archeological, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in this anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradi- manner (Department of the Interior, National tion, historical evidence, or other information Parks Service 2002; 2004). Many non-federally or expert opinion” must reasonably lead to that recognized tribes have not taken this route conclusion.14 During the NAGPRA claim pro- because they want to show their sovereignty by cess, tribes present evidence supporting affilia- claiming their ancestors outright without hav- tion; many hire expert consultants to assist and ing to rely on another related tribe. participate in their own research. Federally rec- Being federally non-recognized and unable ognized tribes have access to resources, either to make NAGPRA claims, tribes run into the through government programs geared toward insinuation that they are not “real” Native Native Americans or their tribe’s own financial Americans and are trying gain access to money, resources, to pay for this gathering of

Desiree R. Martinez, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah Kennedy-Richardson 207 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

information. In contrast, non-federally recog- GETTING THE ANCESTORS BACK TO nized tribal members do additional research THEIR HOMES AND COMMUNITY after their “day jobs” or rely on scholars to vol- unteer their time to help their case. Too many As lengthy as the NAGPRA claim process previously conducted reports contain incom- can be, each step is imperative to ensure that plete tribal information or make inaccurate the ancestors and other cultural items are care- interpretations about the tribe’s history and cul- fully identified, properly cared for, and sent to ture to be useful. the right relatives. The exhumation of the Even with the addition of culturally un- ancestors, without their consent, has been a identifiable (CUI) regulations in NAGPRA, tragic and painful experience that Native however, non-federally recognized tribes still American communities have had to struggle face obstacles in the NAGPRA process. For with since colonization. Some argue that the example, it must be first determined whether a best way to ease this pain is to just return all of federally recognized tribe has any cultural tie to the remains and funerary objects without fur- an area; the tribe must then refuse affiliation ther research as quickly as possible. However, before a non-federally recognized tribe’s right returning the ancestors without extensive to a claim may be acknowledged. research could actually cause more anguish, Another major hurdle for non-federally especially if the ancestors are returned to the recognized tribes is that even if human remains wrong community. Not taking the time to do are repatriated back to them, they often do not intensive background research can be just as have land on which to rebury them. Although it disrespectful as the original disinterment. is preferable to bury repatriated human remains Although each Native American community and objects as close to the original location of holds its own beliefs on the appropriate treat- removal as possible, this is sometimes not feasi- ment of the dead, it is all of our responsibili- ble. With federal recognition, tribes have trust ties to get the ancestors back to their lands, or the ability to put land into trust,15 that communities, so they can continue to be hon- can be used for reburial if necessary. Since trust ored and cherished by their relatives. END land is not available for non-federally recog- nized tribes, repatriated human remains have to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS continue to sit on shelves in the physical posses- sion of the museum or agency until land can be The authors would like to thank the following orga- found within which to rebury. nizations and individuals for their continued support Even with all of these complications, how- of the Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Research ever, non-federally recognized tribes are work- Project: the Gabrielino (Tongva) Community; Santa ing hard to find solutions. Through capacity Catalina Island Conservancy; California State Uni- versity, Northridge; Santa Catalina Island Museum; building and working with projects such as the University of Southern California; Cotsen Institute PCIAP, the Tongva community is attempting of Archaeology and the Director’s Council; UCLA to obtain the tools necessary to bring their Tribal Learning Community and Educational ancestors home and to see them treated with the Exchange Program; Nakwatsvewat Institute; Fowler respect they deserve. Museum at UCLA; and Catalina island residents.

