Mending the Circle A NATIVE AMERICAN REPATRIATION GUIDE Understanding and Implementing NAGPRA and the Offi cial Smithsonian and other Repatriation Policies Published by the AMERICAN INDIAN RITUAL OBJECT REPATRIATION FOUNDATION 463 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022 • (212) 980-9441 Designed by Victor Trasoff Production Coordinator: Rebecca Hill Editor: Barbara Meister Editorial Committee: Walter Echo-Hawk, Esq., Elizabeth Sackler, Jack Trope, Esq. Editorial and Design Updates: Stephanie Morillo Marilyn Ewer, MKE Enterprises Library of Congress Catalogue Number: 95-081363 ISBN 0-9648208-0-3 Published in 1996 by the American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation, New York, New York. ISBN 0-9648208-1-1 Revised in 1997 © Copyright, 1996, The American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation “Introduction” by Suzan Shown Harjo. © Copyright, 1995, by Suzan Shown Harjo. Reprinted by permission. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” by Jack Trope, Esq. Excerpts from “Reclaimed Heritage: Repatriation Options and Process Under NAGPRA” by Rosita Worl. “Building a Tribal Repatriation Program: Options for Exercising Sovereignty” by Dean Suagee, Esq. “Museum Perspectives from Within: A Native View” by B. Lynne Harlan. “Reflections of a Native Repatriator” by Richard Hill, Sr. This material was supported by the National Indian Policy Center at The George Washington University, Washington, DC, which is funded in part by a grant award number 90NA1101/04 from the Administration for Native Americans, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reprinted by permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the hard work of dozens of people Mending the Circle would not have been possible. I would like to thank Jack Trope and Walter Echo-Hawk who recognized the need for this guide. They believed that it would be an important contribution for The American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation to make in support of repatriation efforts and Native Peoples’ struggle for recognition and religious equality. I extend gratitude to the National Indian Policy Center, Denise Bambi Kraus, Assistant Director, and Regis Pecos, Planning Committee, for their indispensable participation. The clarity, and experience, of each contribution can create the standard and interpretative basis for the return home of human remains, grave goods, cultural patrimony and ceremonial material. Thanks to Suzan Shown Harjo, Editorial Consultant, Neal Gantcher, Esq. for legal advice on many aspects of this complicated undertaking, and William Douglas McAdams Inc., for its support in the design and printing of this publication. The National Museum of the American Indian, the National Museum of Natural History and the National Anthropological Archives extended the use of their photographic archives. I am grateful to the Native people for their permission to use these photographs in order to illustrate the urgency of this national repatriation policy. Production Coordinator, Rebecca Hill, guided Mending the Circle from begin- ning to end with a confident hand. I thank you Rebecca and staff, for your commitment to quality and your dedication to the American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation. ELIZABETH A. SACKLER Founder and President The American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION V. PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS Chapter One: Reflections of a Native Repatriator Mending the Circle: A NATIVE AMERICAN REPATRIATION by Richard Hill, Sr. 72 GUIDE is designed to aid the reader in seeking the repatriation SECTION VI. APPENDICES of specific items. The sections of the Guide are arranged ac- A. Public Law 101-601 (NAGPRA) 88 cording to the status of the museum or institution currently in possession of the material: Section 1) Federally-funded B. Samples of Summaries 97 institutions that are bound by NAGPRA; Section 2) the C. Samples of Tribal Response Letters 99 Smithsonian Institution, including the National Museum of *D. NAGPRA Review Committee 101 the American Indian and the National Museum of Natural E. Excerpts from article by Rosita Worl History; and Section 4) institutions and individuals that do with attachments: 102 not receive federal funds and are therefore defined as the “Private Sector.” Chilkat Indian Village Artifacts Ordinance Southeast Alaska Indian Repatriation Statement and Goals PREFACE by Walter Echo-Hawk, Esq. 1 Umatilla Policy and Procedure Manual INTRODUCTION by Suzan Shown Harjo 3 for Repatriation F. Public Law 101-185 110 SECTION I. NAGPRA G. NMAI Repatriation Policy Statement Chapter One: The Native American and Procedures 120 Graves Protection and Repatriation Act *H. NMNH Repatriation Policy Statement by Jack Trope, Esq. 8 and Procedures 125 Chapter