wag ‘ . “gnaw. an. I .. wnfih «filamuwn3fia ”33w. .2. m"? uéflmnmvmmwgy . ‘2‘, ~ ,g m.. I. h ‘ ‘a 5. Ex. 3 h 35' :1... v: , 4 : 3%“ a? 5"} , 1".~ 4‘ . 1 .«74 A .n. 1 . . , ‘ r is- h v ‘ n‘l . .4. g . ‘ , .. .tzrw. fl . “magma J. 5 . . . . f In x z . .. ,a £3: 34?... £5... Jiuz ES -9. . fiai .53 .55 .... . ,. x... . x i). 335.!“ 1:1: 2 L ‘ r .22. . h»! THESlS 0 z. / ’ " r L _ LigK This is to certify that the thesis entitled OUR ANCESTORS TALK AMONG US: INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN INTERNATIONAL REPATRIATION presented by Thomas A. Biron has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters Anthropology degree in Date My? 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 'LIBRVARY Mlchlgan State Unlvarslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE AIME 220m JUL 1 2 2007 6/01 cJClRC/DateDuepefw. 15 OUR ANCESTORS TALK AMONG US: INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE 1N INTERNATIONAL REPATRIATION By Thomas A. Biron A THESIS Submitted to Dr. David Dwyer Michigan State University in partial fillfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Anthropology 1998 OUR ANCESTORS TALK AMONG US: INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE 1N INTERNATIONAL REPA'I‘RIA’HON By Thomas A. Biron ThismesisisabomconflictasmveabdbycenamtextspmducedbyWhhefishRiver First Nation and University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. The focus is on international repatriation research language and meaning. Two major and one minor research problems were found. The main problem is “historic distrust.” Great Lakes Anishinaabek and other indigenous scholars argue that, historically, indigenous people and cultures have been portrayed obscenely in educational texts and museum exhibits. This is relevant to conflict in Language and meaning. For example, indigenous researchers spoke of repatriation in terms that meant reburial while museum representatives spoke of museum collection maintenance. A third, minor, but directly related problem is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act mandate for partnership between scientists and indigenous comnnmity representatives. Both are necessary for verification of cultural affiliation. But few indigenous anthropologists or repatriation experts exist. American Indian anthropology PhD. degrees conferred in 1991-92 = 0%. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During this study I heard many Anishinaabek community members express how dificult it has been for them to encounter disrespectful treatment by anthropologists and other social science and humanities scholars. Until completing this study I could not tmderstand their words. Iamthankfidfortheirpatienceandkindnessastheyexplamedtheirviews Infact, this thesis would not have been possrble without the assistance of Whitefish River Repatriation committee members and oomnnmity leaders. Especially Nungess (Art McGregor), Chief Leona Nahwegahbow, Esther Jacko, and Lorilee McGregor. The same goes for my graduate committee chair, Dr. David Dwyer and two close advisors, Dr. Joe Chartkofl' and Dr. Robert McKinley. This combined knowledge, academic thought and Ojibway Oral tradition, provided exceptional insight into how Anthropologists and Indigenous people can derive meaningful interpretations fiom diverse cultural data types and incorporatetheminto researchonthelanguage andmcaningofinternatioml repatriation processing. Gathering data from diverse sources such as scientific documents and oral tradition presented a major challenge in that repatriation processing requires using both. In doing so, repatriation researchers are able to amlyze both cultural background presurnptions about repatriation research as well as documented texts and collections. Asignificantculturalresearchissueencounteredinthisstudyisthefactthatmostof the scientific community of repatriation researchers encountered did not know about Anishinaabek people and cultures. Those who did know, knew little. Because of this anthropological knowledge deficiency, the original phase of this study was simplified to an elementary study plan in order to develop chapters on traditional knowledge fiom the Anishinaabek Q'ibway and their perceptions of international repatriation processing. The primary focus remained a study of conflict resolution in repatriation processing. An assumption was made early on that this type of knowledge, an understanding of conflict between indigenous people and other repatriation researchers, is necessary for overcoming historic conflicts that often malign both indigenous and scientific repatriation perspectives. Analysis of conflicting group expressions revealed values and meanings of the language and culture of repatriation, and revealed conflict resulting in a flawed decision making model, beginning with a NAGPRA requirement that makes international indigenous groups dependent upon U.S. domestic agents. This study found that some leading proponents of domestic repatriation processing involved in this case do not yet acknowledge international claims. Personally, I have come full circle, back to an origiml resolution made when I entered anthropology studies. I vowed to maintain my own cultural understanding of Anishinaabek traditions as a primary source of knowledge as I acquire new knowledge about the world and the people, cultures, and all in it. And to recognize Anishinaabek iv traditional teachings as valuable assets for my development as a Cultural Anthropologist. For this I needed strength and guidance. I want to say how much I appreciate the Elder Kit‘noomaage nim‘ (male teacher) from Garden River First Nation, Dan Pine Sr., known to loved ones as “Pa.” Pa was the best teacher I have ever met. As important was support fi'om my friends and teachers, David andAnabelDwyer. The same fortherest ofmyfamilyandfi'iends, especiallyMichelle Boursaw, who provided strength when I needed help working my way through challenges that were very diflicult. Chii miigwetch, ndaaganak. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose 5 Methodology 6 Preliminary analysis 12 Organization of thesis 16 CHAPTER 2 MEDICINE AND HEALING: MSHKIKI MIINWAA GIIGE 19 The Medicine Wheel 19 Traditional and historic identification patterns 20 Nishnaabe biimaadziwin kiinoomaadwinan 23 The first Medicine wheel teaching 27 The Medicine wheel and repatriation 27 Sharing 29 Preservation of Well Being 35 Chapter summary 35 CHAPTER 3 THE REMOVAL OF HUMAN REMAINS FROM WAH WAH SKIN AH GAH 36 Dr. Greenman's transcribed field notes 36 Field note excerpts 38 Discussion 41 Chapter summary 44 CHAPTER FOUR GRAVE PROTECTION AND GRAVE ROBBERY LAWS 45 Common law 45 Ontario law 46 Michigan law 47 NAGPRA 55 CHAPTER 5 WRFN REPATRIATION LANGUAGE 58 Nungess - Art McGregor 58 Nungess (Little sturgeon) interview 61 Discussion 68 Esther Jacko: WRFN Lands manager 70 Anishinaabek anthropology perspective 72 Interpretation of Esther Jacko’s language and meaning 74 Lorilee McGregor: Repatriation Committee Chair 79 External experience 80 Internal experience 81 WRFN Band Council statement 81 Roxanne Jacko: WRFN Youth representative 84 Meaning analysis 84 CHAPTER 6 ARCHAEOLOGISTS VOICES 87 Ontario Archaeology Society 87 Argument 88 The American Committee for Preservation of Archaeological Collections (ACPAC) 88 Argument 89 Society for American Archaeology (SAA) 89 Argument 9] The Michigan Archaeological Perspective 91 Argument 92 Meaning analysis 93 Discussion 95 The missing subfields 95 CHAPTER 7 MEANING AND POWER IN UMMA REPATRIATION DISCOURSE 99 Dr. John O’Shea’s oflicial UMMA response to the WRFN denial to conduct DNA research 103 Personalized institutional statements of fact 104 Identification process 104 Objectification of human remains 104 Authoritarian persona 105 Assertion of power 105 UMMA authority determines cultural afliliation 105 Judgement 106 Ownership and Power Contradiction of the “Un-Said” CHAPTER 8 THE USE AND ABUSE OF NAGPRA The President of the University of Michigan’s response Analysis of Power Law v. Philosophy Limitations to the NAGPRA Act Right of Possession The privilege of science The role of ethics Discussion Conclusions drawn from official university responses to the WRFN repatriation claim CHAPTER NINE SUMMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY General references 106 107 110 112 113 113 113 115 116 117 117 119 121 133 139 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah identity language changes Table 2: Chronology of identity policy change eras Table 3: Niizhwaaswi Mishoomsag (Seven Grandfather teachings) Table 4: WRFN repatriation language analysis Table 5: Archaeologist language analysis 20 21 26 85 94 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map ofOld Birch Island setting in 1938 Figure 2: Map ofWRFN Landbase Figure 3: Chronology ofcultural afliliation language and meanings Figure 4: Medicine wheel teaching model 10 23 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION This thesis is the result of two years of intensive study with the Whitefish River First Nation (WRFN) repatriation research team. The focus of this study is on an ongoing repatriation process that reflects each groups’ understandings of the use of the meaning of repatriation. The process actually began sixty years ago. The following WRFN territory and setting description includes an updated copy of an Emerson Frank Greenman map of the original exhumation area (Map 1, p.3). It is included to illustrate proximity to important sites in the WRFN community. This regional mapisfollowedbyamapofthepresentdaylandbaseoftheWRFN (Map2,p. 4) submitted by Esther Jacko, WRFN Band Land Manager. The WRFN Ojibway community (herein WRFN) occupies Reserve No. 4, a First Nation territory situated on the north shore of Georgian Bay just north of Manitoulin Island, midway between Sudbury to the east and Sault Ste. Marie to the west. WRFN is located 18.9 miles southeast of Espanola, Ontario and 13.9 miles northeast of Little Current. WRFN land holding includes 14,016 acres or 21.9 square miles. The land base is approximately three miles wide and ten miles long. It is bound to the north by Curtin and Mongowin townships. South boundaries include pm'ml demarcation by McGregor Bay 2 shoreline, La Cloche channel, and Swift Current. The west boundary is La Cloche. Channel, with the east boundary also McGregor Bay. Access is provided by Highway 6, which runs through the territory. Much of the land is underdeveloped with the exception of the village area and associated roads. Vegetation is typical of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest region. Raspberries, strawberries, cranberries, choke-cherries, blueberries and apples are abundant in warmer seasons. Poison ivy, sweet grass, and lilac bushesarealsoabundant, asarewhiteandredpine,hemlock,balsamfir,blackandwhite spruce, cedar, jack pine, hard maple. White birch, poplar and ash cover about 85% of the territory. The climate consists of short-moderate spring and summer seasons with cold and heavy snow in winter. The average precipitation is 29.09 inches per year. The frost free period averages between 125-129 days, beginning at the end ofMay and ending at the end of September. There are about 100 households interspersed throughout the territory, but the main village is located just off Highway 6. The WRFN territory is home to many recognized sacred places such as Dreamers Rock, Bell Rocks, and Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah where traditional ceremonies are still practiced by many community members. The WRFN hnd base has never been fully ceded. Two treaties (Robinson-Huron 1850, and Manitoulin, 1862) recognize WRFN sovereignty and provide intergovernmental relationships with the Province ofOntario and the nation ofCanada. 3 Figure 1' O . 1d BirchI ' sland Settmg in 1938 (Source E F Gree . . nman, 1951) MANITOULIN ISLAND «3° «3N uvuo . ‘ 1'." \ {msmu‘aa ‘3 a FRAZER BAY g Figure 2: Map of WRFN Landbase “" “m r 5:2wa % VW m Nil-l :m-fllzziraa Mapz:umuwnmmammmuwmuma (szsmrmwnmmm. 1995) ‘ Xmabprimymadlndhim 5 Purpose 'Ihepurpose ofthisresearchwasto studythelanguageandmeaningoftheWRFN and the UMMA repatriation research on international repatriation, focusing on oral traditionandwrittendocuments asequally significant datasources. Anassumptionwas made that a better understanding of the combined knowledge from these media would help future researchers avoid current repatriation conflicts. This study focuses on texts and oral tradition from the current repatriation movement. Until 1995 most meaningful dialogue on repatriation was contained within non-native institutions involved in repatriation processing. After 1995, the actual return of museum collections began in response to those institutions which were found to be in violation of the NAGPRA. These institutions had to reveal their holdings to thousands of tribal and othercomnnmitiesthathad,upuntilthattime, felt littleornoactualirnpactfi'omthe newly defined U.S. domestic repatriation process. The basis for the NAGPRA law was therecognitiontlmttheabusesbyarchaeologistsintheunauthorized exhumationofhuman remains were so extensive that they could no longer be dealt with on an individual basis, but required a general legal remedy. This case differs from the bulk of ongoing repatriation processing because it involves the WRFN, an Anishinaabek Q’ibway community that lies outside US. borders. WRFN is not included within the jurisdictional parameters set for repatriation in the original NAGPRA law. But the impact of the NAGPRA repatriation process was not contained within US. domestic territory, as this case and a growing body of literature fi'om other international groups demonstrate (Smythe, 1996; UNIDROIT, 1995; Green, 1994; Bieder, 1990). Initially, oral tradition fiom WRFN Elders and community leaders and historic documents fiom UMMA researchers verified Esther Jacko’s original 1982 repatriation research findings. Esther Jacko verified that twenty graves on Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah (aka. Old Birch Island) were exhruned in 1938 and the contents of these graves were sent backtotheUMMAbyDr. EmersonFrankGreenman. Hedidso,accordingtoWRFN accounts, without permission or authorization fi'om the WRFN community. Furthermore, Dr. Greenman’s transcribed field notes offer no evflence of having obtained permission. HisistheoriginalUMMAvoiceheardinthisstudy. Methodology The methodologyused inthis study is ananalysis ofmeaning. Fiflytwo years after Dr. Greenman’s exhumation, on November 16, 1990, President George Bush signed Federal Public Law 101-601 [104 STAT. 3048]. This law, known as NAGPRA, initiated U.S. repatriation processing by establishing specific federal rules and regulations. Specifically, the NAGPRA was enacted "To provide for the protection of Native American graves, and for other purposes. [HR 5237]." Most notably, repatriation meaning commenced with a declaration that the law was implemented for the "protection of Native American graves...” Protection fiorn whom or what? To the WRFN this term means “reburial of ancestors;” to the UMMA this term means “maintenance of collections.” This difference in repatriation meaning gave rise to a comparative analysis of meanings of the terms "protection" and "repatriation" For example, both meanings of the term “repatriation” carried the meanings of “protection” in the sense of “protection fiom 7 others” but in the case of the WRFN it was “protection fiom people who would rob graves in the interest of science” while in the case of the UMMA it was “protection from people who would interfere with science and access to the past by demanding that their ancestors be re-buried.” The term “others” is a category defined by group meaning. By placing each repatriation group’s unique expressions into separate categories it became possible to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the meanings employed by each group. This provided a database for comparative analysis of terms and their conceptual meaning. For example, this classification of meanings helped distinguish voice types as each group expressed unique repatriation language often enough to provide observable language data sets. Crossover, or overlapping terms and concepts were observed as well, especially after the two groups began meeting and sharing their knowledge about repatriation. For example, the term ”repatriation" is common, but it is distinctly meaningful in each group’s usage patterns (i.e., WRFN oral tradition versus UMMA scientific documentation). Acronym such as NAGPRA, DNA, WRFN, and UMMA also became shared concepts after the two groups began cOOperative research experiences (i.e., the UMMA-DNA research demonstration and UMMA-WRFN repatriation survey). The WRFN voice heard most often in this case study is that of Esther Jacko, WRFN LandsManager. Amongtheduties oftheIandsManageraretheloeationofmissinglands and property belonging to the WRFN Band. The repatriation ofhurnan remains fall within herduties. Estherrecallsher 1982 visitto theUMMAto see ifherancestorswere actually there. Her first knowledge of the exhumation came fi'om an Elder Storyteller 8 fi'om her community. The story was shared with her while a young adult. It was about a mysterious grave robbery. Esther’s initial repatriation efl‘orts, during the 1980s, has proved to be a classic repatriation research model in the NAGPRA prescribed mode. Interestingly, not only does this kind of research represent Anishinaabek traditional ways of gaining knowledge but, in fact, it is the kind called for by NAGPRA, based on partnership between indigenous researchers and museum personnel. Esther Jacko relied oral tradition fi'om her community as a primary source of knowledgeduringthiscasestudy. Becausethisdataisrecognizedasvaluablebythe NAGPRA law, she was asked to help link the WRFN oral tradition knowledge of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah cultural affiliation to other evidence, such as relevant WRFN documents. Esther’s earlier research, combined with new language and meaning data types, verified that: Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah graves were exhumed by UMMA in 1938. Human remains were removed fiom WRFN sacred burial sites. These hurmnremainsarenowaresearchcollectionkept attheUMMA. The WRFN has never given permission to UMMA to do this. ThesefindingshavebeenignoredbyUMMAresearclrerswhiletheylnvebeen viewed by WRFN as important evidence. Part ofthe reason for the UMMA’s dismissal of theWRFN’sclannsisflmtmeyarebasedonoralmmerflmnwrntendocmmmationwnh the understanding that written documentation is far more valid than oral. This distinction also marks a traditional division within Western thought between “prehistoric” and “historic.” In fact, it is an important goal of archaeology to uncover the “prehistory” of nonliterate peoples precisely because their own oral documentation is for archaeologists suspect. Language and meaning from the WRFN in this repatriation process is “prehistoric” in a literal sense because it involves oral tradition. But the term “prehistoric” also carries popular meanings of “primitive,” “pm-human,” and “unreliable.” These meanings are not used in this study. Rather, prehistoric only means before written history. The bulk of WRFN knowledge about the 1938 Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah grave exhumation was shared in an oral tradition format. In essence, WRFN meanings of repatriation expressions stem fiom oral tradition which began prior to written documentation. Figure 3 (p. 10) delineates a language and meaning timeline relevant to this study. A significant influence inthis analysis is William Leap’s (1993) ancestral language and meaning theory which recognizes “Indian english” as a primary meaning source that is reliable and valid in written and oral tradition forms. Eades (1994) used the term “Aboriginal English” to explain a similar problem in Australian legal systems. While many modern and historic text samples exist, traditional WRFN Anishinaabek Ojibway language is still not documented to any great extent. In fact, most Anishinaabek communities are just beginning to documenttheiroraltraditions. That iswhylhaveusedavarietyof spellings to identify Anishinaabek people and cultures. For example, Nishnaabe is used by the Ojibway Cultural foundation in the Medicine Wheel Model (chapter two). I prefer the form Anishinaabek to signify the entire population. It is a plural form taken fi'om Howard Webkemigad’s language course at Michigan State University (1991-92). 10 Figure 3: Chronology of cultural affiliation language and meanings in i Old Birch Island L WRFN i__ Ancestors graves Sacred sites Traditional identity Spiritual significance { ! Wah Wah Skin All Gail T1118 hierarchical 611111 illustrates l The Place ofBirch Tm the lineage of cultural affiliation. l It begins in prehistoric time (Oral l tradition) on Wah Wah Skin Ab Gab. The traditional identity was established before the UMMA researchers arrived in 1938. T , , , in 1938 the UMMA exhumation of Wm°“”'°‘“°“’"‘°'¥ gram/sacred burial sites takes Spiriturlrclrtions place. f Wardrope Island 1938 UMMA Field Notes Bones Pebble beadres Research specimens Ancient buiolslte Paleolithic theory and method Ardiaeological sigrrilicance 1 l The most significant data collection factor in this study is recognition of WRFN oral traditionasaprimarydatasourcethat isreliableandvalid fordetermining cultural afiliation. In this sense, WRFN oral tradition is equal to other data types referenced. It is first-in-line for meaning analysis for a number of reasom, which are the subject nutter of chapter two. In chapter two, oral tradition, provided by Art McGregor and my other WRFN Elders, is acknowledged as the most abundant source of information about historic and traditional relations between the WRFN community and Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. Figure 3 above illustrates this chronology of language relationships beginning before historic documentation. WRFN voices (chapter 5) determine pre-contact cultural afliliation to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. In contrast, Dr. Lee Bollinger, President of the University of Michigan, stated that UMMA scientific knowledge is evidence enough to maintain the grave contents from Old Birch Island; enough to deny the WRFN repatriation claim (chapter 8). Thehngmgeandmeanhgofeachvoicehthisfludymvedsdifi‘eMexpressiomof meaning in repatriation discourse. For example, the WRFN Ojibway reference to Wah WahSkinAhGahlmsbeeninterpretedasmeaningthesameastheUMMAreferenceto Old Birch Island. But, in fact, it is not the same. Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah refers to “the placeofwhitebimhtrees”thatwasalsotheWRFNtraditionalhomealongtimeago,and in fact, still is. This complex interpretation of the meaning of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah is vital to understanding WRFN repatriation expressions. A section about range of historic and traditional language identifiers is included in chapter two. 12 It is notable that written documents voicing WRFN community members’ knowledge ofthetimeandplace ofexhunmionwere not foundinUWAtexts. It isalso important to note that UMMA provided only one article of research literature to the WRFN. These texts were select, transcripted portions of Dr. Greenman’s 1938 field notes assembled by Dr. John O’Shea, the current UMMA Director. The original field notes were not offered. A literature review of Dr. Greenman's original work revealed a number of related jom'nal articles published between 1938 and the early 1950's. In addition, Charles Cleland provided insights about Greenman’s work and the position Dr. Greenman held in the field of Great Lakes regional archaeology in an obituary column (1974). But the documented literattu'eislimited. Ironically, historic referencestotheimportanceofWRFN oral tradition as an important source of data and of it’s relevance to this case study were found in the available literature. Preliminary Analysis As noted above, comparative research on the two voices posed some problems. The twompauiationmsemchgroupsuseddifi'emmmandmmeptsmdescribecuhmd afiliation. The UMMA discussed Old Birch Island cultural affiliation in terms of scientific value. The WRFNgroupdiscussedthe Wah WahSkr’nAh Gahcase intermsofspiritual value. These distinctions do not place a value basis on either group. Rather, each group’s values defined meaningful relations to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah (Old Birch Ishnd). WRFN expressed meaning in terms of their own traditions of spirituality. UMMA expressed meaning intermsthat expressed values ofscientific knowledge about humankind. Each group’s rationale revealed meaning of relationships to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. l 3 Common terms used by WRFN community members to identify their relations with Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah were ”our grandparents," ”our elders," or "our ancestors.” These expressions were shared when talking about the value and meaning of repatriation. UMMA expressed afi‘ectionate intimacy too, but in a different manner (e.g., the Old Birch Island museum collection). Dr. O’Shea expressed his emotions about the subject matter passionately, in terms that expressed value for the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah grave contents (e.g. , an invaluable ancient DNA data source for research on diabetes). This is important because Dr. O’Sheaisasignificant actorinthiscase study. He isalso amemberofthe NAGPRA National Oversight Committee. In this capacity his views likely will impact all of contemporary archaeology, a paradigm which is now embroiled in a related ethics debate. The relevance of repatriation and ethics in the field of archaeology is discussed mm in chapter six. WhfletheUMMAmeaningofrepatriationisexpressedintermsandconceptsof research ethics, and the language is meant to be objective, subjective meaning was also expressedwhichlimitedthetypeofdatathatcouldbeusedto definecultmalafliliationin this repatriation process. Specifically, the method used to define cultural afliliation for Old Birch Island was limited to the UMMA interpretation of the NAGPRA legal jtnisdiction. Cultural afliliation research fiom the WRFN repatriation team was not included. Determining cultural affiliation is problematic. In fact, this aspect ofrepatriation processing was found to be the most outstanding issue of conflict. It surfaced again and again as each attempt to develop a cooperative research partnership was made. This l4 conflict in cultural affiliation is reflected in the following separate group meanings related to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. 