Politics of Repatriation: Formalizing Indigenous Cultural Property Rights By Ashleigh ML Breske Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Planning, Governance, and Globalization Timothy W. Luke, Chair Ann-Marie Knoblauch Aaron Ansell Tom Skuzinski June 25, 2018 Blacksburg Virginia Keywords: Repatriation, NAGPRA, cultural property indigenism, institutions Copyright 2018 Politics of Repatriation: Formalizing Indigenous Cultural Property Rights Ashleigh ML Breske ABstract This project will be an empirical study into repatriation as a political practice. This theoretically-oriented project investigates how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in the governance of repatriation policy, specifically its formalization and rescaling in the United States. I propose a critical approach to understanding repatriation; specifically, I will draw together issues surrounding museums, repatriation claims, and indigenous communities throughout the development of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 and current repatriation policy. The interdisciplinary academic narrative I build will explore practices of repatriation and how it relates to the subject of indigenous cultural rights. Using the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia, PA and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, IL as models for the repatriation process, I will show the historic political tensions and later attempts to repatriate culturally significant objects and human remains in the United States. By examining entrenched discourses prior to NAGPRA and what changed to allow a new dominant discourse in the debates over repatriation claims, I will show that culturally- structured views on repatriation and narratives surrounding indigenous cultural property were transformed. By examining ownership paradigms and analyzing discourses and institutional power structures, it is possible to understand the ramifications of formalizing repatriation. The current binary of cultural property nationalism/cultural property internationalism in relation to cultural property ownership claims does not represent the full scope of the conflict for indigenous people. Inclusion of a cultural property indigenism component into the established ownership paradigm will more fully represent indigenous concerns for cultural property. Looking at the rules, norms and strategies of national and international laws and museum institutions, I will also argue that there are consequences to repatriation claims that go beyond possession of property and a formalized process (or a semi- formalized international approach) can aid in addressing indigenous rights. I will also ask the question, does this change in discourse develop in other countries with similar settler colonial pasts and indigenous communities, i.e. in Canada, New Zealand, Australia? My work will demonstrate that it does. Essentially, the repatriation conversation does not immediately change in one country and then domino to others. Instead, it is a change that is happening concurrently, comparative to other civil rights movements and national dialogues. The cultural and institutional shifts demanding change appear to have some universal momentum. The literatures to which this research will contribute include: museum studies, institutional practices, material cultural and public humanities, and indigenous right. Politics of Repatriation: Formalizing Indigenous Cultural Property Rights Ashleigh ML Breske General Audience ABstract By examining how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in the governance of repatriation policy, specifically its formalization and rescaling in the United States, this project looks at repatriation as a political practice. This dissertation explores the subject of indigenous cultural rights and explores issues surrounding museums, repatriation claims, and indigenous communities throughout the development of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 and current repatriation policy both domestically and internationally. Case studies of institutional practices are developed utilizing the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia, PA and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, IL as models for the repatriation process. This will demonstrate the historic political tensions and later attempts to repatriate culturally significant objects and human remains in the United States and abroad. This research also investigates the current cultural property nationalism/cultural property internationalism paradigm and calls for an inclusion of a cultural property indigenism component to represent indigenous concerns for cultural property more fully. Looking at the rules, norms and strategies of national and international laws and museum institutions, I will also argue that there are consequences to repatriation claims that go beyond possession of property and a formalized process (or a semi-formalized international approach) can aid in addressing indigenous rights. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I want to thank Timothy W. Luke for the advice, guidance, and encouragement over the years. You were the first person I spoke with about coming to the Planning, Governance, and Globalization program and I am forever indebted to you for encouraging me to apply. My deepest gratitude to Ann-Marie Knoblauch, Aaron Ansell, Tom Skuzinski, and Patricia Nickel for guidance as committee members over the years. You have all given excellent edits, helpful critiques, and book recommendations to guide my research. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for your love and patience over the years. To my husband, Adam, and two lovely daughters, Evelyn and Isla, thank you for being supportive and helping to create an environment where I could work and grow with this project. To my brother, Jared, for kindly reading multiple iterations of articles and chapters over the years. To my fellow students, friends, and everyone else who has ever listened to me talk about repatriation, thank you for your support. I was recently asked why I wanted to write a dissertation on indigenous repatriations— what had led me down this research path? It all began when I worked as a docent in the Field Museum in 2010-2011 leading tours and giving talks on the Ancient Egypt exhibit. Occasionally, museum guests would ask why we had certain objects and how they had made their way into our collection. Had we purchased everything? What had been excavated? And in hushed tones, how much of our collection had been stolen? I readily supplied answers based on the docent training—we had a bill of sale for every object, the collection mostly stemmed from the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, and the Field Museum was a research institutions and not in the habit of stealing, etc. I felt very sure of the collection. The objects here were helping to spread knowledge about the ancient world, to show us how we are all connected. But then, while exploring the Ancient Americas exhibit, I came across a sign over a boarded-over exhibit explaining why the display could not be viewed by the public according to NAGPRA regulation. I was curious as to why these objects were not just given back to the indigenous community in question. Why did they stay at the museum—hidden behind a wall, but still in the museum’s possession? This question inspired my research into power relationships at the museum and NAGPRA as federal legislation. I want to thank the Field Museum especially for the essence of an idea that became this research project. iv Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE: ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 HISTORICAL BEGINNINGS AND HOW REPATRIATION WAS FORMALIZED IN THE US .................. 8 WHAT IS REPATRIATION TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY? ......................................................................................... 9 A HISTORY OF THE SETTLER MENTALITY IN THE UNITED STATES ......................................................................... 10 MUSEUMS AS AN EXPRESSION OF SETTLER MENTALITY ............................................................................................ 11 COLONIAL PRACTICES AND DEPATRIATION: ................................................................................................................. 14 UNDERSTANDING 19TH-20TH CENTURY US LEGISLATION RELATED TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ...................... 15 CULTURAL SHIFTS THAT LED TO CHANGES IN REPATRIATION NORMS ................................................................. 21 VALUE SHIFTS: ART OR ETHNOGRAPHY? ....................................................................................................................... 25 KEY INSTITUTIONAL SHIFTS .............................................................................................................................................. 26 A SHIFT IN REPATRIATION DISCOURSE .......................................................................................................................... 27 THE BEGINNING OF FORMALIZED