Two: Musings on Two World Views: * I. Repatriation Review Committee The NAGPRA Review Committee Members and Biographies 132 by Tessie Naranjo 19 *J. NMNH Review Committee Procedures 134 Chapter Three: Building a Tribal Repatriation K. Deed of Gift and Statement of Return 141 Program: Options for Exercising Sovereignty L. American Indian Art article: “Legal Briefs: by Dean B. Suagee, Esq. 21 Tax Deductions for Donated Art” 143 M. Corporate Art Collections Directory 145 SECTION II. THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION *N. Addresses for Auction Catalogs 146 *Chapter One: Overview of Smithsonian O. New York Newsday article: “Sacred Masks Go Collections 37 Back to Tribe” 147 * Chapter Two: Repatriation Policies and P. AIRORF letter to Michael Kokin (Dealer) 149 Procedures of the Smithsonian Institution by Q. Glossary of Museum Terms 150 Jacki Rand & Tamara Bray 39 R. How to get the AAM FORUM SECTION III. MUSEUM AND ON-SITE Repatriation Publication 154 CONSIDERATIONS S. NAGPRA Regulations 155 Chapter One: Museum Perspectives from T. Museum Act Amendments 176 Within: A Native View U. Interim Rule 178 by B. Lynne Harlan 46 SECTION VII. SUPPLEMENTS SECTION IV. THE PRIVATE SECTOR Supplement I 186 Chapter One: About the American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation by Elizabeth Sackler 58 Chapter Two: Strategies and Procedures for the Repatriation of Materials from the Private Sector by Kate Morris 64 * Revised 1996, 1997 &2003 PREFACE ISTORICALLY, ONE DEFINING PATTERN that characterizes the relationship between indigenous Native people and Non-Indians has been the one-way Htransfer of Indian property from Native to non-Native hands. This pat- tern began with New World gold and silver in the time of Columbus; and contin- ued with the relentless acquisition of land, water and other natural resources in the United States during the 1776 to 1900 period. This massive property transfer was not limited to real estate. On the darker side of this pattern, hundreds of thousands of Native dead were taken from North American Indian graves, burial mounds and cemeteries. In addition, movable property, such as cultural objects, sacred objects and cultural patrimony, also left Indian hands by the trainload during this period, including some items which were stolen or improperly sold. When Congress passed the repatriation provisions of the National Museum of the American Indian Act of 1989 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, it acted, in small measure, to reverse the historic pattern of one-way property transfers. Both laws provide for the return of Native American human remains and funerary objects to proper Native parties; and NAGPRA also includes other cultural items such as sacred objects and cultural patrimony within its provisions. Like other national human rights legislation (such as the civil rights statutes which were enacted over a generation ago and are still being implemented, with increasing difficulty, today), Native American repatriation laws will take years to fully imple- ment. This is due not only to the sheer magnitude of American museum collections that have accumulated over the centuries, but also because of the time-consuming, sometimes expensive, and always complex federal repatriation processes. Thus, in the coming months and years Indian Tribes and Native leaders must tread through a myriad of complex statutes, procedures and policies in order to thoroughly accom- plish the return of Indian cultural items and the reburial of tribal relatives. The repatriation process can be complicated from the tribal perspective. It is not unusual for a tribal leader, cultural resource staff person, or traditional tribal mem- ber to receive voluminous summaries, inventories or other repatriation forms from museums located hundreds of miles away. Yet, the task of reburying relatives or reclaiming tribal property can be of far-reaching importance to present and future generations. To respond to this challenge, repatriation can require expertise in legal, technical, archival and historical, fund raising, cultural, administrative and politi- cal arenas in order to develop and implement appropriate pro grams and strategies for unique Native Tribes and communities. In my view, a sound working knowledge of 1 Don Ortner, Acting Director, NMNH and Water Echo-Hawk, NARF-Pawnee tribe, reviewing deaccession papers. Remains of Pawnee Scouts are in the background. Pawnee Repatriation, NMNH, June 6, 1995. Photo courtesy of Jane Beck, Repatriation Office, NMNH, Smithsonian Institution. these issues will help achieve the fullest measure of the repatriation opportunities and rights which are afforded by federal law and which exist in the private sec- tor. In recent years, museums have spent considerable time educating themselves about federal repatriation