0 Dr. Greenman’s exhumation of human remains fiom Old Birch Island is a valuable DNA source for scientific research on origin. The UMMA will not return it. o The WRFN recognizes the 1938 exhumation as a grave robbery oftheir sacred ancestral burial site. These biases limit the potential for developing conflict resolution strategies. As stated earlier, an emotional dimension exists in repatriation processing, and it embellishes the language and meanings of each group. Therefore, the analysis proceeded on an assumption that emotional factors are present and active in this repatriation process. The emotional dimension is significant. Researcher’s emotions expressed in repatriation contexts are discussed in conjunction with each groups meanings in chapters 5, 7 and 8. There are also notable paradoxes in this case study. As actual evidence accumulated about identity and ancestry, conflict over who shall provide a definition of cultural afliliation and how to determine cultural affiliation took on greater significance. But research partnership, a primary mandate of the NAGPRA repatriation process, did not fully develop. Why? In relationship to the NAGPRA repatriation process it is simple. A working partnership did not develop because the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah site lies outside of the domestic U.S. territory. The UMMA has argued that the NAGPRA did not apply to this case because of its jurisdictional limitations. But this limited view overlooks several points. 0 NAGPRA is not the first law addressing the illegal removal ofhuman remains. Rather itisaremedybecauseofalltheillegalremovalsthathavetranspired. o In no place does the NAGPRA law say that museums have the right to own human 15 remains or patrimony. ' TheNAGPRA law makes it clear that legal possession of human remains of cultural patrrmony requires perrnrssron. 0 At the time of the exhumation of Old Birch Island, grave robbery laws strictly forbade the exhumation of human remains without the permit fiom a medical officer. Does this mean that the NAGPRA repatriation method was not applicable for determining cultural amliation in this repatriation process? Not necessarily. The NAGPRA rermdies may be appropriate, but legislative limitations reduce NAGPRA's capacity for international application. Legal jtu'isdiction, ethics, and scientific application arediscussedthroughoutthethesis, withafinaloverviewinthe summation. In sum, this case study found the UMMA to be a limited and reluctant participant in theWRFNintermtionalrepatriationprocess. Thisfindingisaprimaryissuefor understanding repatriation conflict and for developing resolution strategies in international cases. WRFNoraluadifionwasreadflysharedbyWRFNEldersandotherkeyhrfommnts (Storytellers), and is considered to be a primary source of data. Information shared by UMMA consisted of selected portions of Dr. Greenman’s field studies (35 double spaced pages). These texts reveal Dr. Greenman’s work ethic, method, research techniques and personal values as interpreted by Dr. John O’Shea, the current UMMA Director. Descriptions of the settings, people, and technology of that time offer historical descriptions of the Anishinaabek communities he visited. References to We and resources, and to the many details held in these notes helped place this contemporary study into historical context. 16 Organization of thesis This thesis is presented in eight chapters, with a final summation. This chapter '(1) introduces significant research issues related to language and meaning in this international repatriation process and to a broader growing debate between indigenous people and scientists involved in repatriation. Chapter two introduces a number of significant traditional Anishinaabek Qibway cultural factors for understanding the historic and contemporary contexts and cultural backgrounds of Anishinaabek Q‘ibway people, and of the contemporary WRFN contexts in which repatriation meaning is expressed. Medicine wheel teachings and the Seven Grandfathers story provide an overview of the Anishinaabek Ojibway teaching/learning perspectives in which Ojibway traditions of cultural affiliation, identity, and spirituality are understood. Medicine Wheel teachings were included to illustrate four primary levels of understanding necessary to begin articulating some traditional Anishinaabek Q'ibway meanings of repatriation as understood within their own world view. Chapter three situates the contemporary WRFN environment and community setting. Dr. Greemnan' s exhumation process is presented as it was shared by UMMA transcribers. Thesetextsarediscussedasiftheyrepresenttheoriginalcontext oftheWRFN exhumation. Clmpter four presents a set oflaws on grave robbery pertinent to Michigan and Ontario. Chapter four reveals a history of racist archaeological policy and practices sanctioned by Michigan and U.S. federal law. Chapter four and five set a pattern of 1 7 analysis for the archaeological ethics issues reviewed in chapters six. Chapter five introduces key WRFN community representatives, including testimony fiom WRFN Elder, Nungess (Art McGregor), who, along with other key infornnnts fiom theWRFN community, witnessedDr. Greemnan's actions intheWRFNcommunityin 1938. The discussion section includes an interpretation of the impact of UMMA research over the past sixty years (1938-98). These spoken and recently written testimonies reveal an ongoing history of distrust that has evolved into current repatriation processing conflicts. Insights into the modern values of Anishinaabek Q'ibway ancestral relations provided a much appreciated guidance to understanding traditional views and perspectives of the present dayWRFNcommunitysmeaningofrepatriation. Thischapterendswitha powerful statement from Roxanne Jacko, the WRFN youth leader who participated in the repatriationresearchprocess. The impact ofthe repatriationprocessonfirture generations of the WRFN is obvious. Chapter six presents historical and contemporary archaeological voices, perspectives relevant to understanding the significant relationships between the WRFN internatioml and NAGPRA domestic repatriation processes. The impact ofrepatriation within the field of international archaeology is a growing concern. A diverse group of archaeologists express the variety of contemporary opinions and attitudes about repatriation. Chapter seven is the first analysis of two formal responses by University of Michigan officials. The first analysis focuses on Dr. John O’Shea, a principfl actor in this case study andinthefieldofrepatriationresearchatthistime. Herepresentsnotonlyhisown 1 8 personal values on the matter but speaks for the field of archaeology at the international level. Chapter eight, the second analysis, introduces the President of the University of Michigan, Dr. Lee Bollinger. His response to the WRFN Chief and Council is analyzed forcomemMmlevanceoananmgmthiscasestudyandtothecunemrepaniafion process as designated by the NAGPRA Act. Both university representatives reflect legalistic interpretations as primary meanings of repatriation. Chapter nine is a final sumnmtion and review of findings about international repatriation language, meaning and conflict. 19 Chapter 2 MEDICINE AND HEALING MSHKIKI MHVWAA 01] GE The Medicine Wheel It is necessary to explain key traditional Anishinaabek Ojibway concepts of nedicinc in order to explain WRFN repatriation language and meaning. For prnposes of this discussion, Anishinaabek Ojibway refers to the traditional WRFN culturally afiliated meanings ofrepatriation and are understood to be meaningfirl in the context oftraditional “Medicine Wheel Teachings.” Anishinaabek Ojibway medicine is spiritual. Therefore, Medicine people minister spiritual healing power (for lack of a better description). Classifying Anishinaabek repatriation meaning in this analysis required connecting the literal meaning of repatriation (i.e., return to one’s country) with Anishinaabek Ojibway spiritual meaning. Together the meaning becomes azhen aanikoobijiganag (i.e., returning ancestors), or the return of ancestors. In the WRFN, repatriation means that the community’s spiritual ancestors are coming home. Spiritually expressed, the meaning of this WRFN repatriation concept is synonymous with rejoicing and taking pride in their tradition and heritage. To most WRFNcommunhynrembemagreathealmgpmcessistakingphcewhhrepaniation understood as a significant fact of this healing. Limitingthemeaningfirlimpact ofthis spiritualhealingprocessto legalissuescould be considered a legal injury by Anishinaabek people. This is why the WRFN has been reluctant to resort to legal measures in the process of repatriation. They would prefer to 20 see the process of return, not as a legal remedy, but as a healing act willingly undertaken by all parties. WRFN repatriation must be understood in relationship to other significant WRFN community phenomena related to this case study. For example, reverence of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah as a sacred burial site, community survey of attitudes and beliefs about Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah as an ancestral home, oral tradition knowledge as significant data, and so on. UnderstandingthesekindsofWRFN culttu'alphenomenaisessentialfor developing a traditional Anishinaabek Q‘ibway understanding of repatriation as a Medicine Wheel process, and necessary for understanding the WRFN Anishinaabek Ojibway repatriation perspective. Traditional and historic identification patterns Changing indigenous people’s identity is a historic practice of European, Canadian, and U.S. governments. This practice is illustrated in the following table of historic eras that reflect changes in Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah identification. Table l: Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah identity language changes - Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah --> Oral tradition identification 0 The Place of Birch Trees --> Historic translation, multi lingual meaning 0 Old Birch Island --> Colonization of WRFN home territory - Wardrope Island --> Removal of traditional identity by Canadian government UMMA museum collection --> Exhumation of graves o WRFN repatriation claim --> Original identity revitalized by oral tradition to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah The above six eras signify a chronological order of change in Anishinaabek identity which is significant for determining cultural afiliation in this international repatriation process. It is useful for explaining clunges in cultural afliliation language and meaning 21 patterns in Anishinaabek culture. Michael Petoskey (1988), Odawa Lawyer and Tribal Judge fi'om Grand Traverse Bay near Traverse City, Michigan, introduced the following six historic policy eras to show how policy language has impacted Anishinaabek identity since contact with Europeans. Table 2 Chronology of identity policy change eras Associated language and meaning 1.1532-1789 Pre-Constitutional Precedent 1. New World "Indian" identity texts. 2.1789-1871 The formative Years 2. American Indian identity policy. 3.1871-1928 Allotments and Assimilation 3. Domestic American Indian status. 4.1928—1942 Indian Reorganization 4. Localized American Indian identity. 5.1942-1961 Termination 5. Termination of American Indian. 6.1961- pres Self-Determination 6. U.S. federal recognition blood quantum (Petoskey, 1988) identity policy. In order to explain the significance of these changes in identification meaning to an audience of outsiders (others) it is important to clarify my own Anishinaabek perspective. First, this thesis presents thoughts and insights of a member of a traditional Anishinaabek Ojibway community. In addition, this written interpretation is from an anthropology graduate student. This combination of standpoints must be understood in chronological order (oral tradition to modem) to fully comprehend the meaning structure of the syntax I choose for explanations of the following Anishinaabek traditions. These explanations attribute meaning to, and firrther define related repatriation meanings of relevance to this thesis. The following introduction is an oral tradition practice of the Ojibway in the Great Lakes region. It is an act of sharing identity with family, community, and others who may not know who is speaking. Tire portrayal is of honor. Spoken: Animkii migizi ndizhinikaaz. Kitigaunseebing ndo zhaabaa. 22 Aug'iijawk ndoodam. Interpretation: I am Animkii Migizi (Thunder Eagle) fi'om Garden River First Nation Ojibway Anishinaabek. I am Blue Heron Crane clan. This identification process acquaints guests with traditional Anishinaabek Ojibway identification -- family, clan, First Nation, and the greater Anishinaabek nation of Turtle Island. This act signifies traditional Anishinaabek cultural affiliation. This traditional identity practice represents a significant form of cultrnal afiliation which is shared openly with the community. Identifying one’s selfas a third party persona (i.e., inanimate thing) is not traditional. Ancestors, past, present, and future, are alive in this culture, actively participating in the community. Hence the thesis theme title “Our Ancestors Talk Among Us.” This interpretive understanding is difficult to comprehend for outsiders because in today’s American multicultural community, traditional Anishinaabek voices are seldom heard. In contrast, in the WRFN Anishinaabek Ojibway community, the act of sharing traditional identity is common. In this culture, relationship to all creation is acknowledged. Kinship, in this traditional world view, results from being a child of Gitchie Manitou (Great Spirit) and Kaash na kii (Mother Earth, our protector). The basis of cultural afiliation begins with an acknowledgment of kinship with a Great Creator. Thus, spirituality is the primary meaning source of knowing in this world view. Individual community recognition (traditional identity) is derived from relationships on and with Kaash na kii. Like any other culture, one type is not sutficient to describe the many varieties of family and community relations in the Anishinaabek community. For 23 example, Anishinaabek relations do not have as a meaningful human identity an implied gender. Gender can be designated, but the primary Anishinaabek identity is spiritual. Spiritual identity is embodied as a result of living (by way of) these traditional mdicinc WM] teachings. Social identity is another issue but does not supersede spiritual identity. Balance is the key to knowledge about tradition as a result of these teachings. The medicine wheel represents a balancing mechanism. Anishinaabek Q'ibway spiritualitymeansbeinginbalancewithallofcreation. Thisconceptualmeaningiscritical for explaining traditional Anishinaabek meanings of repatriation. Figure 4 depicts Nishnaabe Bimaadziwr'n Kinoomaadwinan (Teachings of the Medicine Wheel, 1992). It helps to introduce traditional Anishinaabek Q'ibway spirituality as an interactive model. Figure 4: Medicine Wheel Teachings ,Mcml ,, adapted fi'om Nr’shinaabe Biimaada’win Kinoomaadwinan Ernestine Buswa (1992) . -- Chimes“; 24 The four sections on the design above represent directions. More precisely, nakeya means “in the direction oi” (Rhodes, 1993). This concept is essential for explaining interactive meanings of A nishinaabek spirituality, medicine wheel teachings, and traditions of the four directioml components that make up a logical life guidance system. It helps when discussing the spiritual natru'e of a whole human being and way of life. But spirituality is never separated; only on this paper, at this time, for this discussion. And even this presentation is not separate. This universal litctor is based on inclusiveness. Thisuniversalacceptanceofothershastobeacceptedasthecorepremiseof Anishinaabek world view. It is the most appropriate basis for developing an understanding of related Anishinaabek traditional meanings. When the Anishinaabek medicine wheel life-model (the model of traditional spiritual life) is altered mentally, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, the whole of life is afi‘ected. This is a medicine-way (Mshkiiki bimaadizi) of life. Four directions signify spirituality as a way of life. Medicine is always at work, no matter what the individual experience -- balance or imbalance. The point is that all relations are spiritual. The medicine way is directly related to traditional wisdom. The seven primary teachers are identified as Niizhwaaswi Mishoomsag kinoomaagew niniwok (Seven Grandfather teachings). An exact translation of the Seven Grandfather's concept is not possible in this thesis. For now, let us understand the Seven Grandfathers as “teachings.” Anishinaabek references to teachings mean specifically that “teachings” actually participate in the medicine way of life. This animate, interactive quality infuses 25 Anishinaabek oral tradition teachings with spiritual life. Teachings are spiritual or manidoowok. Niizhwaaswi Mishoomsag miinawaa mshkiiki (The Seven Grandfirthers and Medicine) provide a model of interaction in the medicine wheel This spiritual model connects contemporary Anishinaabek to their ancestors. Spiritual relations, when understood this way, thicken interpretations of meanings of oral tradition as a primary source of cultural affiliation data. Each of the Seven Grandfather teachings represent direction. They provide wisdom for, and direction to, a balanced spiritual life. In this complicated interactive traditional model, spiritualityismaximized Thisdoesnotindicateanidealsuchasisprescribedbya Protestant work ethic. No promise is made related to material gains. The effect of this way of life is fully spiritual. Balance does not pivot on the individual’s actions alone. Rather, balance, as stated earlier, can be likened to kinship. That is, balance involves all relations. If any relation is out ofbalancethenthat individual’s lifecanbermderstoodasout ofbalance. Thisis traditional. This is why traditional Anishinaabek ceremonies include an acknowledgment of ngii baa nawendwin (all my relations). It is imperative to acknowledge all relations at all times, even in sickness and dreams. What a challenge. But not too much for those who have been taught to live this way. For them it is normal While this heuristic medicine wheel device may help others understand, firll comprehension of meaning requires a lot of effort and guidance by qualified traditional 26 teachers. These traditional teachers tell you that this is a way of life, not something that they do on Sunday, or for money. Atthispoint itis important to introduce more ofthe languageandmeanings ofthe seven interactive teachings and the four directions of the Medicine Wheel model Keep in mind that the four directions are also understood as levels of knowing derived fi'om relations with all of creation. Add the seven teachings to the four levels of knowing and the Medicine Wheel model becomes quite intricate. On level one there are at least twenty eight traditional teachings. If we combine these teachings with another twenty eight at the next level, and add the potential for interaction between the learner and the teachings (meanings of old and new teachings) fi'om the Seven Grandfathers, the number arising fi'om each combination of the original teachings becomes astronomical. This kind of numerical exploration into indigenous thought holds potential for more Anishinaabek language and meaning studies, but this preliminary analysis represents only four directions in combination with the Seven Grandfather teachings listed below. Table 3: Niizhwaaswi Mishoomsag (Seven Grandfather teachings) 1) waaakaawin (Wisdom) 2) Zaagidwin (Love) 3) Mnaadenmowin (Respect) 4) Aakdehewin (Bravery) 5) Gwekaadziwin (Honesty) 6) Debaadenzr’win (Humility) 7) Debwewin (Truth). 27 The first Medicine wheel teaching The following story is fi'om Dominic Eshkakogan, another Anishinaabek Ojibway teacher who, before passing on, also worked closely with Jesuits in residence near WRFN. Dominic shared an origin story about Seven Grandfather teachings that were given to the first Elder when he was just a boy. Each grandfather gave him a great gift. One gave him the gift of wisdom (nbwaakawin), and he learned to use that wisdom for his people. Another gave the gift of love (zaagidwin) so that he would love his brother and sister and share with them. The third ofl‘ered a gift ofrespect (mmadenmowin) so that the First Elder would respect everyone, all human persons and all the things that are created. Bravery (aakdehewin) was the next gift. Bravery to do good things even in the most difiicult of times. One grandfather gave the boy honesty (gwekaadziwin) so that he would be honest in every action and provide good feelings in his heart. One grandfather gave the boy humility (debaandenziwin) to teach the boy to knoth hewasequalto everyone else, no betterorno less,justthe same as anybody else. The last gift that he received was truth (debwewin). The grandfathers told him “Be true in everything that you do. Be true to yourselfand true to your fellow man. Always speak the truth.” They told him, “Eachofthese teachingsmrrst be usedwiththerest; you cannot have wisdom without love, respect, bravery, honesty, humility and truth. You cannot be honest ifyou use only one or two ofthese, or ifyou leave one out. And to leave one out is to embrace the opposite of what tint teaching is.” (Eshkakogan, 1992, p.58) The Medicine wheel and repatriation These grandfather teachings as a guiding set of principles are necessary for interpreting WRFN meaning in repatriation processing. Many readers may not fully comprehend the intended meanings of traditional Anishinaabek teachers, but Cultural Anthropology makes many assumptions, one of them being that studies of little or unknown cultures are fundamental, their cultural meanings are essential to understanding their worldview. Accordingly, this component represents an exploratory method of 28 WRFN meanings of cultural afiliation. It has been included in hopes of discovering an understanding of important WRFN cultrn'al amliation terms and concepts. The teachings of the medicine wheel have a direct bearing on the issue of repatriation. TheWRFNcommrmityknowsthatDr. Greenmandidnotgettheirpermissiontotakethe Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah grave contents (see chapter five). This is the oflicial view of the Elders and Band Councils, some of whose members witnessed Dr. Greenman’s impact on their community in 1938, and the view of a majority of community members in 1996. There is evidence of other legal violations too. Exhumation in 1938 was not allowed without permission fiom health and government authorities. Ontario law, Common Law, and Michigan Grave Robbery law is discussed in the context of legal requirements relevant to the removal of human remains fi'om graves in chapter four. It is important to note that permission of this kind (grave exhumation) is not a realistic possibility for the Anishinaabek who view ancestors as community members, fully active spiritual participants. Removing ancestors fiorn graves is not normal. It goes against tradition. Identifying oneself publically (earlier illustration) is one traditioml practice many WRFN community members acknowledge as a significant determinant of cultural affiliation. Sharing traditional identity is based in an ethic of equity (i.e., living connnunity members and ancestors participate fully in the community as animate spirits). This was made evident inacommrmity smveyonthemningofrepatriationinthecontemporary WRFN community. 29 Cleland (1975) partially articulated this “sharing ethic” in an interpretation of Anishinaabek culture in the following quote. ...the ethic of sharing was as precious as life itself. In a world where the land of nature could be unyielding, men relied on each other forsurvival. Thusthegreatethicofsharingwasextendedto all things, including goods, labor. and food. The scarcer the commodity, the more it was shared; therefore, if anyone had food, everyone had food. (p. 12) But this explanation expresses a male gender bias, and the interpretation is presented as if sharing took place only in the past, which may be regarded as scientific, but not as appropriate for fully expressing current Anishinaabek Ojibway traditional practices and their meanings. Understanding living Anishinaabek sharing tradition is germane to developing a culturally appropriate interpretation of the WRFN indigenous view of ancestral relations and the meaning and values of cultural affiliation implied in repatriation processing. Vanderburgh (1992) and several Anishinaabek Elders, some from the WRFN, and The Ojibwe Cultural Foundation expressed this perspective in a special publication titled “Kaash naa-kii: Let us think ahead for seven generations”. Sharing To share fiiendship is important. It is important for us to work together. To communicate with each other for the sake of our children and the future generations to come. Ifwe work together and love each other, things will be easier. To be truly an Anishinaabe is a hard path. Relationships do not stop with the family, the band, the trrbal group; they extend out to embrace and relate to the land, to the animals, to the plants, and to the clouds, the elements, theheavens,thestars. TheAnishinaabearerelatedtoallthese: wesharewith them the community of life. Ultimately these relationships extend to embrace the entire universe. But we must not just express these relationships in our talk,we must livetheminouractionsandourthoughts. Whenwehelpeach othertheroadwillbeeasier. Alltheserelativessharewithusthegifisofthe Creator. All these relatives were given the knowledge of how to keep these gifis safe for future generations. We learn fiom our relatives, fiom our animal brothers. Thedeereatcedarfitistheirsourceofsmvivalanditshouldbea 30 healing agent for us also. As this sharing is forgotten, the prophecies of our people are coming true. It was foretold that this day would be coming - dead fishinthewaters- animalswecanno longereat. Otu’gardensareafi'ected. The Creator gave us instructions for our survival and we are not following them, we are following the ways of the white man. (p. 5) “They share” is translated as Maada bonidiwag (Nichols and Nyhohn, 1995, p. 245). This means that traditional sharing supersedes the more popular contemporary anthropological term ‘reciprocity.’ Manda ’oonidiwag (traditional sharing) is culturally affiliated with Anishinaabek sharing values. Reciprocity is not, because, as stated earlier, sharing, inthistradition, isaculturalnorm. Thistypeofsharing involvestheentire collective community in the process of exchange and is integral to the tradition of sharing that guidestheindividualto shareinthisway Asharingnormislivedindailylife.1tisa normal practice. Within this way of life energy flows from traditional sharing values. So, traditional sharing is more than interaction between socially structured factors - human and material goods exchanged. It issynergy, a synthesisofthevalueofsharing andtheactofgiving. This interpretation differs from the anthropological interpretation of reciprocity which integrates historic examples of commodity exclmnge in explanations of traditional Anishinaabek sharing values. Reciprocity used this way is better described as a conflict of traditional Anishinaabek sharing values. That is, two cultural perspectives are mixed, with neither fully explained. Rather, the material exchange value dominates the interpretation. This interpretive problem has afi‘ected many Anishinaabek people who have interacted with non-native Anthropologists. It may be the real basis of conflict affecting cooperative determination of cultural affiliation. Based on this supposition, an assumption 3 1 was made that there must be other primary differences of meanings related to conflict in repatriation processes that can be identified and sorted out. For example, etymological meaning in historic expressions of anthropological concepts can be traced from Euro- American political relationships with Anishinaabek communities (see chart 1, p. 10). On the other hand, indigenous Anishinaabek explanations can be derived fi'om oral tradition, or gleaned from other collective community sharing experiences. In order to understand the meaning of each group’s repatriation terms and concepts it wasnecessaryto findparticularculturalmeaningwhichexpressesthemeaningofnormal practice. For example, reciprocity represents anthropological interpretation while Maada ’oonidiwag represents traditional Anishinaabek meaning. The anthropological analysis of reciprocity is described above in terms of trade agreements. “You give - you get.” This exchange-of- nmterial-goods explanation lms corrupted the traditional meaning of Anishinaabek maada ’oonidiwag. A significant problem posed for contemporary language and meaning research is that these new meanings have become primary references to traditional values of the Anishinaabek. The following quote, lengthy out of necessity, demonstrates how a contemporary anthropological text has attempted to describe the Anishinaabek tradition of sharing using modern anthropological meaning. What happens in the following interpretive process, as can be read in the text, is that the traditional spiritual context of Anishinaabek sharing is altered, the meaning is changed to a modern context. Ascapitalists, welearnatanearlyagethatthe lawofsupplyanddemandis bothnaturalandlogical. AfleralLifsomethingisscarceitisboundtobe morevaluable,andifitisnotscarce,itcouldnothavegreatvalue. Supply mustbetheprhnarydiflemncebetweenghssanddiannndsbecausethey 32 look the same to most people. With this understanding of economics, we separate what is “economic” fiom what is “social.” If we buy a theater ticket, the transaction is an amount of money for an equivalent value of ticket. The transaction is purely economic. As tickets become scarce, their value rises, scalpers demand higher prices, and people with tickets guard them more jealously. The value of the ticket is not changed by the relation- ship between ticket buyer and the seller in the booth and the inflated cost charged by the scalper does not change if he happens to be a relative. This is not to say that social relations never matter in a capitalist economy. It is truethateconomic exchangeiseithereconomic orsocialbutitisvery seldom both, and most often purely economic. Intlreeconomyofthe Anishinaabe, kinshipdoesmatter. Infact, economic exchange cannot be understood apart from it, for there is no such thing as a purely economic transaction. Exchange might be “economic” in the sensethatgoodsandservicesflowfrompersonto person,but exchange cannot be asocial since, among the Anishnaabek, all social interaction is conditioned by kinship. The Anishruabek could not, by definition, be capitalist, or for that nutter socialist or communist, because their economies was always strictly personal. Anishnaabek “economics was an economy of gifis where exchange produced both economic benefit and a feeling of good will that cemented the social bond between the people who conducted the exchange. Gift giving as a type of economic exchange is a two-edged sword. Giving the proper way nukes people feel good but giving too much, not enough, or at the wrong time creates the opposite efi'ect. As a result, customs that govern gift giving among Anishnaabek were well developed and commensurate with its importance in society. As we might expect, the kin relationship conditioned expectations of exchange. Basically, the rule of giving was this: the closer the kin relationship between people, the greater the reliance, and therefore, the implication of trust. Exchange would balance out in the long run. This type of exchange is called general reciprocity by anthropologists and is the kind ofexchange that occurs within households and among members ofa nuclear family. This holds true in non-native families as well, where, for example, on Christrrus there is no insistence on the exchange of equally valuable gifts. As we say, “It’s the thought that counts.” At the other extreme of Anishnaabek exchange is the type that takes place with very distant kin or strangers. Here, the things exchanged should be of equal value and both parties should be immediately satisfied. Although this sounds like our ticket buyer and seller, it is not, since the exchange is still in the form of a gift and still carries social implications - goodwill and the promise of future relationships. It was for this reason that, when Europeans first contacted the Anishnaabek, “barter’ (an economic term in our context) was conducted in a social atmosphere with prolonged greetings, pipe smoking, and present exchanges as preliminaries to the nuin 33 event. The confusion over social versus economic emphasis in exchange during the early years ofEuro-Arnerican and Indian contact also accormts for a common term in American folklore about Indians. Because the Indians placed gitt giving in an economic as well as a social context, a present made to a distant kinsman or to a stranger, the category into which non-Indians would be placed, required the inrmediate return of a present of equal value. To a person ignorant of this expectation, as many non-Indians were, the gift was usually accepted with a grateful “thank you,” a social response. Since no economic recompense was forthcoming fi-orn the ill- manneredstranger, areturnofthegiflwasdenunded. Thelndian, forhis trouble, was branded as an “Indian giver.” Since reciprocal giving was both economic and social, many customs determined the conditions and decorum of giving. The first of these is that there is as much obligation to receive as to give, and as much right. Custom dictated that visitors be fed, and that tools required to complete a task were available to all, irrespective ofownership. No thanks was required and no thanks was expected; giving and receiving were equivalents. To the Anishnaabek, it was “blessed to give and receive.” Unlike our gifis, which require transfer of ownership or use rights and imply future obligation, Anishnaabek required neither. Obligations were implicit in the kin relationship and were, in turn, structured by the nature of the social interaction. (Cleland. 1992, p.55-56) This anthropological notion of reciprocity reflects other written interpretations of European entrepreneurs, but the actual tradition of sharing continues as always in Anishinaabek community life. While most Anishinaabek are now influenced by political economics, traditional sharing has not changed for many, and is in a stage of revitalimtion. Cleland’s explanation of reciprocity is about trade. It has become popular as a result of anthropological interpretations that have been incorporated into modern educational history and social science texts. Misconstrued in this explanation of reciprocity is the traditional Anishinaabek connnunity view of sharing which does not include a component of trade-for-profit. Alsoofinterestistheobservationthatthetext, liketheearlierstatementonsharing,is presented in a past tense because science—oriented genre requires it. One of the 34 consequences of this, hour the standpoint of this interpretation, is that Anishinaabek tradition no longer exists. This text is exemplary of a good deal of American ethnocentric anthropology that fails to fully incorporate contemporary Anishinaabek meaning into interpretive texts. In my view, ignorance of contemporary Anishinaabek culture is not a mistaken gesture. Rather, it is a deh'berate gesture which imposes historical change into texts about indigenous people and culture. Furthermore, the text fails to acknowledge that this knowledge was acquired fi'om indigenous Anishinaabek teachers. Therefore, theycannotbereferencedasacredible sourceofexpertiseintheevaluationof Anishinaabek tradition and meaning. Some archaeologists involved in repatriation processes are aware of the problem. Larry Zimmerman (1992) descrrhed the impact of archaeologists interpretations on indigenous attitudes in the early days of the current repatriation movement. Indians have a humorous story for just about every difficult situation in life. About ten years ago, when the reburial issue seemed insoluble, when Indians felt almost completely powerless in the face of the archaeological establishment and there was intense anger and fi'ustration among both Indians and archaeologists, a story surfaced at one of the meetings held between the groups. In the story, several holy people from different tribes got together to discuss the “bone lickers,” those bizarre creatrnes, the archaeologists and physical anthropologists who study Indian bones. One of the undercurrents of the nweting was an often-expressed fear that when the holy people themselves died, archaeologists would be especially interested in studying their bones. After some discussion about bmial practicesthatmight keepthebonesfromfalling intothehandsofthe ‘arks,” most of the participants were at a loss as to what to do. Cremation was not the answer; for some it was a kind of spiritual suicide. No one believed hiding the bones would work either, because the “arks,” afier all, were pretty cratty about finding bones. In the end, with some resignation, the holy people concluded that, if nothing else, they at least could “get in the last word.” They all agreed that instead of being buried in the usual way, they would be buried face down, and they would have signs put on their rear ends reading. “Archaeologist! Kiss my ass!” (p. 37) 35 There are many new indigenous explanations of traditional indigenous meaning available in accredited research formats from Native repatriation researchers as a result of the NAGPRA repatriation process. In 1992, Rick Hill, Assistant Director for National Museum of the American Indian, wrote the following: Preservation of well being Ritualsthatinsornecaseshave notbeenperformedinovcracenturyare now being held. This allows the cultural and spiritual belief of the people to continue. The objects stimulate the restoration of the ceremony. The ceremony in turn, revitalizes the community. The community re-empowers theindividual. Theindividualassrnesthatsomeoneelsewilllearnwhatit allmeans. Eachcommunityhasitsownstoryasto whatitallmeans. Asa result of repatriation, there will be people who will be able to continue the ancient cycles and modern practices that make Indians Indians. We may notbeabletowitnessthesacredpracticesbutwewillallbenefit from them continuing. (p.5) Chapter summary This chapter has made two important points. First, that in intercultural communication, one encounters terms like repatriation or reciprocity which appear to have the same meaning for both communities but upon closer inspection the terms differ quite substantially and, as a result, neither side fully understands the intentions and motivations of the other. Secondly, from the perspective of the WRFN, the issue of repatriation is more than simply the return of stolen property, but a process of healing an injury and that as such, theprocessofrepatriation(healing)isasimportantastheretumitsel£ Chapter 3 THE REMOVAL OF HUMAN REMAINS FROM WAH WAH SUV/1H GAH This chapter provides a description and analysis of Dr. Greenman’s exhumation. For the sake of clarification I have paraphrased the following texts which describe Dr. Greenman’s arrival from mid July through a five week period of activities that led him to Old Birch Island where he exhumed the grave contents. This section is followed by entries from the exhumation process and his departure afterward. Dr. Greenman’s transcribed field notes (O’Shea, 1996) (prior to Old Birch Island exhumation) 0 The initial trip took three days to get from Ann Arbor to Manitoulin Island where Dr. Greenman and two of his colleagues settled into a rented log cabin at a place called Bushwong, located directly across fiom Manitowaning. Field note entries reveal an eagerness to see some artifacts and meet some ofthe local people. 0 The first evening (July 7, 1938) they visited a local family and collected stories about sites and artifacts. The next morning they visited sand mounds on South Bay. Dr. Greenman had gotten some information the night before about a place where “an Indianhaddugupastonewithaninscriptiononit.” Dr. Greennunwrotetlutthe original researchers became alarmed and stopped digging. This interpretation came fiom his guide. 0 According to transcripts, Dr. Greennun did not find these mounds. But as word of Dr. Greennun’s interest in artifacts got out, he was approached by local community members fiom Wikwemikong and other communities who had stories to tell about artifacts, or who had actual artifact collections. 0 OnJuly14theteamexhumedtwo graves fi'omasiteatProvidenceBay. Theyfound pottery on the surface. Two days later the research team moved to another site at 36 37 Mindemoya Lake. Skeletal remains were reported there by an earlier group of artifact hunters who had apparently taken their findings to the Royal Ontario Museum at Montreal (Dr. Greenman’s speculation). Dr. Greenman described this region in terms of its natural beauty. His descriptions of the landscape, excavations, and environmental setting reveal an excellent ecological field research technique. A few days later, on Thursday July 21, a local sm'veyor reported “potsherds, a sword, and a stockade protruding from the sand at West Bay.” They found animal and fish bones, flint, charcoal, and remnants of an ancient beach under deep layers of topsoil. At thispoint hedescribesaplace wherethe“rocksringwhenhitwithahannner.” Sometime thereafter they arrive at the community he called McGregor Bay Indian Village. This is where he met John Walker, the individual credited with showing Dr. Greenman the Wardrope (aka. Wah Wah Skin Wah Gah aka Old Birch Island) grave site. Walker showed him a trade iron axe and brass pail he had “found in his garden.” He also saw remnants of flint and several quartzite flakes. Walker informed him that the people living there were Q'ibway. His field notes include more Ojibway language fiom here on, as well as more local history. The following notes are actual excerpts fiom Dr. O’Shea’s transcripts of Dr. Greenman’s notes from the excavation site on Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah (aka “Owaskinega” Greenman’s notes). Only spelling mistakes have been corrected. It is important to note that the oral tradition spellings fiom Dr. Greemnan’s notes change in the following text. Otchipwe becomes Ojibway, and “OwaskinAga” becomes Old Birch Island, and finally, he calls it “Wardrope Island.” These intertextual changes demonstrate meaning replacement. This process is relevant to understanding power relationships. In the following quote Norman Fairclough (1989) explained the relevance of “intertextual context” and how to determine presupposition of power. Discourses and the texts which occur within them have histories, they belong to historical series, and the interpretation of intertextual context is a matter of deciding which series a text belongs to, and therefore what can be 38 taken as common ground for participants, or presupposed. As in the case of situational context, discourse participants may arrive at roughly the same interpretation of different ones, and the interpretation of the more powerful participants may be imposed upon others. So having power may mean being able to determine presuppositions. (p. 152) Which changes were made by Dr. Greenman and by UMMA translators? Without having the original notes for comparison it is imposs1hle to answer these questions or ask other important questions about meanings related to specific oral tradition or historic terms, or to develop an accurate understanding of how intertextual change reflects new, traditional, or historic meaning. Field note excerpts August 12. Found a historic site on the north end of Wardrope Island [Old Birch Island] this morning. The Indians call the portage Gamikonin which is rendered in English as Pickerel Road. Mikon I believe is road in Otchipwe. The Otchipwe word for Birch Island is Owaskinega. This is the form in which the word was first given to me by John Walker at Wardrope Island. The McGregor Bay Indians, Q'ibway, lived first on Birch Island at the south end, then moved to the mainland directly west to the old town near John Walker’s and then, because they were dying too first of fever, to the present McGregor Bay village. John Walker’s lather was the last man to leave Birch Island - about 80 years ago. The Indians called the portage Gamikoning meaning “Pickerel road” because they used to portage there on the way fi'om the old village to fish for pickerel at spawning time at the mouth of Whitefish river. Whitefish is Tikomesh, in Otchipwe. We returned to camp at 4:00 pm. and went down to Little Current. Gregor McGregor went with us. We ate there, got some packing and mail, and gasoline. Coming back it looked like rain so we packed up and left for Whitefish Falls, where we rented a cabin. This evening I rented Dave McGregor’s boat for the next two days for $.75 a day. We 1nd it yesterday also. John Walker worked with us yesterdayandlpaidhimSZ.OO. MikeBellcamearoundthiseveningandIhiredhim for tomorrow. August 13. We awoke at Whitefish Falls, had breakfast and went to McGregor Bay whereMikeandJohnwerewaiting forus. Mikewentto workmakingatent,andthe rest of us left for Wardrope Island. In Grave 3 we found a brass spoon bowl, 2 thumb nail flint scrapers, a stone pipe with a human head efligy carved in the round, and a water-smoothed pebble. But no bones. All of the five graves have now had the leaf moldandrootsremovedbutnobones showup. No.4hadapiece ofagunbarrel 1- 1/2” of it, about a foot down but nothing else. Later human bones were found beneath Grave 4, anddiggingatrenchupto Gravel itwasfiomthattheburialisdowninthe 39 bed rock, loose rock being taken out. Returning to McGregor Bay at 5:00 we found Mike Bell had built an excellent tent and so we are set for the time we stay here. August 14. Sunday. Mike Bell, John Walker and the rest of us worked all day. Fletcher, Benton and I went into Little Current for supper at seven. Paid John Walker and Mike today. Also hired Dave McGregor’s punt for four more days. August 15. Monday. We laid off today. The car was greased and the oil changed at 34,700. The new clutch was also installed at this mileage. We went into Little Current and got various supplies, and I sent my expense account in. Returned to McGregor Bay at 5:30 and got supper. August 16. Worked today. John worked but not Mike. Uncovered Burials l, 3,4. Went in to Little Current, got new camera, ate at Marshall’s. August 17. Rained all last night and this morning. Benton and I are sick. Something we ate probably. At 2 pm. John, Fletcher, and I went out to Wardrope. Benton stayed in carnpto keepthebeansboilingandgetarest. August 18. Thursday. I worked all day. Went to Little Current to supper and find out who owns Wardrope Island. Crown land apparently. Sent letter to McKern. August 19. Worked till three, when it looked like rain, and we quit to get moved into a house. John Walker’s house on the west side of the portage. Rented it for $5.00 a week. August 20, Saturday. Rained hard at seven and we didn’t go to Wardrope Island. Repacked specimens and took them to the fieight office in Little Current. John went in with us. Got back at 4:30 pm. August 21. Sunday. Laid around all day doing not a thing for the first time on this trip. Gus McGregor, the Chief, dropped in on us this evening and among other things told of a site where Pottery is found on Haystack Island. A Mr. Tuer lives there. Also tourists. August 22. Monday. Map and uncovered Graves 11, 12 but found nothing in them. Quit at 3:00 to get prepared for Benton and Fletcher’s trip to Northwest Point tomorrow. Found letter from Titiev asking us to meet him tomorrow on the Manitou at Little Current and lave a drink. I got a haircut. Received check No. 13548 for $67.80. It took 19 days to get it here. August 23. Tuesday. Laid ofl’ today to get specimens shipped and make a copy of the catalog. Saw the Titievs at 3:00 pm. at Little Current on the S. S. Manitoulin. Hired a gas launch for $6.00 to take us to Whitefish Bay tomorrow. August 24. Wednesday. The Indian was not on hand with his launch. We went to Little Current and got an excellent boat round-bottomed and large and started for the north shore of La Cloche Island. Visited Sturgeon Bay and Jumbo Bay and ate on Wells Island. On the way back Benton formd a piece of English china at the Bay at Northwest Point, and that is all we found on this trip. August 25. Thursday Back at Wardrope Island to finish up. Jolm Walker says his father told him the Ojibway name for the Swift Current Site is asindewe, meaning Bell Rock. It is probably two words. Mike worked today. Also John. We dug graves 9, 10 and one notched projectile point was the result. We are through with WI 1 except coveringin. Johnandlwalkedovertotheeastpointofthelslandwherethereisa 40 ridge similar to W11, but found no graves. Saw some original White and Norway Pine, 100-125 feet high, and a beautiful maple sugar bush, and camp. August 26. Friday. Rained early this am. and we did not get to Wardrope till 9:30. Covered in the trenches and got caught in a halfhours rain. We went directly north of our landing. September 1. Thursday, Benton, John Walker and I worked at Wardrope. Day before yesterdayI got to thinking further about the village site at Wardrope Island where the Indians lived whose remains we have been excavating. Previously we have scraped the leafmold androots ofl‘ofS foot squareareasonthe flatterracesto theeast ofthe cemeteryandat alowerlevelthantheburialridge. Thenitoccurredto mewehad finishedwthmdropeIshrdmmflnvflhgeshemigMbewithmmdiatevicmity oftheburialsatthesamelevel, ontheridgetotheeastoftheburialswhereitisfairly level for a distance of75 to 100 feet to the east ofthe blufl‘s edge where the burials are. Then while I took Fletcher to South Baymouth, Benton and John Walker went to Wardrope to remove a considerable area of leafmold and roots in the immediate vicinity of the burials. Beginning about 12 feet south of Line AB, they found another burial the first thing, Grave 13. September 2. Friday. This afternoon we finished the site WI I at about 2:30 then smoked a cigarette apiece during which John announced that he had found more graves to the east a couple of hundred feet. We went over and saw the same set-up as we had first seen at the cemetery we had just finished - limestone boulders lying around, with four depressions in the leaves of the forest floor. The difference was that these were much less obvious. Onlytwo orthree rocks couldbe seen, andvery little ofeachofthem. We had all walked right across this four or five times, except John and he may have, without seeing them. We cut the maple saplings and cleared off the dead wood, took a picture ofthe four graves, in which nothing will show but a floor ofdead leaves. Next we stripped the dead leaves and leaf mold and roots fiom the grave farthest west, andfound it to beahole about or5 feet longeastandwest, withlirnestone slabspiled around it in a circle. The hole is typically V-slnped in cross section. These graves are several feet lower than the onesjust finished. Graves l - 16. We Ind expected to leave here in 3 or 4 days. Now it will be a week or more. We quit at 3:30 and went to Little Current to get a hand rake with which to remove the leaf mold, oil for the tape line, and other supplies. Took John’s wife, sister, and little boy in with us. September 3. Saturday. This morning it was raining and blowing hard when we got up. We packed specirnensintheboxandtooktheminto Little Current and shippedthis box, and the box of dishes by fieight. John came in with us, also Dave McGregor brother of Gus, the chief at Birch Island. When we were ready to go about 3:00 pm. we couldn’t find Gus and John, and another man went looking for them. They were gone an horn and a half. September 5. Monday. Gregor McGregor told me at the clock this morning as we were starting out that on Round Island east of Heywood Island, there is a good site on the south side. Today John Walker's son Frank worked in his place. John came around early and said his stomach was upside down and asked ifka could take his place. The three ofus finished mapping the Grave 17 - 20 group, and uncovered Grave l7. 41 So far it has beads and an iron axe with it, so it is post contact, instead of pre-contact as we had thought it might possibly be. September 6. Tuesday. John Benton and I worked all day leaving the Island just in time to avoid getting rained on, about 4:45. The sky had become heavily overcast without our noticing it in the deep shade of the site on Wardrope. We nearly completed Grave l7 and got Grave 19 partially excavated. Went straight from work to Little Current to get the until. 