208 Article: Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

NOTES Reinman and Eberhart 1980; Rosenthal et al. 1988. 1. A UCLA graduate student speaking to the first 12. Founded in 1953, the Catalina Museum Soci- author, Martinez, in 2006. ety, Inc. was the precursor and is now the non- 2. NAGPRA: 104 STAT. 3048 Public Law 101- profit that supports the Santa Catalina Island 601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. Museum. The society was started by William 3. With the Cultural Unidentifiable (CUI) rule Wrigley and residents who wanted to ensure that was passed in 2010, non-federally recog- that the history of Avalon and Catalina was pre- nized Native American communities can now served and accessible to future generations. make claims for human remains as long as the 13. After the closure of the Heye Foundation’s federally recognized tribes do not object to that Museum of the American Indian, the United affiliation. States Congress appropriated money to buy the 4. NAGPRA: 104 STAT. 3048 Public Law 101- collections and created the foundation of the 601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 § 10.9 (e)(5)(i)). National Museum of the American Indian. 5. Personal communication, Joyce Perry (Acjache- 14. NAGPRA: 104 STAT. 3048 Public Law 101- men) 2014; personal communication, Cindi 601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 § 10.2 4 (e)(1). Alvitre (Tongva) 2014; personal communica- 15. Trust land is land that is managed by the Bureau tion, and Rosie Clayburn (Yurok) 2014. of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the benefit of a fed- 6. Reno Keoni Franklin’s quote was a response to a erally recognized tribe. question about tribal experiences regarding NAGPRA posted on Facebook by one of the REFERENCES authors (Martinez) on January 8, 2014. It is used here with his permission. Alvitre, Cindi. 2005. Moving into the mainstream. 7. See Kaplan and Barsness (1986) in regard to this Convergence (Winter): 6–10. situation with Alaskan and other objects held by Anonymous. 1926. Catalina’s museum walls lined the University of Pennsylvania Museum of with Indian bones, relics of long-lost. Los Angeles Archaeology and Anthropology. Times Jan. 10, page B3. 8. The phrase tayiiy honuuka’ means ancestor in the Bean, L.J., and S. Brakke Vane, eds. 1978. Persistence Gabrielino (Tongva) language. Although the and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in word for “ancestors,” tataayiyam honuuka’, was the Sonoran Desert and the Devers-Palo Verde not previously recorded, Pam Munro, a UCLA High Voltage Transmission Line. Submitted to linguist who is working with members of the Southern California Edison by Cultural Systems Gabrielino (Tongva) on language revitalization, Research, Menlo Park, California. proposes the above spelling for the plural, based Department of the Interior, National Park Service. on other Native American languages within the 2002. Notice of inventory completion for Native same family. (Personal communication, Pam American human remains and associated Munro, 2014). funerary objects in the possession of California 9. For more information about Kuruvungna State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA. Springs see http://www.gabrielinosprings.com/ Federal Register 67(176): 57621. mainmenu.html. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service. 10. For instance, see Harvard Peabody 2004. Notice of inventory completion: U.S. Museum Number 78-40-10/14757-59; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Schumacher 1877; 1878; 1879; Wheeler, Angeles National Forest, Arcadia, CA. Federal et al. 1879. Register 69(225): 68159–68160. 11. See Wlodarski 1982; Strudwick et al. 2007. For Finnerty, W.P., D.A. Decker, N.N. Leonard III, university research projects, see Leonard 1976; T.F. King, C.D. King, and L.B. King. 1970.

Desiree R. Martinez, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah Kennedy-Richardson 209 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

Community structure and trade at Isthmus ———. 2010b. The Shoshonean Wedge should only Cove: A salvage excavation on Catalina Island. be the name of a shoe: The Wedge theory and its Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Occasional effects on Tongva history and identity. Paper Papers No. 1. presented at the Society for American House of Representatives of the United States. 1877. Archaeology, April 17, 2010. Appendices of the report of the chief of ———. 2012. A land of archaeologists: Archaeology engineers. In Report of the Secretary of War. with native Californians. In California: Volume II Part III. Washington, DC: Contemporary Issues in Archaeology, T. Jones and Government Printing Office. J. Perry, eds., 355–367. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Jurmain, C.K., and W. McCawley. 2009. Oh My Coast Press. Ancestor: Recognition and Renewal for the McCawley, W. 1996.The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino-Tongva People of the Los Angeles Area. Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. Malki Museum Press. Kaplan, Susan, and Kristin Barsness, eds. 1986. Meighan, C.W. 1959. The little harbor site, Catalina Raven’s Journey: The World of Alaska’s Native Island: An example of ecological interpretations People. Philadelphia: University Museum in archaeology. American Antiquity 24(4): 383– Publications. 405. Kerr, S., and G.M. Hawley. 2002. Population Nash, Stephen E., and Chip Colwell- replacement in the southern Channel Islands: Chanthaphonh. 2010. Editorial: NAGPRA New evidence from San Nicholas Island. after two decades. Museum Anthropology 33(2): Proceedings of the Fifth California Island 99–104. Symposium: 546–554. Santa Barbara: Santa National Museum of the American Indian. 2009. Barbara Museum of Natural History. Catalina inventory sent to D. Martinez, January Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of 15, 2009. In the possession of the authors. California. Washington, DC: Bureau of Nicholas, G. 2008. Native peoples and archaeology. American Ethnology. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, D. Pearsall, ed., Legler, W.C. 1977. Description, Analysis and Origin volume 3: 1660–1669. New York: Academic of Crania from the Catalina Island Museum Society Press. Collection. Unpublished masters thesis. Nicholas, G., and T. Andrews. 1997. Indigenous Department of Anthropology, California State archaeology in a post-modern world. In At A University, Long Beach. Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Leonard III, N.N. 1976. Archaeological Element for Canada, G. Nicholas and T. Andrews, eds., the Conservation and Recreation Plan for Santa 1–18. Burnaby: SFU Archaeology Press. Catalina Island. Phase I: The Data Base. Overholt, A. 1930. Giant white Indian race stirs Submitted to the Center of Natural Areas. scientific research. Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26, Copies available at the California South Central page F6. Coastal Information Center. ———. 1932. The mysterious children’s graves on Martinez, D.R. 2006. Overcoming hindrances to our Catalina isle. Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, page J5. enduring responsibility to the ancestors: Public Law 101-601. 1990. Native American Graves Protecting traditional cultural places. (Special Protection and Repatriation Act, as amended. Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology.) American 104 STAT. 3048 Public Law 101-601; 25 Indian Quarterly 30(3): 486–503. U.S.C. 3001 et seq. ———. 2010a (Re)searching for ancestors through Reinman, F., and H. Eberhart. 1980. Test archaeology. In Being and Becoming Indigenous excavations at the Ripper’s Cove site, SCaI-26. Archaeologists, George Nicolas, ed., 210–221. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 16(1 Maryland: AltaMira Press. and 2): 6: 1–105.