3 September 12. Monday. Went to Manitowaning to see Mr. Masten about the Jolm Reynold’s collection. Took further notes and photos. Mrs. Masten let me take the picture of Chief Little Knife. Stopped at Shegwandah to see the Anglican minister about site there. He knew of none, but had only been there about a year. September 13. Tuesday. Sent the last box and cots off by freight. Interviewed Joe Buzwa during the day. At night after supper Benton, John Walker and I went to Little Current and drank some beer at Jack Marshall’s till ten. John gave me a work list. Yesterday I asked John for a story to give it to me in Q'ibmy. I took it down in phonetic script. It was a story with a super-natural twist. I said he might tell me a hunting experience of his, and what he gave me was a story about an Indian, named Wonquot who nearly speared a mermaid ofl’ Flat Point and leaned over so far watching herthathisheadand shoulderswereunderwater. Five boxes containing specimens have been shipped to Ann Arbor fi'om Little Current, that is, large wooden boxes. The first was the box the outboard motor came in, the second was a square box fiom the 0.T. Bennett Hdw. Store. The third was made by Mr. Wardrope, the fom'thalarge boxwithroughsurfaceoutsideandahandleateach end by Mr. Buck and the fifth by Mr. Wardrope. The fifth was sent September 13, 1938. September 14. Wednesday. Received check for $107.50 today and made preparations for leaving tomorrow for Sault Ste. Marie. September 15. Thursday. Benton and I went into Little Current in morning taking John Walker and his wife with us, they to catch the mail truck for Manitowaning and go on fiom there to Wikwemikong to the fair. Benton and I left Little Current about 11:30, ate at Espanola and arrived at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan through Canadian and American customs without a hitch at about 7:30. [end of field note excerpts] Discussion These field notes reveal two or more repatriation language sources. Scientific research (e.g., finding specimens) and oral tradition names and places (Otchipwe, asindewe, Manitowaning, Wilcwemikong ...) are obvious. Employment of local entrepreneurs, including some WRFN community members enriched Dr. Greenman’s 42 exploratory technique. Many local workers, including a field guide, reportedly helped him find old grave sites. Their input provided a historic sample of WRFN language. Dr. Greenman also rented several items for local travel and research needs (e. g., boats, cabins). Indoingsohe spreadAmericanmoney, acommodityofwhichtherewas little at that time, around the WRFN region. This high profile activity attracted locals who had artifacts and stories to offer. When Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah (known to Dr. Greenmn as Wardrope Island) is identified in the field notes, his entries about grave contents also increase. Another signifying element in this statement is the Canadian language reference “Wardrope” to refer to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah or Old Birch Island. This reference causes another question about the origin of reference. Who or what was the somee? Probably not WRFN community members since it identifies a Canadian site. The older Otchipwe oral tradition identity as presented in linguistic terms “OwaskinAga” is also noted. In his notes Dr. Greenman acknowledged that the WRFN Otchipwe lived on maskin/tga until the 1850’s. The McGregor Bay Indians, Otchipwe, lived first on Birch Island at the southendthenmovedtothenninlanddirectlywest totheoldtownnear John Walker’s and then, because they were dying too fast of fever, to the present McGregor Bay village. John Walker’s father was the last man to leave Birch Island - about 80 years ago. The Indians called the portage Gamikoning meaning “Pickerel road” because they used to portage there on the way fi'om the old village to fish for pickerel at spawning time at the mouth of Whitefish river. Whitefish is Tikomesh, in Otchipwe. (August 12, 1938) He did not state when they arrived but Art McGregor provides insight on this time in the next chapter. 43 There are obvious intertextual changes in identity references in the field entries. Early entries focused on daily activities, administration, and business details. Later, Wardrope Island entries contain thicker archaeological descriptions. These entries demonstrate the significance of grave contents, and inadvertently reveal that grave exhumation was a typical 1938 U.S. archaeological excavation research method. InGrave3wefoundabrassspoonbowL2thumbnailflintscrapers,a stone pipewithahumanheadefligycarvedintherotmd,andawater- smoothed pebble. But no bones. All of the five graves have now had the leafmold and roots removed but no bones show up. No.4 had a piece of a gun barrel (1-1.5 ”) ofit, about a foot down but nothing else. later hunmn bones were found beneath Grave 4.... (August 13, 1938) While many materials are listed (i.e., pipe, gun barrel, bowl, spoon...) they are less significant than the primary artifact (e.g. bones). The term “bones” appears very often (e.g. “But no bones.” and “no bones show up”). These addenda to notes about actual findings revealanintense desireto findhumanbones. Thisusage expressesahighervalue of skeletal remains relative to other artifacts. He also refers to human remains as “specimens.” This scientific term is specific in its reference to data colbction. Generally speaking, modern social scientists use this objective term in research texts as a method that guards against subjective biases impinging on empirical interpretations. The WRFN community is appalled by this language. Hearing that their ancestors are identified as “research specimens” is meaningful as an insult to their ancestors and to their own human value. Specific language use and meaning is critical to understanding ethical research conflicts in the determination of cultural affiliation. The next important subject matter is the realm of legal language and its relations to repatriation meanings. Chapter four 44 focuses on the language of grave robbery law and its relationship to identity of prehistoric and modern humans. Chapter summary Dr. Greenman' 5 field notes provide many insights. Especially his illustrations of how he created a labor force to help with the excavation, and how he created and supported an archaeological research-based economy that many local residents participated in directly as a result of labor or education, or indirectly as a result of their relationship in Dr. Greenman's workforce. Others were involved as a result of offering their knowledge of artifacts and grave sites, and flora personal visitations by Dr. Greenman as he followed up leads about grave sites in the region. Dr. Geenman also specifically acknowledged cultural affiliation of the Old Birch Island grave site to the present day WRFN commtmity. His texts show clearly that in addition to carrying out other research he was searching for human remains and that he exhumed 20 such remains from Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah and sent them to the UMMA. There is a potential problem relevant to intertextual ctmnge that cannot be checked without access to the original field notes. The meaning of Dr. Greenman’s findings appear to have been recently re-interpreted by UMMA translators causing a question about validity and reliability resulting fi'om technical language change in the original translations of oral tradition. Chapter 4 GRAVE PROTECTION AND GRAVE ROBBERY LAWS It is generally understood that current U.S. and Canadian systems of law are based on the English system of cormnon law or unwritten law. On both national and international levels, common or customary law exists parallel to codifications, statutes or written law, both of which can be applied in a variety of legal decisions (Anabel Dwyer, p.c., 1998). Common Law Determining the content of common law in the English (or U.S. and Canadian systems) is simifir to that of the determination of unwritten Native laws. Consequently, all three fill under the broader umbrella of historic common law. Arthur Hogue (1966) defined common law as follows. This tmwritten or common law, is properly distinguishable into tlnee kinds: 1) General customs, which are the universal rule of the whole kingdom, and form the common law, in its stricter and more usual signification. 2) Particular customs, which for the most part, affect only the inhabitants of particular districts. 3) Certain particular laws which by custom are adopted and used by some particular courts, of pretty general and extensive jurisdiction. All ofthesearedoctrinesthatarenot set downinanywrittenstatuteor ordinance, but depends merely upon immemorial usage, that is upon common law for their support. (p. 191) Pertinent to this analysis is the fict that common law protects graves, and prohibits disturbing or robbing graves in all traditions and customs of all the pe0ple involved. Unfortunately, this same respect for the dead was not applied to Native people. James 45 46 Riding In described this problem in a review of the legislative history of the NAGPRA. The law did not protect unrmrked Native graves like it protected marked European graves. Nor did the law recognize that Native people maintain close religious connections with ancient dead; instead, the right to protect the dead was limited to the decedent's immediate next of kin. The law also failed to take into accormt relevant historical circumstances such as govermnent removal of tribes away fiom their burial grounds, and the need to accord legal protection for the graves and cemeteries that were involuntarily left behind. (Riding In, 1992. p. 46) Ontario Law Ontario law (1927) pertaining to the removal of human remains fi'om graves (in force at the time Dr. Greenman exhumed the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah graves) is found in Section 29 of the Cemeteries Act of Ontario, chapter 317. 30.(1) No dead body shall at any time be disinterred or removed fiom any grave, place of burial or vault, other than a receiving vault, except under and subject to the regulations and under the personal supervision and direction of the medical officer of health. (2) The certificate ofthe medical oficer ofhealth that the provisions ofthis Act and of the reguhtions have been complied with shall be affixed to the coflin or other receptacle containing the dead body before its removal from the cemetery. (3) Every person who disinters or removes fiom any such grave, place ofburial or vault any dead body except as herein before provided, and every person who conveys or transports any such body in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall incur a penalty of $100. 1926, c. 63, 3.31. This Ontario statute required certification and permission prior to grave exhrunation, indigenous or other. Information provided by the UMMA does not include certification for exhumation of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah graves. Apparently Dr. Greenman was not in compliance with Ontario law. These findings are significant for the following reasons: 1. The Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah exhumations were done on identifiable graves 2. Dr. Greenman documented his grave exhumation of human remains in 1938 3. Evidencehasnot beenprovidedbytheUMMAto showthat Dr. Greenman 47 obtained permission from a medical heath officer in Ontario. We shallalso seeinChapterfivethat WRFNcommunityleaders,pastorcurrent, did not authorize the removal of these remains. Michigan Law Although Michigan law is not applicable to this case, its formulation is worth noting. Chapter XXVI. DEAD HUMAN BODIES 750.160. Disinterment, mutilation, defacement, or carrying away of human body; exception Sec. 160. A person, not being lawfully authorized so to do, who shall willfirlly dig up, disinter, remove, or convey away a human body, or the remainsthereof, fromthe placewherethebody rmybe interred or deposited, or who shall knowingly aid in such disinterment, removal, or conveying away, or who shall mutilate, defice, remove, or carry away a portion ofthe dead body ofa person, whether in his charge for burial or otherwise, when the mutilation, deficement, removal, or carrying away is not necessary inanyproperoperationinembalmingthebodyorforthe purpose of a postmortem examination, and every person accessory thereto, either before or after the fict, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or by fine ofnot more than $5,000.00. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the digging up, disinterment, removal or carrying away for scientific purposes of the remains of prehistoric persons by representatives of established scientific institutions or societies, having the consent in writing of the owner of the land from which the remains may be disinterred, removed or carried away. PA. 1931, No.328, 160, Eff. Sept.18 (amended 1974). This Michigan law difl‘ers fiomthe earlier cited CommonandOntario lawsbecause it allows for the removal of human remains from graves that are "prehistoric," provided that permission is given by the crurent owner of the land where the graves are located. The content of aboriginal or prehistoric graves were re-evaluated according to legal precedent of the time. With respect to this law, aboriginal people are considered to be prehistoric people which made them and their ancestors graves and sacred sites legal research subjects. The key to understanding this legal act is that it did not protect Native grave 48 sites as the laws cited above do. Rather, it attempted to exchrde Native human remains, including ancestral grave sites identified by Native groups as their own, fi'om hunfin research protections. In essence, Native ancestral remains were no longer identified as part of a modern human category. Hence, common law grave robbery became “legitimate” archeology when Native remains were involved. The intent of the 1974 amendment to Michigan law was specific: Human remains of indigenous peoples were classified differently from the rest of the human population. “Aboriginal inhabitants" became "prehistoric persons," a category made specifically for archaeological researchers. These newly codified laws explicitly excluded aboriginal people from modern humus. Aboriginal human remains and grave contents were assigned exclusively to science, and in particular, to archaeologists who redefined them as objects of science. Prehistory, an evolutionary concept of time, differentiated these graves and their human contents fi'om modern human graves. One reason for this change in classification is obvious. As "prehistoric persons" grave contents are identified in terms of evolutionary theory. By placing them in ancient human- like categories the law effectively questions any linkage they might have to modern cultural groups. This causes a question of cultural afliliation, effectively removing traditional cultural knowledge about ancestral relations fiom the knowledge database, and replacing it with a scientific question about humanness. This precedent is relevant to the new DNA hypothesis testing tlwory. It is the scientific basis for it. As prehistoric objects of science, archaeologists now claim an exclusive legal right to them for research. This is significant for this study because the meaning of cultural 49 affiliation in archaeological contexts presented in this repatriation process rests on the premise that the claimant group (WRFN) has to show evidence that Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah is afiiliated with modern WRFN hurmns. This is simple to do according to the WRFN researchers. Just show the evidence presented in this case study. But to the UMMA researcher who relies on archaeological method to discover "prehistoric human cultural affiliation”, traditional knowledge simply does not count. If they did accept oral tradition as told by modern indigenous people, they would be admitting that these remains arerelatedto modernhumansandthiscausesseveralproblenm(legal,ethical,and scientific). That is why Dr. Greenman’s acknowledgment of grave contents being flour a posthistoricera,andacknowledgingthattheyarerelatedtotheWRFNasrecentlyasthe 1850's is so vitally important for determining cultural affiliation. ItmeansthattheargumentUWAispresentingiscontroversial. Thearchaeological concept of prehistory can not be used as sole evidence for separating modern WRFN humans fi'orn the prehistory of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. Therefore, it no longer supports DNA testing as the only method for proving cultural afliliation. This issue is critical to empiricalarchaeologicalmethodinthiscaseandmustbeaddressed soonerorlater. Within his own scientific field, archaeological theory about human origin at the time Greenman exhumed these graves, reveals an ideological bias that professional archaeologists possessed a special privilege that endowed them with legitimate rights to practice grave exhumations of this kind. Up until 1990, U.S. law, as can be seen in the Michigan law, provides a history of permission to archaeologists to collect dead Indians, including removing the dead warriors fiom battlefields (Riding In, 1992) and to conduct 50 grave exhurmtions on certain sites as designated by law. In essence, Greenman did what he was trained to do in the U.S. field of archaeology. Thus, the content of the Michigan law helps to explain why Dr. Greenman and other UMMA archaeologists believed that they had legal power to exhume Wah Wah Skin Ah gah bmial sites in the interest, and indeed, the very essence of their specific science. However, Greenman did not act legally even with respect to Michigan law for, as fir as available informtion shows, permission was not given by any proper authority. Interestingly, Dr. Greenman did mention in the portion of field notes that were made public, that he tried to find out about ownership fi'om "McKern," one of Dr. Greenman's colleagues. Whether Greenman was inquiring about contemporary ownership of the property (Michigan Law) or about whether these remains were WRFN ancestors is unclear. But nothing was said about a reply fiom McKern to Dr. Greenman's letter of inquiry, nor is there any other discussion of ownership in the notes made available. International repatriation language and meaning is an important data source relevant to this study of repatriation language and meaning. The problem is not new. Neither are the current conflicts. Illegitimate exhumations of Native graves has given rise to a growing cadre of indigenous repatriation researchers. These researchers are now encountering old conflicts in new repatriation processes. For example, the Tlnee Fires NAGPRA Alliance, a collective consortium of Anishinaabek repatriation researchers, has emerged in the Great Lakes region (i.e.,, Broome, 1996) and in other indigenous communities. Others are mentioned in Lorilee McGregor’s statement (chapter five) and there are many others who 51 have offered to help the WRFN. These Indigenous scholars often refer to a certain kind of research problem as "historic distrust" because examples of broken treaty issues abound in indigenous literature sources, U.S. federal policy studies, and treaty disputes. Reasons for distrust are well documented by Native scholars (DeLoria, 1992; Lewis 1991; Henry-Shipman and Holappa, 1989) and in other scientific research formns including archaeology and anthropology research journals. In addition, new horrific details fi'om museum inventories and legal cases have recently been shared with indigenous people. This information has also caused an uproar in academia. As a result many older theories about indigenous people are being revisited but not by all yet. Some are still focusing on legalities as a primary standpoint for interpreting the new information. For example, the NAGPRA mandate for repatriation is interpreted by UMMA as legally limited to U.S. territory. But facts show that Dr. Greenman’s research extended across an international border. The WRFN argues that this extension of institutional authority created a direct connection to the WRFN cormnunity in 1938, albeit illegally. On the other hand, the WRFN community connection to UMMA is to their ancestors. The WRFN was not connected legally by choice. But a legal relationship between the WRFN and UMMA now exists because the WRFNcommunitybelievesthattheirancestorsarebeingheldthereagainsttheirwill. The UMMA denies this legal aspect of their relationship to the WRFN. In the WRFN oral tradition data, ancestral relations to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah are axiomatic. But they are ignored by the UMMA in favor of current legal and scientific language that has recently been biased toward scientific values of ancient DNA. These 52 reactions demonstrate institutional, political, and scientific limitations of international repatriation processing in this case. Many Native scholars see this process as demeaning in a variety of ways. Walter Echohawk (1988), a Native American Rights Fund representative, provided a striking contrast to the archaeological groups rationale for preserving museum collections. The well-known racial slur that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian,” continues to play a stark reality in the lives of Indian people today. After death, American Indians are not secure in their person or property as non- Indians pursue them into the grave, for various motive, in quest of “specimens,” “pathological material,” or just plain “booty.” All tribes throughout Indian country have been victimized by the body snatchers, but facts that have begun to emerge in recent years reveal that a shocking systematic expropriation of Native dead has occmred on a national scale for years. (p. 1) While some may excuse the original UMMA collector (Dr. Greenman) because he belonged to an age that was naively racist, it must be understood that western scientists have continued to utilize the contents of these collections for educational and research purposes for sixty years, and have duplicated the sanre or very similar collection methods elsewhere in the name of science. Furthermore, many other indigenous and non-native pe0ple have been impacted similarly and are now reacting in the same manner, or in support ofthe WRFNcommunity. Thisgroupwantsthehumanrenninsreturnedtotheir communities of origin Currently, there is significant political support to stop illegal collection and unrketing of American Indian remains (Man 1995). This attitude is a reversal of earlier attitudes in the U.S. federal government. Daniel K. Inouye (1992), Senator fiom Hawaii and Chairman of the United States 53 Senate Select Committee on Indian Afl‘airs (at that time), characterized federal government policy onlndiansintheearlypart ofthe 19th century. In the first seventy years of the nineteenth century, the Federal Government actively engaged in conquering the Indian nations. During this period, often referred to as the Indian Wars era, the bodies ofIndian dead were taken from the battlefields and shipped to museums in the Eastern United States. In 1868, the army Surgeon General of the United States issued an order instructing Army Medical officers to collect specimens of Indian craniafortheArmyMedicalMuseum. ThearmyMedicalMuseumlater transferred the collection of Indian skeletal remains, gathered pursuant to the Surgeon General’s order, to the Smithsonian Institution. (p. 1) These early collection methods were sanctioned by the U.S. federal government. Trope and Echohawk (1992) provide another relevant historical example fiom the development of Physical Anthropology methods that were also government sanctioned. Dr. Samuel Morton, the fither of American physical anthropology, collected large numbers of Indian crania in the 1840’s. His goal was to scientifically prove, through skull measurements, that the American Indian was a racially inferior “savage” who was mturally doomed to extinction. Morton’s theory established the “Vanishing Red Man” theory, which was embraced by govemment policy makers as “scientific justification” for relocating Indian tribes, taking tribal land, and conducting genocide - in certaininstances-againstAmericanIndians. Laterthesearchforlndian body parts became oflicial federal policy with the Surgeon General’s Order of 1868. The policy directed army personnel to procure Indian crania and other body parts for the Army Medical Museum. In ensuing decades, over 4000 heads were taken fi'om battlefields, burial grormds, POW camps. hospitals, fiesh graves, and burial scaffolds across the country. Govemment headhunters decapitated Natives who had never been buried, such as slain Pawnee warriors from a western Kansas battlegromid, Cheyenne and Arapaho victims of Colorado’s Sand Creek Massacre, and defeated Modoc leaders who were hanged and shipped to the Army Medical Museum. (p. 1) Government support of these objectionable practices provide a real basis for today’s common feelings of distrust which are shared among WRFN and other Anishinaabek 54 repatriation researchers. Current conflicts are viewed as part of a hidden research agenda, which is essentially related to a current trend toward patenting human DNA for profit. These views are validated by research on bio-piracy (Debra Harry, 1998) and in debates about DNA research method development. For example, RAFI COMMUNIQUE (1994) reported the following on the Internet. In the 1980's US court decisions set international precedent for the patenting of human genetic material. As a result, exclusive monopolies over hum genetic materials are becoming conmronplace in the industrialized world, without discussion of the social, ethical and political implications. (p. 1) On March 17, 1996, Science (on the Internet) reported the following: Population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza at Stanford University and Molecular Anthropologist Allan Wilson fiom the University of California at Berkeley, with others, are calling for “an urgent, last ditch efi‘ort - involving geneticists, anthropologists, and medical researchers worldwide - to collect, analyze, and present for futme study DNA fi'orn these [indigenous] populations as part of a massive survey of human genetic diversity. (http://www.channneti~rafi/l994llrmrl) These examples reveal cultural meanings relevant to the primary conflict in this case. Each illustrates further distinct meanings of biological research practices relevant to the UMMA argument for DNA determination of cultural affiliation. Fueling the fear of hidden agenda items are conflicting meanings, lack of knowledge, and exclusive research practices that keep indigenous people out of the know. The NAGPRA law mandates that indigenous cormnrmity experts be incorporated into repatriation processes because museums generally do not have staff with the knowledge necessaryto recognizetheimportanceoftraditionalevidence likethetypepresentedby 55 the WRFN research team. The next chapter (5) presents a collection of views of several contemporary archaeologists and professional Archaeology associations. Excerpts fi'om professional archaeology associations emphasizing research ethics are predominant, showing a current trend in archaeological debates about ethical research and methods. These voices were added to broaden what is expressed in the field of archaeology about repatriation and international issues, and to W illuminate the impact of the new repatriation process in the international field of archaeology and on indigenous people. N AGPRA Several references have been rmde in this chapter to NAGPRA (The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act), passed in 1990. Although details of this law are presented in several chapters, let it be noted here that it was enacted to remedy the situation because of the massive number of (illegal) exhumatiom of the graves of indigenous peoples by professional archaeologists and others which have been stored in museums all across the United States. But the NAGPRA law did not make grave robbery a crime, because as has been shown, grave robbery laws, common and statutory, have been in effect for a very long time. What NAGPRA does is to provide a legal remedy for these abuses by providing a systematic returning of afliliated remains and associated patrimony to their resting places. However, the process of repatriation mandated by NAGPRA is limited to the political borders of the United States, meaning that the Canadian based people of Whitefish River First Nation have to find another way to seek repatriation of their ancestors. There may be other international laws that apply to a comprehensive evaluation of 56 this case. For example, Treaty rights and legal agreements between the British Crown, Canadian government, and others. This chapter was limited to grave robbery and other laws in effect at the time of exhumation. Dr. Greenman had been excavating for some time prior to his entry on McKern about permission. What prompted him to inquire about ownership at that time? Does his later inquiry suggest that within an archaeological flame of reference he felt compelled to get permission before taking anything more fi'om Old Birch Island graves? What was it that made him inquire? What other fictors might have causedhimto seek advice onthis issue? Old Birch Island cultural afl'iliation has been dated much more recently by the WRFN and Dr. Greenman acknowledged that these graves are related to tln current WRFN community residents in his field notes. August 12. Found a historic site on the north end of Wardrope Island [Old Birch Island] this morning. The Indians call the portage Gamikonin which is rendered in English as Pickerel Road. Mikon I believe is road in Otchipwe. The Otchipwe for Birch Island Is Owaskinega. This is the form in which the word was first given to me by John Walker at Wardrope Island. The McGregor Bay Indians, Ojibway, lived first on Birch Ishnd at the south end, then moved to the mainland directly west to the old town near John Walker’s and then, because they were dying too fist of fever, to the present McGregor Bay village. John Walker’s fither was the last man to leave Birch Island - about 80 years ago. The Indians calbd the portage Garnikoning meaning “Pickerel road” because they used to portage there on the way fiom the old village to fish for pickerel at spawning time at the mouth of Whitefish river. Whitefish is T ikomesh, in Otchipwe. This information about death and disease on Old Birch Island-McGregor Bay Indian village was not cited as a significant factor in the final responses by University of Michigan oficials. Two final responses from the University (UMMA Director and the President of the University) are evaluated in chapters seven and eight respectively. 57 The next chapter (5) introduces WRFN Anishinaabek Ojibway speakers, repatriation language, and cultmal meanings. These data reveal a set of values relevant to community healing processes. Chapter five also introduces the WRFN repatriation researchers and their findings. Texts fi'om WRFN Elder Art McGregor, Band Councillor Esther Jacko, Professional Researcher Lorilee McGregor, Youth Representative Roxanne Jacko, the WRFN Band Council policy statement, and references to a community survey are included. These texts provide data for analysis of cultural meanings of repatriation in chapter six and for a comparison of meanings in chapter nine. Chapter 5 WRF N REPATRIATION LANGUAGE This chapter presents and discusses the perspectives of WRFN commrmity leaders and repatriation researchers. Several texts are presented and analyzed to illustrate meaning. The voices heard begin with Nungess (Little Strugeon), an Elder who witnessed the whole history of impact Dr. Greenman had on his community beginning in 1938 and continuing to date. Nungas - Art Me Gregor Nungess was born September 25, 1917. He is the Bear Clan Elder, and WRFN Band historian. It is important to note tint I was encouraged to go and see Nungess when visiting the community. Each time I visited the WRFN research team I was asked “Did you stopbyArt’splace?”andwasadvisedto do so if] hadnot. Evenwhenl gavean excuse about not wanting to bother the Elder I was always convinced Nungess would not mind. Thisgestmetumedout to holdadeeptraditionalmeaningthatlbeganleaming from after the research period ended. The value was demonstrated when Nungess and his wife (Violet) came to our Pow Wow in Lansing (November 16-17, 1997). They said they really enjoyed their visit. It was then that I knew how much of an honor it is to be accepted into their home and by the WRFN community. Nungess was twenty one years of age when Dr. Greenman exhumed the Wah Wah 58 59 Skin Ah Gah graves. Nungess’ voice represented the generation of Elders who were children or young adults in 1938, and he also spoke on behalfof the existing community. His voice represents the Elder; traditionally an important community leadership voice. We talked at his home several times and at community gatherings. Nungess’ style of storytelling introduced key characters with himself included in the dialogue, as if the characters were with us, sharing the present space and time. Nungess’ stories, when combined with other research descriptions (i.e., political history, field notes) provide a thicker description of the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah exhumation. In pmicular, his interviews revealed a timeline that stretches back about four hundred years. This traditional history is fi'om the WRFN oral tradition, about the WRFN on Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah before and just after European contact. It embellished the written histories of contact with others who came into the WRFN homeland for trade, war, tradition, research, and discovery, during traditional and historic times. The Elder’s spoken words provided a traditional foundation for other ideas to rest on; a traditional principle for synthesizing relevant bits of information fi'om WRFN oral tradition and fi'om indigenous knowledge sources referenced in the NAGPRA type repatriation process. This combination of knowledge sources further cultivated an emergent set of cultural meanings relevant to modern and traditional WRFN Anishinaabek Q'ibway identity, culture, history, and values. In essence, knowledge about traditional ancestral cultural affiliation Some of the details of our meetings, field notes, and other reference materials have been left out. What has been included are stories and events that describe the impact from 60 Dr. Greenman’s exhumation and the new repatriation process. Throughout our fiiendship Nungess shared his memories of other relevant events that augment Dr. Greenman’s notes, making it easier to conceptualize the time and setting from a young adult community member’s perspective. His wisdom also helped me to develop a traditional cultural understanding of the meaning of the stories of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah and their relations to the nrodem day WRFN. In fict, the term Old Birch Island refers to the Whitefish River First Nation in the stories he told. Today, the term Old Birch Island istheprirnaryhistoric EnglishlanguagereferenttermusedbymodemWRFN community members and others who are firniliar with the commtmity and setting. Old Birch Island signifies traditional and historic relationships to the modern day WRFN. This combination of oral tradition knowledge and historical fict represent a synthesis of two types of data required by the NAGPRA repatriation process model. The following presentation provides a glimpse of an indigenous perspective of the case. It is only one component of the WRFN database. It is important to note that the indigenous knowledge of the WRFN community included in this study was interpreted for its anthropological significance by an Anishinaabek graduate student who was carefirlly guided by WRFN Elders and Community Leaders who know what happened in 1938. This cooperative participation research model yielded a text which WRFN repatriation researchers agree partially represents the views ofthe WRFN conummity on this subject matter. The WRFN community graciously allowed this written representation to become a component of their repatriation process. 61 N ungeas (Little Sturgeon) interview Nungess: My name is Nungess. It means Little Sturgeon. But my white man’s name is Art McGregor. Tom: And you’re from here, Whitefish River? Nungess: Yes, originally. And I’m still here. But it seems like this is not theonlyarea. Whattheycallitutheirharvestarea. There’sbeensome other areas. Some in Maldrum Bay. Tom: Where? Nungess: Maldrum Bay. Tom: Where’s tint at? Nungess: Over west end of Manitoan Island. They had taken some there. They were all over the place, I guess. Tom: Part of the whole process, of what they call Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the United States, that’s what prompted me to come here. I found out through some of your commtmity representatives what happened here and the NAGPRA law in the United States doesn’t seem to apply here in Canada because of the border. What do you think about that? Nungess: Well, they’ve taken it across the border whether anybody likes it or not. They took it anyway, whether they asked for permission to do that or not. Maybe the restrictions weren’t as tight as they are now. Because theAmericanpeopleusedto takealot offishandtakethemacrossthe border. I don’t know if they had taken any fi'om the States and brought them over here. I don’t know. But they have taken fiom here. Same thing inthe Sault Saint Mariearea. Theycome overthereandtheyflyup north, and they take them right across the border. Tour: So this kind of harvesting wasn’t just fiom graves. Nungess: Yes they’ve taken some, as far as I know, they’ve taken some Mills too, over in Little Current. Tom: Mills? Nungess: Yeah. Tom: What do you mean? An: Lumber Mills. Tom: The whole Mill? Nungess: Yes. And then when they got into the international border, you couldn’t touch them Apparently there’s a line out in the ocean. I don’t know how they figured that. Once they cross that line you can’t touch them. As long as you catch them before they cross that line. Tom: I don’t know what to make of it. Nungess: In Little Current they didn’t know what was happening. The people didn’t know what was happening. They just said they was going to transfertheMill. So,theyhelpedthemtakeitalldown,andtheyputthem in a big barge. So at night they took ofl’and that’s when they found out 62 they had been stealing this Mill to transfer to the States. Tom: How’d you find out about that? Nungess: Well, my grandfither told me. Nungess: I thought he [Dr. Greenman] was one of those fisherman that used to come up to McGregor Bay. There was a lot of those American people that came up here to fish. In fict, they spent their vacations. They usedto comeupamonthatatime,andsomeevenspenttwo. Theycome up for months. And then one day. I seen this professor. He said, “How many fish do you get in a day?” I said, “We’re not pushy.” [He said] “I got some artificts.” [I asked] “Where did you get them?” “Oh, we got them way over there, by Battle Rock.” [Battle Rock is also known as Bell rock] “Yeah, what are you going to do with them?” “Oh we’re going to take them back with us. We’re going to keep them for souvenirs.” So, I didn’tthinkmuchofitatthetime. Butastheyearsprogressed,lfound out they didn’t have permission to take the artificts. Did they even ask the Canadian govemment about those things? I’m not sure if they ever did or not. Tom: I don’t know either. Maybe we can find out. Nungess: But that’s, ah, like, they just take, and bring it over there, without any permission. Tom: So the Band Council and the people like yourself, your parents or grandparents - nobody gave permission? Nungess: We didn’t know anything about it at the time. But then, years later we seen those graves that they had dug up at the old graveyard, out at Battle Rock. There’s a big graveyard there. It goes till, about four hundred people in there. Tom: Four hundred people? Nungess: About. Because that was a big population then. They used to camp at the village there at one time, over at Battle Rock. It belongs to Fielding now. I don’t know how he got a hold of it. But... Tom: Who’s Fielding? Nungess: He’s ah... he’s fi'om Sudbury. He’s got a lot of things going - mining, gravel, cement and everything else. He has that whole island out there. Torn: So he owns this whole area now? Nungess: Not this part. The other island where the people were buried. They died over there a long time ago. You see, the trading post, the trading companies used to come in by Schooner back when my Great-great - I don’t know how many. He was a grandfather ofmine, anyway. His name was Captain Murray McGregor. Tom: Murray? Nungess: He was the first man that sailed the North Shore of Lake Huron. And, onetimehewasworking forHudsonBayTradinguafurtrader. He would bring in supplies for people. This one time he wasn’t around and 63 this other man took over for awhile. And this is the man that they blamed for all the deaths there. Because the Native people, they bought liquor fi'omhim. And lateron, theyactually stole some fiomthe schooner. So, in order to retaliate, I guess they poisoned one of those kegs -- it used to come in kegs. And, at that time, when they did that they killed a lot of young men. And that’s why that big graveyard, that’s why it’s big. People used to bury people with their earthly possessions. Some things that they really valued. They buried people along with that. It could be anything. A little tomahawk, or some other things that they had buried. And that’s the storyofthatplaceoverthere. Becausetheydrankthewhiskey-itwas spiked. That’s why a lot of people died there. And this professor, Dr. Greenman, years after, came over there and dug up all those artifacts. In fict, he took some of their bones too, I guess. Then just left nothing but holes in there. Tom: In some of the understanding fi'om the new anthropologists at the University of Michigan, they make it sound like when he got here, the people welcomed him here. And, you know, he drove in a car, and a lot of thepeople hadn’t seenacaryet, orsome ofthethingshehad. Do you know anything...? Nungess: That’s the thing about it. A lot of people, they’d welcome those American people because they are coming over for a vacation in McGregor Bay. Because that was some employment for the people that live here. That was only for a month or two. For the rest ofthe year they didn’t have employment. Only when the tourists come in. So that’s why they welcomed him because they thought he was one of the fishermen that come up here. They didn’t know anything about this other part that he was doing. Tom: Did you met him? Nungess: I seen him, but I didn’t know him. Torn: So, other folks told you what he was saying or... Nungess: They didn’t tell me too much. In fict, nobody said anything about it. But the man that worked with him knew what he was up to. But he wasn’t an educated person and he didn’t know that he had taken all this stufl‘withhim. Whetherhelmdasked forpermissionfi'omCanadianpeople or the govermnent or anything -- they just took it. We don’t know. Tonr: Is there anything else that you can remember? While we’re trying to put this together, this story, there is a process and a law that suggests that thethirrgsthatweretakenrnightcomehorneandbeputback. Isthere anything elsethatyoucanrememberthatmighthelptellthisstory, sothat people will turderstand? Nungess: Well, another part of it is, after those people died, they retreated the area altogether. They left there. They scattered in all directions. Some went to Sagarnak, Wikwemikong, Killarney, and down this way (WRFN) becausetheyweresobadlydiscouragedfi‘omlivingthereaflerthepeople 64 died. And some moved over to Wardrope -- Birch Island. On the south end ofBirchIslandthereusedtobeaclearingthere. That’swherethe people lived for many years. It was a big lot. And those people that lived there, they actually moved across on this side and to the mainland, what we now call the Old Village site. They have an old village there, with the foundation still there. Tom: Oh. Is it? Nungess: Yeah. Tom: Is that part of the Band’s land? Nungess: Yep, it is. That old Wardrope Island '3 part of that too. Because there’s some graves over on Wardrope Island, too. People had moved back there, and some had died on the island and were buried there on old Wardrope Island. Then they had to move again when the railroad company moved in. The Algoma Eastern Railroad got the rights to move through here to Little Current. [See Barbara Chisolm @. 25-28, I 99 7) for more details] Tom: Do you know about when that was? Nungess: About 1914. That was before I was born. But anyway, after that theyhadto go backandforth. Theywerehiredto cut railroadtiesforthe railroad company. And where the village is today, where the hall is, that was all cedar bush at one time. There was great big cedar, and that’s what the railroad company wanted at that time. They couldn’t cut, so they hired the people to cut it. The Native people. And they tell me, out of one tree, they could cut as many as sixteen railroad ties, that’s how big the forest was. That’s a lot of railroad ties. Tom: It seemslikethen,atthattime,thatthisareawasalsoanimportant spot for tourism, fishing people to come up, vacationers, industry, and railroad. So your community has had a lot of visitors historically, over time. There’s been a lot of traffic through here. Nungess: Well most of the people in earlier times, say up to 1930, used to comeinbyraih'oadutheAlgomaEasternRailroadtlmtgoesupasfiras Little Current. And then the other part of it was the Transportation Company that was on the water. They owned the shipping industry fiom Sault Ste. Marie and Little Current. That’s where we used to get our supplies. Little Current. Tom: IwastoldastoryaboutDr. Greenman. Thathecarneinandhada pretty good relationship with some folks here. Tint he had taken some peopleupto Sault Ste. Marieinhiscarto go tothehospitaLandhehad helped people out that way. That’s the story I was told down there at the University of Michigan. Do you remember any of that? ' Nungess: No, not that way. I don’t remember any of that. Probably did, but in order to get respect fiom the people he probably did that. Just for respect more than anything. It isn’t the idea of helping out the people, because they were afiaid of the people that lived here. They’d really fight 65 any of them. That’s part of it. When the people, the railroad company, found outthatthiswasareserve, andtheyneededthat tirnberforthe railroadties,theyaskedthepe0pleto cut it. Thentheydidthesamething on Wardrope Island. The lumber company used to have these things. What do you call it? Steam tugboats, and they had to have wood. So they cut down Birch Island. They cut down all the birch trees all over on Birch Island. That’swhytheycalledtheislandthat,becausethetreesmadeit pretty near all white. That’s how many trees that were there. That was in the early 1850’s when they were cutting on Wardrope Island for firewood for the lumber company because they used a lot ofwood for the steam boilers forthemills, andalsoforthetugsthatwouldhaulthetimber. That’s why they cut all the trees off that island. And then when they finished over there they moved across to another and another. And when the railroad company moved in they started in on another village. In this next segment it is important to note the variety and mix of identification languages and how oral tradition has changed as each interpretation was documented. For example, Nungess shared Wigwaas Kinegaa - place of white birch trees. This phrase describes what Old Birch Island meant to his grandfather. Wakin/Iga meant “Old Birch Island” to John Walker as he explained the Ojibway meaning to Dr. Greenman; Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah is used by current WRFN community leaders. “Wardrope Island” is a Canadian term. Further explanations of this kind of change would necessarily include a study of re-syllabification, the changing around of syllables to reconfigure it into its current form. For example: Wig Warts kin e gaa - original spelling in UMMA text aoronunciation by Nungess). has been changed into Wah Wah skin ah gah - the current spelling and pronunciation. N ungess interview (cont’d) Tom: Do you know how to say Old Birch Island in Ojibway? Do you speak the language? Nungess: Yes. Tom: How do you say Birch Island? Nungess: Wigwaas Kinegaa Minising. Minis means an island. Wigwass Kinegaw. Tom: Wigwaas Kinegaa? Nungess: - a place of birch. Torn: A place of birch. So that’s what it means. Art: Wigwaas is birch. That’s why they called it Birch Island. Tom: So as the people moved, the name of their home site moved with them. Nungess: Yeah. They kind of transported the name along with them First of all, they were known as the people of Birch Island. And they lived in the old village site. Tom: So, what would have been the Ojibway name then -- the people of Birch Island? Nungess: This one here would have been Oogaamikaanaang. Tom: Oogaamikaanaang? Nungess: Yeah. See the people used to travel over the Whitefish Falls for pickerel in the Spring. That’s Oogaa -- that’s pickerel. So the hunters pass fiom the other bay to this other bay and that pass is what they called the pickerel pass, eh -- in other words, Oogaamikaanaang. The people still, the old people anyway, in Wiki, still call it Oogaamikaanaang. But, that is forgotten. So the people brought their name over from old Birch Island over the years. Every time they transferred, they brought their name with them. Tom: Do you remember any other comments that people rmde about this person who was taking artifacts? Nungess: No, not that I know of. The only thing is, they said it was just stolen fiom them. Tom: They felt like they had been robbed? Nungess: Yes. That’s the only thing they had to say. Tom: Do you remember who? Who would say tint? Nungess: All those old people have died already. Tom: Are some of them your relatives? Nungess: It would be my grandfather. He would be the only one. And some others that I hear now. They just moved in recently, say as fir back as 1960. A lot of the original people have all died ofl’, pretty near. But new ones come in. That’s why they publish so many different names. Tom: How important is it that the grandparents told their grandchildren that this happened? They apparently wanted them to know that something happened and that this area is important. Nungess: It is important to us because that Battle Rock used to ring. Those rocks used to make a sound. That’s the way they used to hold ceremonies there. And also, Dreamer’s Rock is affiliated with Battle Rock. And the Dreamer’s Rock is a place ofvision - vision quest. They used to send the yormg people over to Dreamer’s Rock, to have a vision of what they were going to be later on. They could be a Chief They could be a 67 scout. They could be a medicine man —- anything. Anything pertaining to the people. Our chief, at one time, came fi'om there. He had his vision that he was going to be Chief so he became Chief later on because of his vision. He himself didn’t know what he was dreaming about. It’s the Elders that told him that he was going to be Chief. And to be a Chief, you don’t get it like you do now. You don’t get elected right away. You had to go with the Chief for many years at that time. You go with him everywhere he goes. You are like an apprentice. Could be twenty-five years, thirty years before you become a Chief. And when you do become a Chief, you’re a Chief for life. None of this here three-year business about an elected chief. They were prepared for this life. That’s the trouble with people today. They elect somebody that don’t know anything about being a Chief. And if he’s no good he gets kicked out and another one drops in. And then he in turn has to study. And he doesn’t have time to study everything, so he gets kicked out, too. Chiefs were apprentice for many years befOre they become a chief. They were more like sub Chiefs before they became real Chiefs. Once they became a Chief: they’re it for life. Another one following behind. I know for a fact, the last one that died was over in Shigwanda, on the other side of Little Current. There’s a little Native town there, Shigwanda. So that old Chief is the last one that died. And they rung those bells. That’s long before the railroads, I mean, the telephone companies came in. In order to have communication they used those bell rocks. And those bell rocks were loud, at one time. You could hear them for many miles. Twenty miles, twenty five miles. So when they ring those bell rocks we heard them. I heard them. And my grandfither says, “Do you hear that?” And I said “Yes.” What does it sound like? “It sounds like something over there is pounding like a drum. A drum sound.” And then we listened, and then we sat, and we listened. He said, “Do you know what? I think that’s coming from those Bell Rocks.” So you went there. And that was the way of communicating with the whole area while he was there, after, he knew what was wrong. That the chief in Shigwanda had died. He was an old man. He had been chief for maybe forty years, fifty years. Anyway, while he was there, people fi‘om Killarney moved there. They heard the sound, too. And then Wikwemikong and then West Bay and then [Sagamok]. You see, that would cover a radius of ob, forty miles. That’s how loud those bells were. So when they, when he found out, he came home, and then went up to the bill It was like a church bell there. And so he rang the bell rocks and the people had to come out to know what he had rung them for. Communication. Because there was no telephone line. So that was the story of those Bell Rocks. Tom: How are the Bell Rocks and the Birch Island important to this area? Nungess: It is a very important thing as far as, they say, in the spirit world. Well, they’ve taken all of this stuff over to the States, but the spirits are still there. Theydidn’t takethe spiritsalongwiththemwhentheytook 68 their bones, eh? They’re still there. And they would like to have them back. That’s the way I feel about it. Tom: And how many of the Elders and community members feel that way, do you think? Nungess: Quite a bunch of people. Especially now since they started finding out about these things. They’re working real hard on it so that they can have those brought back because some people have dreamt of those spirits and they’re ready to fight. [end interview] Discussion In this interview it was apparent that Nungess understood Old Birch Island to be culturally affiliated with his ancestors. The relevant sections of the interview are repeated here for clarity. Nungess makes three significant references to the graveyard and the exhumation: 1. That old Wardrope Island is part of that too. Because there’s some graves over on Wardrope Island, too. People had moved back there, and some had died on the island and were buried there on old Wardrope Island. Then they had to move again when the railroad company moved in. 2. In fict, he took some of their bones too, I guess. Then just left nothing but holes in there. 