210 Article: Returning the tataayiyam honuuka’ (Ancestors) to the Correct Home Volume 57 Number 2 April 2014

Rosenthal, E.J., S.L. Williams, M. Roeder, W. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2 Bonner, and I. Strudwick. 1988. The Bulrush and 3): 31–93. Canyon project: Excavations at Bulrush Canyon Teeter, W.G., and D.R. Martinez. 2009. Native site (ScaI-137) and Camp Cactus Road site, American perspectives of California Santa Catalina Island. Pacific Coast Archaeological archaeology. In Archaeology in America Society Quarterly 24(2 and 3). Encyclopedia, L.S. Cordell, K. Lightfoot, Sahagun, L. 2012. Bones flesh out an island’s history: F. McManamon and G. Milner, eds., 20–26. Files of man who dug up Indian skeletons could Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group. change views of early Catalina life. Los Angeles Teeter, W.G., D.R. Martinez, and K. Kennedy- Times April 02, Column 1. Richardson. 2013. Cultural landscapes of Schumacher, P. 1877. Method and manufacture of Catalina Island. In California’s Channel Islands: several articles by the former inhabitants of The Archaeology of Human-Environment Southern California. In Peabody Museum 11th Interactions, C.S. Jazwa and J.E. Perry, eds. Salt Annual Report, VII: 258–268. Cambridge, MA: Lake City: University of Utah Press. Peabody Museum Press. Wheeler, G.M., A.A. Humphreys, and H.G. Schumacher, P. 1878. Ancient olla manufactory of Wright. 1879. Report Upon United States Santa Catalina Island, California. American Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Naturalist 12(9): 629. Meridian: Archaeology. Washington, DC: Schumacher, P. 1879. The method and manufacture Government Printing Office. of soapstone pots. In Report Upon United States Windle, Ernest. 1931. History of Santa Catalina. Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Avalon, CA: Catalina Islander. Meridian: Archæology, G. Wheeler, A.A. Wlodarski, R.J. 1978. Ralph Glidden: His museum Humphreys and H. Wright, eds., 117–121. and collection. The Masterkey 52(1): 4–10. Los Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Angeles: Southwest Museum. Shipek, F. 1987. Pushed into the Rocks: Southern ———. 1979. Ralph Glidden’s Catalina California Indian Land Tenure, 1769-1986. investigations. The Masterkey 53(2): 55–61. Los Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Angeles: Southwest Museum. Sholts, Sabrina B., Anna F. Clement, and Margaret ———. 1982. A Bibliography of Catalina Island Clegg. 2010. An investigation of European Investigations and Excavations (1850-1980). skeletal remains buried on San Nicolas Island, Occasional Paper 9. Los Angeles: Institute of California: New insights into early European Archaeology, University of California, Los contact with native Californian populations. Angeles. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Smithsonian Institution. 2011. Smithsonian Scrapbook: Letters, Diaries, and Photographs from the Smithsonian Archives. Accessed Oct. 5, 2011 at http://siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/ documents/dall.htm. Strudwick, I.H., R. McLean, J. Michalsky, B. Smith, and J.E. Baumann. 2007. A Glimpse of the Past on Pimu: Cultural Resource Survey, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California. LSA Associates. Submitted to Southern California Edison. Copy available at the South Central Coastal Information Center. Sutton, M.Q. 2009. People and language, defining the Takic expansion into Southern California.

Desiree R. Martinez, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah Kennedy-Richardson 211