3. And this professor, Dr. Greemmrn, years after, came over there and dug up all those artificts. He also describes what happened to the people living there: Well, another part of it is, after those people died, they retreated the area altogether. They left there. They scattered in all directions. Some went to Sagamak, Wikwemikong, Killarney, and down this way (WRFN) because they were so badly discouraged fiom living there after the people died. And some moved over to Wardrope -- Birch Island. On the south end of Birch Island there used to be a clearing there. That’s where the people lived for many years. It was a big lot. And those people that lived there, they actually moved across on this side and to the mainland, what we now call the Old Village site. They have an old village there, with the foundation still there. Nungess also explains why so many Native peOple were buried there: Because the Native people, they bought liquor fiom him. And later on, they actually 69 stole some from the schooner. So, in order to retaliate, I guess they poisoned one of those kegs -- it used to come in kegs. And, at that time, when they did that they killed a lot of young men. And that’s why that big graveyard, that’s why it’s big. He also explains why other things were found in the graves as well. People used to bury people with their earthly possessions. Some things that they really valued. They buried people along with that. It could be anything. A little tomahawk, or some other things that they had buried. Nungess ’ narration of this history is the accepted WRFN community version of the facts. The WRFN community as a whole, as one voice speaking together, do not question this ancestral relationship. Nungess ’ knowledge is presented in an oral history. Storytelling is of sacred sites and their cultural affiliation to the modern day WRFN. Relations with the land and everything else include the current WRFN community and all the people buried there -- past, present, or future. Nungess introduced a traditional Anishinaabek history of cultural affiliation into this study. This knowledge existed before European or American contacts. Dr. Greenman, in reference to WRFN oral tradition, acknowledged these ancestral times and traditional relationships in his field notes as well. These convergent lines of evidence (scientific and oral tradition) are recognized and accepted determinants of cultural afliliation in repatriation processing. It is important to introduce other WRFN voices before synthesizing WRFN repatriation meanings further. In the following essay, Esther Jacko, WRFN Band Counselor, Lands Manager, and Repatriation researcher, shares memories of her first visit (1982) to the UMMA. She went there to verify that her ancestors were actually in the 70 museum. Diehl (1991), a local Ann Arbor journalist, also reported on this case just after the NAGPRA Act became law. Esther Jacko: WRFN Lands Manager My name is Esther Jacko. I am a member of the Whitefish River First Nation of Ojibwa located in Birch Island, Ontario. I was hired by the Whitefish River First Nation Council in 1981 to conduct historical research for our tribe, and to prepare documentation for future land claims and unresolved interests remaining between the tribe and the Canadian Govemment. In 1982 I received an invitation fiom Kelly Roy, the historical researcher at the Union of Ontario Indians, to accompany her on a trip to Michigan for research purposes. Kelly felt the trip would be beneficial for the work I was doing for my tribe, and also, it would provide me with an opportunity to visit the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan located in Ann Arbor. I had learned through my research that the Museum of Anthropology held the human rennins and artifacts of my ancestors. These had been removed fiom their final resting place on Old Birch Island (Wah-Wah-Skin-Ah Gah) in 1938 by a nun called Mr. Emerson Greenman, an anthropologist working for the University of Michigan. I anticipated meeting with the Museum of Anthropology staff to ask questions, maybe even see the remains and artifacts, if I could. However, Kelly cautioned me to be careful. She told me that we would only be going in to look around. “We do not want to raise any alarms with these people we are going to see,” she told me. “Just verify the facts.” I remember asking Kelly why we had to be covert. Kelly explained to me that the Museum staff might feel threatened if we asked too many questions and made too many demands on the first visit. She told me that the Museum was very protective of their collections, and that if they sensed we were there on a retrieval mission they might move things away where we would not be able to find them. “But they are our ancestors,” I protested, “Not theirs!” “Let me do the talking,” she said. I can remember clearly howl felt as we first approached the Museum building. I was intimidated to say the least. Once inside I felt like I was on a secretmission, andinaveryrealsenselwas. Irememberfeelingresentfulthata place of such higher learning could so callously disturb the graves of my ancestors in the name of science, without my community’s permission or knowledge. I was getting myselfall worked up as I climbed the stairs upwards to keep our appointment with Mr. John O’Shea, the Museum’s Cruator. “Remember,” Kelly warned, “let me do the talking. OK, OK.” I whispered back. Mr. O’Shea welcomed us to the Department he worked in. He did not look anything like what I had expected. I guess I was expecting to see an older man, perhaps bemused, and certainly preoccupied and impatient. Mr. O’Shea seemed friendly, but didn’t smile. He had calm but searching eyes. I also sensed a high 71 level of caution emanating from him. He led us into a place called the student lab which was rather stark and cold looking. I observed some students studying artificts and keeping notes. Kelly asked him some questions, then he asked if we would like to see the artifict collection fi'om Old Birch Island. He went to a collection of drawers, pulled out the third one down and placed it on the table. Mr. O’Shea was sharing a lot of information about the tribes which occupied the Great Lakes. I was engrossed in studying the artificts as Kelly and Mr. O’Shea talked away. He kept asking me questions about the type of work that I did and what I knew about Old Birch Island. I told him that the Band would be entering a claim to the Island to retrieve it back into the Reserve, then I turned my attention back to the artificts. “How could these sacred burial items just lay around like this?” I wondered. And how many people had handled them since they were removed long ago? I wanted to ask so many questions, but I kept quiet. Mr. O’Shea left us temporarily, and Kelly took out her camera and started taking pictru'es. “Where do you suppose the human remains are?” I asked her. “Maybe in another room,” she answered. I discussed the possrhility of asking Mr. O’Shea if we could see the human remains. “Not this trip.” We studied a pipe which had a hurmn form on its fiont. We took out the tobacco bundle in red cloth that we had prepared and placed it inside the bowl of the pipe. I felt sad and angry all at once. I wanted to take these things home where they belonged. I wanted to see my ancestors after having traveled so fir. I kept bothering Kelly about it, and I knew she was growing impatient with me. Mr. O’Shea reappeared in the room carrying a booklet with him. He walked over and handed it to me. “I thought you might like this,” he said. “It is the report that Mr. Greemnan wrote on his excavations. I think you will find this report useful in helping you to retrieve your ancestral Island back. You see Mr. Greenman’s findings proved your people’s occupation of this Island long ago.” Mr. O’Shea kept talking. “You could look at this report as a way of your ancestors helping you in your land claim,” he offered. I made no comments, only listened. I realized that he did not see that any wrong had been committed long ago when Mr. Greenman removed the ancestral remains of our people. He actually believed that the exercise of the excavation was beneficial and useful to our generation of today. During our whole visit, this particular discussion was the only time I saw him become animated. As hard as I tried, I could not share his enthusiasm about the excavations. I wanted to tell him that our ancient stories and legends contained all of our history and teachings. That we did not want or need people fi'om another culture digging up our ancestors to tell us things about them. The important things about them had survived intact and were being practiced. My culture was not dead, but very much alive in my people and in myself. Ilookedathirn. Heseemedsohappyandleamedasheshm‘edthedetailsthe 72 bones had revealed. If only he knew that what he had learned from them was only a very small part of who they were, of who we were. If he really wanted to learn more he should come and join our circles where the teachings were shared, and to the Sweat Lodge, and to the mountain tops to fist and pray. I felt sad for him at that time. Indeed we were worlds apart, but I realized too it was not because I wanted it to be that way. I made up my mind then and there not to interrupt his world, but to quietly go about my business in mine. Perhaps there would be firture opportunities to share a broader understanding with each other. I thanked him for the booklet. I appreciated his gesture. As we walked towards the door to leave he lagged behind with me as Kelly walked ahead of us. I had to ask him, “Mr. O’Shea. could you tell me where my ancestors remains are?” He seemed taken aback, and his brow firrrowed somewhat, as I observed him trying to read my intentions. He adjusted his stance to one of caution. “We are storing the remains in another building where it is climate controlled,” he replied. “Where is this building?” I asked. “It is here in the town of Ann Arbor,” he answered. I tried a different angle. “Whereabouts? On the campus grounds?” I queried. Kelly overheard our discussion and turned around. She quickly stepped to my side and thanked Mr. O’Shea for meeting with us. We then took our departure from the building. I would be seeing Mr. O’Shea again someday. As I left I vowed I would be back for my ancestors. Anishinaabek anthropology perspective The following interpretation represents an experiment with repatriation methodology. It was developed in conjunction with Esther Jacko, the original WRFN repatriation researcher, as a way to incorporate historic indigenous meaning of this repatriation process with anthropological theory and method. This plan incorporates strategy taken from William Leap’s (1993) ancestral language and American Indian-English studies, Dell Hyrnes (1972) American Anthropological Association lectures on partnership with indigenous knowledge holders, and the NAGPRA law (1990) numdates for specific repatriation processing techniques. These experts recognized the significance of language and meaning research techniques that incorporate indigenous knowledge. According to Leap, studies of American Indian English and ancestral language 73 connections have not been explored to any great extent. Let me acknowledge some of the other limitations of my database. I say very little here about Native English issues in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada. I do not mean to imply, by taking this position or by using the cover term Indian English throughout the volume, that the issues raised in these chapters are irrelevant to the Native people’s outside of the forty-eight contiguous states. I am certain the issues are relevant. But I have not been able to observe Indian English usage in those settings, and I have found only a limited number of source materials on these codes. I have incorporated these into this volume, but without more data I am unwilling to offer generalizations that extend outside of the lower 48. (p. 9) The following interpretation assumes that oral tradition is cultural affiliation data. Interpretation is from the standpoint of an Anishinaabek anthropology graduate student who is writing on behalf of, and in conjunction with, indigenous knowledge holders. This type of interpretation is submitted as an attempt to synthesize oral tradition knowledge and anthropological method as called for by the NAGPRA repatriation process. By assuming a combined role (i.e., Anishinaabek Ojibway anthropologist) it is possible to determine both indigenous cultural and scientific perspectives. A second purpose was to develop a well informed perspective of museum settings on the place where research on indigenous people took place in the 1980’s, and where repatriation processing is now taking place. This descriptive text, while interpretive, was verified and validated as an accurate portrayal by Esther Jacko. My own experiences as an Anishinaabek anthropology graduate student and Museum intern added a perspective of current repatriation research settings (i.e., museums) that helped develop and present an informed anthropological explanation of indigenous research method and findings. The focus of data analysis was on the museum visitor (Esther Jacko) fiom another 74 culture. She came to the University Museum of Anthropology to see if it really held her ancestors human remains. At the time Esther Jacko visited, the ficts of the case were largely unknown to the WRFN community for a number of reasons. First, it was nonsensical to them. Why would anyone dig up ancestral graves and put the bodies on display? Second, more than four decades had passed without any contact. Esther Jacko is an indigenous Anishinaabek researcher who did not have extensive background training in the field of anthropology, archaeology, or museology at the time of her first visit to the UMMA. She did not think about cultural affiliation in terms of scientific values. Rather, she expressed her thoughts about ancestry in terms of spirituality and values relevant to her own culture. Interpretation of Esther Jacko’s language and meaning Esther Jacko was twenty nine years old when she left her home to find out if the UMMA held her ancestors on behalf of the Elders. She had been told that Old Birch Island human remains (her ancestors) were there but she could not fully comprehend what it meant until she encountered the real museum exhrhits and had time to think about it after. She entered through the museum's outer hallway and followed the smooth floor of the external foyer into a back room storage, research, and administrative oflice area. Here, in disbelief; for the first time she saw the sacred gifts that were given by loved ones long ago displayed in specimen trays and cardboard boxes. When she shared these initial memories Esther did not recall details of other prominently displayed educational exhibits that were set up for visitors who came to study prehistoric Indians, or to discover new insights into other anthropologically relevant 75 research questions about evolutionary eras, prehistoric cultures, and ancient people. Her primary interest, at that time, was how her own ancestors were doing. Esther Jacko recalled that her mind whirled with questions about how they had been brought to the UMMA. This was the beginning point for development of her expertise in repatriation research. Esther made her way past the well lit and attractively presented educational exhibits of the outer museum where she found another srmller hallway leading to yet another museum section which held another type of anthropological collection, but not the kind exhibited for the general public. This inner zone of the anthropology museum contained storage cabinets that looked more like antique clothes closets than exhibits and displays. As she looked around she noticed old, fading to gray, and yellowish colored photographs of university faculty and researchers decorating the walls, prominently displaying trophies and other finds. Information about who found it was also displayed. Some of the photos showed archaeological dig sites while others revealed anthropological field research sites. Some could have been both. The variety of photo contents suggested that they came fiom differing geographic locations and cultures from around the world. In the smaller oflices and research area shelves were filled with pottery shards and other artifacts, some intermingled with humorous exhibits, blending evolution and adaptation theory with creative trickery, an academic device of chance designed to fool naive students or visitors into asking questions about anthropological origin and cultural 76 meaning. These kinds of exhibits were commonplace then, and still are today. For example, cartoons fi'om the "Far Side" hang above, or are often placed near curious looking groups of artifacts that may or may not be scientifically relevant. The effect to the outsider is bizarre. These creative exhibits sometimes reveal ridiculous notions about others in humorous fashion, occasionally offering amusing messages about conclusions drawn by anthropologists and other scientists who mistakenly theorized about the meanings of people’s behavior and cultural traditions that they had researched. These academically humorous exhibitions are nornfil in scientific research centers, but hrunor like this was oblivious to Esther because she was en route to a meeting with her ancestors. Esther quickly becarrre aware that the research mission she was on had become a reality and the experience was uncomfortable. For her to think of her ancestors in this setting, as specimens, possibly even in museum displays, was beyond her capacity to imagine in any humane way of thinking. Her memories clearly revealed this fact. Instead of recalling mainstream educational anthropomorphic images, Esther recalled her first visit in terms of Anishinaabek spirituality. She was guided by her tradition. She remembered feeling a strange eeriness about meeting her ancestors in this place, in this way. As I listened to her recollection of first contact with the UMMA I realized that must carefirlly check her understanding of my own viewpoint as an anthropology graduate researcher. I asked Esther if it was all right to occasionally check my understanding of what she told me about the issues related to Old Birch Island. I told her my reasons for 77 interpreting her memories of the initial UMMA visit from the perspective of an anthropology graduate student who was also Anishinaabek Q'ibway. I explained that I needed to do this, at least partially, in order to complete research requirements and fulfill educational obligations. I reiterated several times in our partnership that I am A nishinaabek Q'ibway but that I am also an arrthrOpology graduate student interested in learning more about Ojibway oral tradition, language, and culture from the indigenous people. I explained that my traditional home is the Garden River First Nation of Q'ibway, and that I was a student and fiiend of Dan Pine Sr. Dan Pine Sr. was a great Anishinaabek Ojibway medicine man who provided healing medicines for his community and others around the world for most of the twentieth century. Dan was a tremendous repository of indigenous knowledge. He knew and lived by A nishinaabek Ojibway traditions, and he had shared his teachings at the WRFN Rainbow Lodge every summer for many years. Esther told me how she came to know Dan as well, and said that she trusted that I could understand her views because of my relationship (as an adopted brother to her) over the past several years, and because of my work with the WRFN Band Council and Community. Also because Dan Pine Sr. and many other Anishinaabek Q’ibway people and Elders fiom Great Lakes conununities whom she knew had helped me learn to understand the traditional ways. Many had shared teachings with both of us. Still she took great care in explaining the meanings of her words and how she felt about her ancestors in this situation. She recalled in great detail her initial fear of what lay behind the museum display walls as she began her journey through the museum. "My eyes 78 grew bigger and bigger as I stared at the skulls and things that decorated the shelves. I was very nervous about being there. I was told to keep my mouth shut by my friend because if they found out why I was there they would never let us come back." These mixed emotions filled Esther's memories as she slated her story. She expressed sadness about leaving her ancestors, and felt some anxiety about the treatment she received when she tried to have them returned. She also shared a feeling of astonishment about the university museum representatives who lfid this kind of power to take her ancestors remains and keep them Esther did not express feelings of hate or pessimism with me. Rather, her expressions were mixed with sadness and wonder about this museum experience and the people who would do such a thing. Esther's traditional Ojibway knowledge guided her explanations of a spiritual journey, not a visit to a museum. She felt the Ancestors had begun to find their way back to their sacred resting place. Her conviction to this belief was unwavering even after facing the initial UMMA rejection of her request to return the ancestral remains. On that day in 1982, forty four years after the original exhumation, her knowledge of 'What is an American Anthropology Museum? began to grow. Beginning with respect for the strange ways of gathering knowledge, and wonder about the mysterious work sites of these people called American archaeologists and anthropologists. Fourteen years later her understanding continued to grow. While developing this interpretation, I realized that Esther became an advocate of the rebruial-repatriation process for two reasons. First, because this role is appropriate for her 79 traditional values. Working to return ancestral remains is culturally appropriate, perhaps natural. Second, she became aware of the need for advocacy because of the way she was treated during that first and subsequent visits to the university museum, and because of the treatment of other WRFN community members by UMMA representatives. The UMMA environment was not a comforting place for her, her community, or her ancestors. She was not treated with respect when she visited because she wanted to bring her ancestors home. "The Elders have been kept fiom continuing their journey to the spirit world for more than halfa century. But my biggest worry is about those people who are responsible for keeping our ancestors. I offered to help them remedy the problem but my offer was ignored." What Esther did not know in 1982 was that she was part of a repatriation movement that would have a tremendous impact on museums, their research collections, and on the field of anthropology in general. Lorilee McGregor: Repatriation Committee Chair The next text is from the current generation of repatriation researchers. These texts provide more indigenous knowledge data for the final analysis and comparison of meaning. Lorilee McGregor, WRFN Repatriation Committee Chair and Director of the E.A.G.L.E. (Effects on Aboriginals fiom the Great Lakes Environment) project for the Assembly of First Nations Lake Huron Regional Oflice, provided the official opinion of the WRFN Repatriation Committee. This official statement provides a definitive Sovereign First Nation perspective of international repatriation processing. In 1938 Professor Emerson Greenman from the University of Michigan removed the rennins and possessions of our ancestors fiom 80 Wardrope Island. Although community members were aware that these graves had been robbed, very little had been done in order to get these remains returned. In 1982 one of our commrmity members confirmed that the rennins were still housed at the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan. In April 1995 a delegation fi'om our community consisting of the Chief and Councillors viewed the remains and formally requested that they be returned to our community. Subsequently, the Repatriation Committee was formed consisting of two Councillors, two technical stafi’, and four community members. Since April 1995 we have repeatedly requested that the rennins be returned. Dr. John O'Shea, the Curator of the Museum of Anthropology, visited our community in January 1996. In March 1996 the Repatriation Committee traveled to Ann Arbor to view the DNA extraction process that Dr. O'Shea was proposing to be carried out on the remains. The Repatriation Committee did not agree to DNA testing and brought the information back for the entire community to decide. In April and May of 1996 a community survey was conducted in 61% of the households in the community. The survey results indicated that 66% of our community opposed the proposal to do the DNA testing. A community meeting was set up in order to present the results and get feedback fi'om community members. The Repatriation Committee received a clear directive from this meeting: that DNA testing was not acceptable and that we wanted the remains returned as soon as possible. In August 1996 we received a letter from Dr. O’Shea who decided that the negotiations are closed. We have since written letters to the Board of Regents and are awaiting their response. External experience What seems so clear and simple to our community is not so clear to the University of Michigan. Our ancestors graves were pillaged and their remains and possessions were stolen. The University of Michigan has our ancestors and should simply return them, but instead they are holding our ancestors hostage for their DNA. Our community has given them many opportunities to behave in an honorable manner but they have chosen to ignore our polite requests. The University of Michigan has stonewalled our requests by saying tint the NAGPRA does not apply to us since we are a Canadian First Nation, and by implying that the remains are not our ancestors because their possessions were Iroquoian or Huron in origin (ironic since Dr. Greenman was studying the ancient trade routes). Our experience with the University of Michigan has been frustrating to say the least. On the positive side we have had many offers of help from different people and organizations. The Saginaw Chippewa and Pokagon 81 Potawatorrri tribes have been very helpful to our Committee. These offers of help will be instrumental in cm next stages of planning. Internal experience The return of our ancestors to our community is imperative to the healing of our community. The repatriation process has dredged up many powerful feelings that have been buried for a long time. As a community we are angry that the University of Michigan has held onto our ancestors for so long. We do not understand why they would want to dig up dead people in the first place since we are highly respectful of our dead. In the second place we do not understand why they need to hang onto these remains since they have had them for almost sixty years. There is consensus that these remains should be returned. How they should be returned is where there are differences. Some people feel we should quietly negotiate with the University and do whatever they say in order to get the remains hack. Others believe that firrther desecration of the remains is not acceptable and that we have been polite for too long. This repatriation process has been a tremendous learning experience for me. It has been difficult to deal with a large institution like the University of Michigan as well as deal with concerns from community members. Our task as a Repatriation Committee is diflicult because this is not a short-term process and we have to maintain our interest. We also have a responsibility to keep the connnunity informed about what is happening. This is not easy since we do not have someone to do this type of work for us. The repatriation Committee consists of volunteers and we do what we can to help out. When things are not going too well, I remind myself of the reason tlnrt I joined the Committee and that is to get our ancestors back fiom the University of Michigan. WRFN Band Council statement The following text is an official First Nation government document requesting immediate repatriation. It was sent to UMMA administrators, University of Michigan Board of regents, the Assembly of First Nations in Canada, and to a broad network of U.S. tribes. In 1938 Dr. Emerson Greenman, an anthropologist working for the University of Michigan entered our territory, and after making inquiries in our community, located the ancient grave sites and village sites of our ancestors on old Birch Island. Old Birch Island, known as Wah-Wah-Skin- 82 Ah-Gah, was the ancestral home of our people who lived there for countless generations. Our oral history tells of events that unfolded there which caused our people to abandon this island and flee to the mainland where they built our village of today. Dr. Greenman solicited the cooperation of two of our community members to assist him in locating the old graves. His explanation was that he was trying to study the region for signs of pre-European contact, post- European contact and trade route activities as Old Birch Island lay in the center of the trade route between Eastern and western Canada. After locating the grave sites, Dr. Greenman began excavation, keeping a diary of all his activities. Unbeknownst to our people he was methodically removing artificts and human remains, boxing them, and driving daily to Little Current to mail these items to the United States. Dr. Greenman removed the artifacts and human remains of our ancestors without the permission of our Chief and Council or community members. His activities werealso unknownto theDepartment ofIndianAfl’airs inCanadaandthe Canadian government at large. Throughout the years, the theft of our ancestor's bodies and burial offerings has remained an outstanding issue for our people. The removal of these remains Ms profoundly affected the spiritual, social, and cultural aspects of our community. In 1982 Esther Jacko, the Lands Manager for Whitefish River First Nation, visited the University Of Michigan’s Department of Anthropology to make inquiries on Old Birch Island and to locate Dr. Greenman’s field notes and reports. Esther met the Curator of the Museum, Mr. John O’Shea, who gave her a copy of a report prepared by Emerson Greenman titled “The Old Birch Island Cemetery: an Historic Trade Route.” She asked Mr. O’Shea where the items were that Dr. Greenman Md removed fi'om Old Birch Island. O’Shea pulled out a tray containing the collection of artifacts and invited her to examine them. O’Shea also verified that the human remains were located ofi’ campus. This information was reported to the Chief and Council. At that time the Council felt it was important to formulate our land claim to Old Birch Island, however we refused to forget about our ancestors. One of the priorities identified for our community’s healing was to seektheremmofomancestralremainsandplacethemmtheh'finalresting places at Old Birch Island. Our Elders advised us tMt we could not move forward into the future as a whole until we had completed this task. Therefore, for the past two years, we Mve been exploring alternatives so that we can repatriate our ancestors back to our homeland. Many people Mve been supportive of our objective, both within and outside of our community. In January 1996, our First Nation began intensive talks with the University of Michigan, specifically with Mr. O’Shea, on which options 83 could be utilized to repatriate our ancestors and their burial offerings as quickly as possible. During these talks with our Chief and Council and members of our Repatriation Committee, Mr. O'Shea declared that the U.S. legislation -- the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA -- did not address Canadian aboriginal tribe’s requests for repatriation. Instead Mr. O'Shea informed us that he was willing to look at a compromise solution which would facilitate the return of our ancestral remains. Mr. O’Shea proposed that our commrurity allow the University of Michigan to remove DNA samples from these human remains. In return, Mr. O'Shea stated tMt the remains and burial offerings would be returned to our community within two months. Our Chief and Council and Repatriation Committee members informed Mr. O’Shea that a decision of this magnitude required community consultation. A survey was carried out in 61% of the households. The survey results indicated tMt 66% of our people opposed the proposal to do the DNA tests. We arranged a meeting to inform the connnunity of the results. The Chief and Council and Repatriation committee members received a clear directive fiom this meeting. We were to inform Mr. O’Shea of the results of the Cormnunity poll and to instruct him tMt we wished the rerMins returned as soon as possible. In his reply, Mr. O’Shea wrote that the University of Michigan Md sound documentary and archeological evidence countering Whitefish River First Nation's claim to affiliation with the burials. We interpreted this statement to mean that the University considered Dr. Greenman’s report as evidence for its altered interpretation. Mr. O'Shea informed us that the moratorium on access to the remains Md been lifted and that access could once again be obtained by faculty and students who wanted to study them. Mr. O’Shea indicated that he was sorry that Whitefish River First Nation Md not accepted the University's offer but as fir as he was concerned negotiations were over. Immediately, the community was extremely concerned that because the moratorium on access Md been lifted that DNA testing could possibly proceed without our knowledge. At this time our community is seeking assistance to prepare a stronger strategy to retrieve our ancestral remains and burial offerings. We are looking for ways to keep the University of Michigan fiom conducting any further research on our ancestral remains. It is urgent tMt a moratorium on any further research be in place so that our ancestors can be protected until they are returned. We are looking for people who have successfully resolved repatriation across modern international borders and strategies to make the University community aware of this sad and pathetic situation. We also seek the support of others. You can write letters of support to us and letters to the University of Michigan Board of Regents, to the Michigan legislature, and newspapers condenmirrg this violation of our ancestors. 84 Chief Leona Nahwegahbow cc Board Of Regents Whitefish River First Nation The University of Michigan Birch Island, Ontario 2074 Fleming Administration Building POP IAO Canada Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 USA The final voice is Roxanne Jacko, representing the WRFN youth. In it she shares her feelings as the official WRFN youth representative in a brief but powerful statement about her experience with DNA research at a UMMA demonstration. Roxanne Jacko: WRFN Youth Representative As I witnessed the indignities of these sheltered individuals who plan to steal our ancestor's DNA fiom their bones I realized that thisjourney could not be completed without violence. We Mve tried to be nice and courteous, but they Mve chosen to keep what is rightfully ours. We need to organize our community along with others who will help, to form a powerful fist to fight against the troubles we are encountering with these individuals. - Being young, I Mve found tMt adult people rarely listen to what I Mve to say as a youth. Nobody realizes the knowledge I Mve gained over the years, nobody will listen. I Mve developed my mental abilities to the point of being able to tell what people are thinking and feeling and I believe tMt the intentions of these people are nothing but evil. Meaning analysis The following table (4) categorizes individual and common meanings attributed by the speakers in this chapter to important referents used in their text. 85 Table 4: WRFN Repatriation language analysis Referent Nungess - Little Esther Jacko Lorilee McGregor WRFN Band Roxanne Sturgeon - Art Council Jacko McGregor “Indians” Native people; Anishinaabek Our community; Anishinaabek WRFN; Our Ojibway; First nation commrurity ancestors “human bones human remains of my ancestors; our ancestors, not theirs; graves of our remains” ancestors; our ancestors bones burial items earthly possessions; sacred burial items; possessions of our ancestors the value of imperative to healing of our community; essential to community healing repatriation of ancestors UMMA Dr. Greenman Mr John Dr. John O’Shea, Dr. Greenman sheltered researchers O’Shea, Curator. Mr. John individuals curator The University of O’Shea, plan to steal Michigan curator; our ancestors The University DNA from of Michigan their bones; nothing but evil act of harvesting; digging up; taking; removal from final resting place; disturbing graves; pillaging removal of stealing; theft remains 7 value of do anything they my culture is the community did DNA testing evil science want not dead not agree to DNA testing value of Our traditional stories and legends contain all of 0m history and teachings; om No one will oral Elders teach us oral history; we know who we are listen to me tradition proper back in the l vowed I the U of M should in their gaves Old Birch location of community would be simply return them Island remains back for my ancestors act of they’ve taken it these graves had been robbed; systematic evil removal across the border pillaged; remains stolen removal without whether anybody permission of likes it or not WRFN or Canadian Authorities burial site Ancestors grave sites on Wah-Wah-Skin-Ah Gah and WRFN home lands 86 In these texts, one finds several important meanings. The remains are typically characterized as “ancestors.” The act of removal is characterized as pillaging, stealing, theft, and unlawful removal from their final resting place. Science is seen as sinister or “evil” and in juxtaposition to traditional knowledge, meaning that science views traditional WRFN culture as dead. Therefore, determining cultural affiliation to the living WRFN community would seem impossible. When taken together, these text reveal several important points: - there is no evidence of Dr. Greenman having obtained permission for exhumation from anyone; 0 the act of removal of human remains from Old Birch Island is contrary to the cultural traditions of the narrators; - the tradition of burial, not unlike that of non Indians, is that human remains are interred and intended to be left there; a the relationship between the living and the dead is one of continuity and not of separation; - the feeling toward the UMMA is one of sadness rather than anger; - repatriation is seen as an act of healing. Chapter 6 ARCHAEOLOGIST’S VOICES Ontario Archaeology Society On July 5, 1996, Prof. John Steckley, President of the Ontario Archaeology Society, an amateur organization, wrote: To Whom it May Concern: I have recently heard of an attempt to take the Huron Cemetery away from the people who hold it most dear: the Kansas Wyandot. I am the president of the Ontario Archaeological Society and as such am familiar with the close attachment between Native Americans and their burial sites. These locations are sacred in ways that go deeper than just the shallow surface levels of the graves. It is appropriate to consider them as being like the memorials to, and graveyards of the slain in the Great Wars that helped to defend the fieedoms of both of our countries. As a researcher I have discovered that this particular cemetery marks the tragedy of a people forced west, from Ohio, Michigan and Ontario, and all ' of their triumph in survival. Most of the early graves are of their children, who succumbed to the diseases to which they were exposed in their new home. The Huron Cemetery holds significance not only to the “oflicially recognized” Wyandot community in Oklahoma, but to Native communities in Kansas and Quebec (the Huron or Wendat of Lorette) as well as individuals of Wyandot and Huron Heritage in Michigan, Ohio and Ontario. I would urge extreme caution and sensitivity in this issue. The capricious vagaries of nineteenth century legislation regarding Native Americans created two entities out of one people, one entity with the power of status, the other without. No one group should have the right to destroy the shared heritage of a broader selection of peoples. There must be some way in which the two main groups involved, the people in Kansas and Oklahoma can come together to the mutual benefit of both, and the preservation of that which is sacred to both, and which is an important piece of the heritage of both Americans and Canadians. If you wish any historical information or clarification, do not hesitate to contact me Prof. John Steckley, President Liberal Arts and Sciences, Humber College 205 Humber College Blvd., Stobicoke, Ontario M9W 5J7 87 88 Argument The tone of this text shows a real sensitivity to the concerns of burials and the problems that are caused by population movements. Perinps the best way to show this and to contrast it with subsequent texts is to outline the argument contained in the letter. 1. The Ontario Archaeology Society recognizes the close attachment between Native Americans and their burial sites. That these locations are sacred in ways that go deeper than just the shallow surface levels of the graves. 2. It is appropriate to consider them as being like the memorials to graveyards of the slain in the Great Wars that helped to defend the fi'eedoms of both of our countries. 3. Particular cemeteries in this region rmrk the tragedy of a people forced west, from Ohio, Michigan and Ontario, and all of their triumph in survival. 4. Most of the early graves are of their children, who succumbed to the diseases to which they were exposed in their new home. 5. The Huron Cemetery holds significance not only to the officially recognized Wyandot community in Oklahoma, but to Native communities in Kansas and Quebec (the Huron or Wendat of Lorette) as well as individuals of Wyandot and Huron Heritage in Michigan, Ohio and Ontario. 6. Extreme caution and sensitivity is needed on these issues. 7. There must be some way in which the two main groups involved, the people in Kansas and Oklahoma can come together to the mutual benefit of both, and the preservation of that which is sacred to both, and which is an important piece of the heritage of both Americans and Canadians. The American Committee for Preservation of Archaeological Collections (ACPAC) ACPAC is a group of more than 1,000 archaeologists headquartered in Whittier, California, who work to preserve archaeological collections in accordance with the archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (36CFR Part 1215) and other related laws. This nationwide group has over 1,000 members, with members in all 50 states. Clement W. Meighan, Professor Emeritus, University of California was the Chairman when the following statement was published. We believe that all human rennins that cannot be documented as having a 89 real relationship to living people (not a fictional relationship based on mythology) should be retained and preserved in museums as sources of essential historical, medical, genetic, and other scientific information. Developing research makes it possible to determine the genetic relationships by DNA analysis, so the affiliation of “unaffiliated remains” are subject to scientific discovery and verification. This also applies to the remains now being returned for reburiaL none of which has been subjected to such studies so far as we know. (ACPAC, Apr/1995, p.2) Argument 1. All human remains held by museums, regardless of how they were acquired, that cannot, or have not been documented, as having a real relationship should be retained and preserved in museums as sources of essential historical, medical, genetic, and other scientific information. 2. Oral histories are invalid as a source of documentation as they are fictional and based on mythology. 3. DNA analysis is valid because it is based on scientific principles. This text focuses on the issue of how important archaeological information is, in opposition to oral history, in gaining information about the past. This text also stands in strong contrast to the first text in that there is no empathy for the issue of the relationship between the human remains exhumed in the interest of science and the living people associated with them Society for American Archaeology (SAA) (statement concerning the treatment of human terrains) The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is the main professional organization representing the field of Archaeology in the United States. The following statement, still on the SAA’s world wide web site at the time of this writing, was approved by the Society in 1986, four years before the enactment of NAGPRA. Archaeologists are committed to understanding and conmiunicating the richness of the cultural heritage of humanity, and they acknowledge and respect the diversity of beliefs about, and interests in, the past and its material remains. It is the ethical responsibility of archaeologists “to 9O advocate and to aid in the conservation of archaeological data,” as specified in the Bylaws of the Society for American Archaeology. Mortuary evidence is an integral part of the archaeological record of past culture and behavior in that it informs directly upon social structure and organization and, less directly, upon aspects of religion and ideology. Human remains, as an integral part of the mortuary record, provide unique information about demography, diet, disease, and genetic relationships among human groups. Research in archaeology, bioarchaeology, biological anthropology, and medicine depends upon responsible scholars having collections of human remains available both for replicative research and research that addresses new questions or employs new analytical techniques. There is great diversity in cultural and religious values concerning the treatment of human remains. Individuals and cultural groups have legitimate concerns derived fiom cultural and religious beliefs about the treatment and disposition of remains of their ancestors or members that may conflict with legitimate scientific interests in those remains. The concerns of different cultures, as presented by their designated representatives and leaders, must be recognized and respected. The Society for American Archaeology recognizes both scientific and traditional interests in human remins. Human skeletal mterials must at all times be treated with dignity and respect. Commercial exploitation of ancient human rermins is abhorrent. Whatever their ultimate disposition, all human remains should receive appropriate scientific study, should be responsibly and carefully conserved, and should be accessible only for legitimate scientific or educational purposes. The Society for American Archaeology opposes universal or indiscriminate reburial of hunmn remains, either from ongoing excavations or from extant collections. Conflicting claims concerning the proper treatment and disposition of particular human remains must be resolved on a case-by-case basis through consideration of the scientific importance of the material, the cultural and religious values of the interested individuals or groups, and the strength of their relationship to the remains in question. The scientific importance of particular human remains should be determined by their potential to aid in present and future research, and thus depends on professional judgments concerning the degree of their physical and contextual integrity. The weight accorded any claim made by an individual or group concerning particular hurmn remains should depend upon the strength of their demonstrated biological or cultural affinity with the remains in question. If remains can be identified as that of a known individual for whom specific biological descendants can be traced, the disposition of those remains, including possible reburiaL should be determined by the closest living relatives. The Society for American Archaeology encomages close and effective 91 communication between scholars engaged in the study of human remains and the communities that may have biological or cultural affinities to those remains. Because vandalism and looting threaten the record of the human past, including human remains, the protection of this record necessitates cooperation between archaeologists and others who share that goal. Because controversies involving the treatment of human remains cannot properly be resolved nationwide in a uniform way, the Society opposes any Federal legislation that seeks to impose a uniform standard for determining the disposition of all human remains. Recognizing the diversity of potential legal interests in the material record of the human past, archaeologists have a professional responsibility to seek to ensure tlmt laws governing that record are consistent with the objectives, principles, and formal statements of the Society for American Archaeology. [Approved by the Executive Committee, May 1986] Argument 1. The Society for American Archaeology recognizes both scientific and traditional interests in human remains and other mortuary evidence. 2. These non-scientific interests (concerns) may conflict with scientific interests 3. While non-scientific concerns are legitimate they are less legitimate than scientific interests because scientific research can not exist without access to these :émfore, before their possible repatriation, science has the right to study these remarns. Given the time of its appearance, this text is clearly a response to the NAGPRA law developers. This can be seen in its plea to preserve “archaeological data” for scientific study and its opposition to “a uniform standard for determining the disposition of all human remains,” something that NAGPRA was enacted to accomplish. In comparison to the two preceding texts, this text and the ACPAC text appear quite similar to each other and quite different from that of the Ontario Archaeology Society. The Michigan Archaeological Perspective The following text, produced in 1990, the same year NAGPRA was passed, shows the perspective of Dr. John O’Shea, current UMMA curator. 92 On January 30, 1990, a group of Michigan Indians and archaeologists met to try to hammer out a draft of a new state law to govern the study of human skeletal material. It was an uncomfortable meeting filled with tension, a meeting that cast old fiiends as opponents and where potential understanding ofien gave way to political posturing and strategy. The position of the archaeologists was expressed by prominent archaeologists on the Michigan scene representing their professional organization as well as various private and public institutions. Dr. John O’Shea of the University of Michigan spoke eloquently for the scientific position. “Archaeological sites,” he reminded everyone, are each unique. Each contains information about the past that can be gained from no other source. Archaeological sites and data are nonrenewable resources. Once destroyed they cannot be recreated. Where no literate tradition exists, the arrowheads, soil strata, skeletons, and the pottery are the only means to understand the events of past history. In asking us to give up skeletal collections and burial artifacts, you are asking us to give up access to the past. You are asking us to forever surrender the data by which future generations of archaeologists may come to new or different conclusions by reexamining this material” (personal cormnunication). Beyond that, 113ng skeletons and artifacts also denies future generations of Indians the right to reinterpret Indian history. “The Past,” he said, “does not belong to any particular ethnic or religious group. The past belongs to everyone because, in the end, we all share in the past and profit by understanding it. By denying science the right to examine Indian skeletons or to use them to train students, you will deny everyone the right to understand prehistoric diets, disease, and other factors of population dynamics that may alert us to infornmtion important to the future. It can also help us to understand the past in other places at other times. Science, “he said emphatically, is not static but is constantly discovering new methods to test and retest hypotheses. Unless we preserve our ability to correct our errors, science cannot advance knowledge. If you deny us access to these bones and artifacts, who will bring Indians’ history to light?” (Cleland 1992, p 30-31) Argument A comparison of the argument in this text shows that while it is more adamant about the right of archaeologists to exhume human remains, it follows SAA’s argument closely. 1. Science, as represented by archaeology, provides access to the past. 2. This is done through archaeological sites. 3. For people with no literate tradition, archaeology is the only means to the past. 4. Understanding the past is valuable to Indians and to everyone. 93 5. No one owns the past. 6. Arclmeological sites are the property of archaeologists. 7. Therefore science (i.e.. archaeologists) have the right to examine Indian skeletons. Meaning analysis Table 5 below shows how the various voices presented in this chapter give meaning to important terms in their texts. With the exception of the first text, the others in this chapter express similar meanings when it comes to the following: human remains as archaeological data; science as the only valid approach to knowledge (oral tradition as invalid); the rights of science and balancing the rights of native people to their ancestors; the ethical responsibility to science (but no ethical responsibility to the dead); the museum, as opposed to the cemetery, as the proper resting place for human remains. 94 Table 5: Archaeologist language analysis Referent Ontario (088) American ACPAC SAA UMMA “Indians” Native American not discussed in this producers of heritage ethnic and text religious groups “human graves human remains archaeological data archaeological remains” sites Ownership of one former group all remains need to an integral part of the the past does not human remains now split into two he tested past belong to any scientifically before particular ethm'c being retumed or religious group; science has the right Value of the not discussed possibly but only after scientific testing reburial will deny return of determines cultural afliliation access to the past human remains archaeologists researcher scientists (legitimate scientists, science educators), scholars act of removal not discussed I not vandalism access value of science can assist in only way to determine affiliation only access to the resolving disputes past value of oral not discussed fictional invalid invalid (only tradition based on mythology literate tradition is valid) proper location descendants unaffiliated remains in museums because [in our possession] of remains belong in museums; research depends on needed for science collections of human remains; access only for legitimate science act of removal collaboration with not discussed archaeology is excavation burial site cemetery not discussed archaeological data archaeological memorials sites only access to past ethics not discussed conserve archaeological ethical data responsibility to keep for all humankind NAGPRA not discussed [this statement was opposes any Federal intended as a critique legislation that seeks to of NAGPRA} impose a uniform not applicable to standard for determining WRFN the disposition of hmnan international remains. claim 95 Discussion In each of these texts, archaeologists argue that non literate peoples have no right to expect that when they bury their dead that the remains will be left untouched. This is because their own histories are not written. While written histories can be seen as a valid path to the past, oral histories are not. In such cases, it is necessary for archaeologists who dig up these grave sites and apply science which can infalhbly lead to the true understanding about the past. Other pertinent information sources exist as well but these texts do not reference them. For example, neither the NAGPRA law nor the significance of repatriation processing for indigenous people in archaeological research practices are included as references except as “missing subfields.” Janet E. Levy, a member and Chair of the Committee on Ethics in the early 1990’s noted this problem. The Missing Subfields As written, the core portion, Section I, of the PPR refers only to the actions of cultural anthropologists and others whose research is based firndamentally on interaction with living people. Of course, the sections pertaining to relations with students, employers, and the public are relevant to all anthropologists, but there is no guidance given on significant issues for archaeologists and physical anthropologists, such as research with non- human primates or archaeological sites and artifacts. Although arguments have been made for using Section 1 as an ethical guide in the repatriation debate (see Meighan 1985; Fluehr-Lobban, 1991). * PPR - Proposed Professional Registry for SAA members. There are references to Native people, but the primary messages are sent fi'om educational and research service providers to a general public in need of their service. There is no discussion of the value or responsibility of returning illegally or unethically gained materials and human remains. 96 The contexts that created these professional rules may not have been considered the proper place for a discussion of repatriation and NAGPRA mandates to include indigenous knowledge holders in it, but why not? It seems that a serious discussion of ethics should reference this contemporary archaeology research problem. There is a major methods-related problem, although it was not described as a major problem by archaeologists. The destructive nature of archaeological research methods was mentioned briefly by the SAA Executive Board. The following statement is quite significant to the meaning of preservation. Principle No. 8: Training and Resources: Given the destructive nature of most archaeological investigations, archaeologists must ensure that they have adequate training, experience, facilities, and other support necessary to conduct any program of research they initiate in a manner consistent with the foregoing principles and contemporary standards of professional practice. [Ethics and Archaeology: Challenges for the 19903, ed. Mark J. Lynott and Alison Wylie, 1995] (April 10, 1996, SAA Executive Board Meeting) http://www.saa.org/AboutSAAlEthics/prethic.html What does “the destructive nature of archaeological methodology” mean to an indigenous community being researched? How will destructive methods affect the status of research sites, materials, and future access for others? Is DNA testing destructive? The issue of “destructive nature” is passed over quickly in the SAA texts, in a brief matter of fact statement. Yet the expression implies destructive methods are necessary for ethical research and that training qualifies certain professionals to do this type of research. But the SAA does not say that destruction of property will be avoided. Is this issue relevant to an exclusion of indigenous knowledge holders in repatriation processing? Historic legislation suggests that it is. There is an empirical methodological conflict hidden within the meaning of these SAA 97 texts. Does the destructive nature of archaeological methods threaten indigenous communities in any other way besides destroying some or all of the site and the related items being studied? Without clarifying the meaning of destructive research methods with indigenous people prior to proposing and conducting research it is impossrhle to argue that ethical research methods have been used. The result of this hidden agenda will destroy any appearance of ethics in research. Conflict such as is being experienced in the WRFN case is imminent with this kind of ethical violation of human rights and the scientific method. The SAA suggests that archaeological methods used for conducting exploratory developmental DNA research is ethical. But is it unethical to destroy human remains without authority of the community being tested in the process of testing hypotheses? Does destructive archaeological method jeopardize the outcomes of related research? In this type of research, future testing is not replicable. Once the removal process begins the site of origin is destroyed. No one else can duplicate this part of the process. In addition, DNA testing destroys samples. How many samples are available before the evidence is completely destroyed? The destructive nature of archaeology may actually nullify scientific value. On the other side of this discussion is the first that reburial is viewed as a destructive method by many archaeologists. It is defined as destructive to the future of humanity. Some Archaeologists suggest that reburial destroys an opportunity for contemporary and firture researchers to learn from the collections. Ethics is an important issue. Goldstein and Kintigh (1990) dealt with “ethics and the reburial issue” early on in this debate. But there are still two extremes. First, the ACPAC 98 understands all museum collections with Native American human remains in them to be potential DNA research specimens, valuable for deve10ping DNA theory and research methods. In contrast, NARF understands museum collections with indigenous human remains in them as proof of a systematic expropriation of dead Native Americans. For now, it is important to recognize that many diverse voices in archaeology and indigenous communities are speaking on the topic of repatriation. Also, issues such as ethics in research methods are focal, with little direct recognition of NAGPRA or involvement of the new NAGPRA mandated indigenous cadre of repatriation researchers. The next chapter focuses specifically on the UMMA response to the WRFN refirsal to allow the UMMA to conduct DNA research, or any research on Old Birch Island ancestors. Institutional language reveals a usage of power which significantly impacts contemporary scientific practice in repatriation processing. Chapter 7 MEANING AND POWER IN UMMA REPATRIATION DISCOURSE The question of repatriation is related to a struggle for power. In this case, it is whether the WRFN has the right (that is, power) to allow the remains of their ancestors to remain buried as opposed to the right of archaeologists to have access to scientific data, which is what each has said that these remains mean to them. Power, in this sense, always shows up as an asymmetrical relationship between two individuals or two groups, where one side has the ability to do something, usually to the other side, which the other side can not do in return. Historically, this type of power relationship is common in “Indian - white” relations. It has appeared brazenly in the taking ofland, and making and breaking treaty agreements, not to mention numerous cases of U.S. government failure to prosecute criminals for murder and devastating injuries to indigenous people. We see it more subtlety as well as in the seemingly capricious shifts in U.S. and Canadian Indian policy that Professor Steckley of the Ontario Archaeology Society described in chapter four. In this case the conflict over Native human remains is a struggle over discourse and representation. To resolve conflict as opposing groups become involved in repatriation processing it is imperative to maintain strategies that support cooperative decision making. This strategy is agreed upon by most repatriation researchers, but in order to do so it is 99 100 necessary to begin with a clear understanding of institutional goals and objectives, which are usually understood as policy statements, which are another formal type of communication, and new meanings appear in the discourse as a result. Policy statements express institutional values. Kress (1989) introduced a directive for understanding institutional value and meaning expressions. Discourse is systematically organized sets of statements that give expression to the meanings and values of institutions. Beyond that, they define, describe and delimit what it is possible to say and not possible to say (and by extension -- what it is possible to do or not to do) with respect to the area of concern of that institution, whether marginally or centrally. A discourse provides a set of possrhle statements about a given area, and organizes and gives structure to the manner in which a particular topic, object process is to be talked about. In that it provides descriptions, rules, permissions and prohibitions of social and individual actions. (p.7) The WRFN repatriation team could have used these formal UMMA policy statements in their research had they been provided prior to the end of the process. But since repatriation processing is very new (as of 1990), new policy statements fiom the UMMA should be expected. Kress’ method is important to this analysis because each institutions representatives expressed values in determining cultural affiliation. At a cultural background level, these value expressions signified deeper underlying historic conflict. It is there because of historic distrust of Euro-American institutional values expressed in historic policy statements. For example, institutional identification processing is a well known method of European colonization practices that were used to affect change in indigenous communities around the world. Edward Said (1979) described this process as Orientalisrn. He described it as identification replacement processing which was used to 1 01 change the identity of indigenous people in Eastern cultures. Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient - dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient. I have found it useful here to employ Michel Foucault’s notion of a discourse, as descnhed by him in The Archaeology of Knowledge and in Discipline and Punish, to identify Orientalism. My contention is that without examining Orientalism as a discourse one cannot possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage -- even produce - - the Orient, politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and irmginatively dining the post-Enlightenment period. (p. 3) Steckley alluded to a similar process in the Great Lakes in chapter six. Petoskey’s eras were listed in chapter two. Voices in American archaeology are creating a discourse in which repatriation means that archaeologists and scientists have the authority to keep illegally obtained human remains for scientific research. Their meaning is that science is the ultimate authority in this process. But Ethnomethodologists and others challenge this one dimensional knowledge holder perspective. Warren Handel (1982) described these issues from the standpoint of reflexivity. Originally, the term reflexive was used in grammar and logic. In logic, a reflexive relationship is one that something could have with itself. For example, everything is equal to itself; equality is a reflexive relationship. Nothing is greater than itself; "greater than" cannot be a reflexive relationship. In grammar, the term is used in a related way. A reflexive verb is one whose subject and object are the same. "Shave" is a reflexive verb in "I shave myself. " In the same sentence, "myself' is a reflexive pronoun. In a sense, the reflexive verb describes a relationship of an actor with itself. The action is taken upon the agent of the action. The barber may shave me or himself. When he slaves me, the verb is not reflexive; when he shaves himself, it is. By extension, the actions themselves are often called reflexive when the person acts upon himself. Shaving oneself 102 is a reflexive action. So are feeding oneself, pampering oneself; deluding oneself, and improving oneself. The term reflexive has been extended to include the action upon oneself or relationship with oneselfas well as the grammatical form we use to describe them. Ethnomethodologists argue that all accounts are reflexive. All accounts are not in the distinctive grammatical form called reflexive; they are not even all linguistic. Rather, using the extended sense, ethnomethodologists argue that all accounts have a reflexive relationship with themselves and take some action upon themselves, regardless of their content and regardless of the medium in which the accounts expressed and regardless of their grammatical structure if any. We can begin to understand the nature of the reflexivity of accounts by examining the special case in which the content of accounts is concerned. Theories and empirical descriptions of perception, language, nonverbal communication, reasoning, or any other aspect of accounting are accounts about accounts. Since they are accounts, whatever they say about accounts will apply to themselves as well. That is, they are reflexive... Ethnomethodologists are very concerned with this aspect of reflexivity because they are convinced that all empirical accounts are loose. When this scientific assessment is applied reflexively, it implies that scientific accounts are also loose. Until quite recently it was commonly held that science escaped the looseness of other empirical accounts. This belief provided a justification to put more confidence in science and technology than in other systems of knowledge. Religious faith, for instance, declined dramatically as science became more prominent. The looseness of scientific accounts undermines the unquestioning belief in science - it provokes a crisis of confidence. In recent years, science has been increasingly open to the challenge of justifying itselfand increasingly subject to political decision making. (p. 35) The nature of the reflexivity of accounts is understood “by examining the special case in which the content of accounts is concerned. Theories and empirical descriptions of perception, language, nonverbal communication, reasoning, or any other aspect of accounting are accounts about accounts. Since they are accounts, whatever they say about accounts will apply to themselves as well. That is, they are reflexive...” In other words, science is not an absolute authority in the academic community. This logic was used to examine the meaning of UMMA discourse on repatriation 103 processing. To reiterate briefly for contextual purposes, the repatriation process began when one of the UMMA professional staff (Dr. Greenman) exhumed grave contents fiom Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah in 1938 and deposed them in the UMMA In response, Esther Jacko (1982) visited the museum’s current director, Dr. John O’Shea. After the NAGPRA law was passed, Dr. O’Shea responded to another visit saying that he would be willing to returntheremainsifWRFN would givepermissiontotheUMMAto conduct DNA research on the remains. To explain the purpose of the DNA research, Director O’Shea visited WRFN in January 1996 and invited members of the WRFN repatriation committee to Ann Arbor to demonstrate the process. The DNA research demonstration took place at the UMMA in March, 1996. The WRFN repatriation committee then returned home and conducted a survey of community members (April/May 1996) about whether they should grant permission to the UMMA for this research. The WRFN community rejected the UMMA proposal by a measure of more than 2 to 1. Dr. O’Shea responded in the following manner. Dr. John O’Shea’s official UMMA response to the WRFN denial to conduct DNA research Chief Leona Nahwegahbow Whitefish River First Nation Birch Island Ontario POP lAO CANADA August 8, 1996 Dear Chief Nahwegahbow: I am gratefirl for your letter of 17 July, although I am saddened by its content. On behalf of the Museum and the University of Michigan I have gone as far as I possible can to accommodate your wish that the human remains and burial artifacts be returned to Wardrope Island. We have offered to return all of these rmterials even though we are under no legal 104 requirement to do so, and despite sound documentary and archaeological evidence countering the Whitefish River First Nations claim to affiliation withthe burials. I sirnplycango no furtherwithoutjeopardizing myown ethical responsibility to future generations. I must conclude, therefore, that the present negotiations are at an end. While this also brings to an end our voluntary moratorium on access to the collection, please be assured that the human remains from Wardrope Island will continue to be treated with care and respect, and that requests for research access will be evaluated for scientific merit and appropriateness using the same high standards that are applied to all such requests in the museum. Let me say again that I am saddened by your failure to reach an agreement. I sincerely had hoped that my visit to the reserve and our willingness to return the complete Wardrope Island collection would enable a compromise solution to be reached. [end] This response reveals a rich set of meaningful UMMA policy statements and individual personal expressions that clarify Dr. O’Shea’s standpoint as spokesperson for his self, the anthropology museum, and humanity, as he perceives it to be. The following analysis points out where conflict in his perspective as the UMMA spokesperson on WRFNmeaningexistsandhowhislanguageusehasstructm‘edconflictintheformofa one dimensional UMMA power base. Personalized institutional statements of fact Identification process On behalf of the Musemn and the University of Michigan I have gone as far as I possibly can to accommodate your wish that the human remains and burial artifacts be returned to Wardrope Island. Meaning: Human remains fi'om Wardrope Island are acknowledged; ancestors from Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah are not. Dr. O’Shea personalizes the statement when he admits he cannot go any farther than this in the process. Objectification of human remains We have offered to return all of these materials even though we are under no legal requirement to do so, and despite sound documentary and archaeological evidence countering the Whitefish River First Nation’s claim 105 to afliliation with the burials. Meaning: Designation of hurmn remains as materials no longer depicts ancestral human remains as understood by the WRFN community; legal requirements are prioritized with documentary and archaeological evidence cited to counter the WRFN claim, meaning this type of evidence is acceptable as answers to cultural affiliation questions for the UMMA while the WRFN evidence is not acceptable. Authoritarian persona I simply can go no further without jeopardizing my own ethical responsrhility to future generations. Meaning: Dr. O’Shea assumes full authority for decision making. He alone is obligated by his professional and personal ethics to protect an otherwise unidentified group he calls “future generations” from the WRFN community. Assertion of Power I must conclude, therefore, that the present negotiations are at an end. Meaning: I have the ultimate decision making power. UMMA authority determines cultural affiliation While this also brings to an end our voluntary moratorium on access to the collection, please be assured that the human remains fiom Wardrope Island will continue to be treated with care and respect, and that requests for research access will be evaluated for scientific merit and appropriateness using the same high standards that are applied to all such requests in the museum. Meaning: I will use my power to determine cultural afliliation. I have power to grant your wish. Scientific interests are legitimate. I am a scientist; you are not. I determine the beginning and end of these negotiations. I impose and end the moratorium on research on these human remains. Dr. O’Shea added structural power to his position. In his perspective Wah Wah Skin 106 Ah Gah grave contents (human remains) are valued only as scientific materials. The firnctional component of this power structure is his rationale that the only applicable knowledge is scientific. In support of this assumption he declares that he has sound evidence to prove his point, which he did not share. Judgement Let me say again that I am saddened by your failure to reach an agreement. I sincerely had hoped that my visit to the reserve and our willingness to return the complete Wardrope Island collection would enable a compromise solution to be reached. Meaning: The WRFN is to blame for the breakdown of negotiations. The community is labeled as a failure because they did not agree to allow the UMMA to conduct DNA research. Ownership and Power Dr. O’Shea tacitly admits the following in his response: 0 The UMMA has possession of the contents of the graves which Dr. Greenman exhumed from Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah in 1938. o The UMMA recognizes some degree of ownership by the WRFN when it ofl’ered to return these remains if they would give permission to take DNA samples fiom the remains. One has to accept the fact that there is a frmdamerrtal difference between archaeologists and the group they call “Indians” in relationship to burial sites to understand the UMMA argument. This difference has been masked by arguments of science -- that its quest for knowledge about the past is more valid than the hope that a loved one has a peaceful afterlife. In this armlysis, it is clear that ancient brnial sites are sought after data sources for UMMA researchers. That said, it is important to reiterate that this case is not about differing lifestyles, it is implicitly and inexorably about power. 107 In this case, understanding the meaning of repatriation requires understanding first the ability of one individual who represents an institution (UMMA) to have greater control over a situation than others involved (WRFN). This meaning is evidenced in the above text by the following assertions of power: 0 The UMMA has the power to make such bargains (DNA for return of remains). 0 The UMMA has the unilateral power to say when the negotiations are over, claiming in the process that failure to settle otherwise is the fault of the WRFN. - The UMMA has the power to return these remains if they wish, despite the ethical problems that this will create for them. 0 The UMMA has the power to return these rermins if they wish even though they have sound evidence that they do not belong to WRFN. - TheUMMAhasthepowertopossesstheremainsoflndianswhilelndiansdonot have the power to possess the remains of archaeologists. 0 The UMMA has the power to conduct research on the remains of Indians while Indians do not have the power to do the same to the rermins of archaeologists. 0 The UMMA has the power to claim that they have sound evidence to disprove the WRFN claim on these remains without having to offer such evidence. It is important to note that none of the above assertions of power appear overtly in the UMMA text. To do so would appear terribly blunt. The test of the validity of such assertions, however, is not that it is said directly in the text, but that they are necessary to make the claims in the text. Thus, when Dr. O’Shea says: “I must conclude, therefore, that the present negotiations are at an end,” his claim cannot be made without asserting power (presumption #1 above). This method of analysis has identified the meaning of authority fi'om the standpoint of author. Another indicator of meaning in the use of power is defined by contradiction. Contradiction of the “Un-Said” One of the most important aspects in the analysis of texts, when it comes to the issue of power, is to pay attention not only to what has been said, as has been done above, but 108 to the “uh-said.” That is, what the text omits. For example, in the above text, two important items have been left un-said: 1. That Professor Greenman exhumed human remains fiom Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. 2. That the act was illegal under Ontario Law. Both of these items are important elements of the conflict between WRFN and the UMMA. In the first instance, there can be no question that the UMMA is aware of the exhumation. They provided the WRFN with portions of Dr. Greenman’s notes. But not mentioning this fact in their texts weakened the appearance of the WRFN’s claim. In addition, it positioned the issue of ownership in the text, beginning with the human remains in possession of the UMMA. In this context it appears as if it is up to the UMMA to decide what should be done in the matter. Furthermore, Dr. O’Shea stated that the UMMA’s own research in the form of “documentary and archaeological evidence” countersthe WRFNclaim. Themeaningofthisrnessageisthatthereisalackofcultural afliliation to the WRFN. Without all facts fiom the actual exhumation, the UMMA stated position of authority appears much stronger. It is necessary to point out that the illegality of exhumation under customary law, or without a medical permit under Ontario law, may be something that UMMA was unaware of, but even in this case Michigan law at that time also did not allow the exhumation of remains without some sort of permit. Although, in the case of “Indians” in Michigan, all that was needed was the permission of the owner of the land on which the remains were buried. It istruethat ignoranceofthe lawisnoexcuse,butthefirilure oftheUMMAto recognize this law for the past sixty years can be seen as clear evidence of power usage. 109 The facts of this case show that the University of Michigan representatives prefer to “subscribe” to the laws of the land as opposed to obeying them. Is conflict resolution possible when the issues are considered unequivocal? Specifically, when scientific knowledge is deemed of greater value to the firture than indigenous knowledge. The next chapter continues analyzing the University of Michigan’s formal responses to the WRFN’s requests to stop research and repatriate their ancestors remains. Chapter 8 THE USE AND ABUSE OF NAGPRA On April 22, 1997, Lee C. Bollinger, President of the University of Michigan replied to the request for the return of human remains by Chief Leona Nahwegabow of the Whitefish River First Nation. Because the letter makes reference to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a brief review of the NAGPRA Act precedes the analysis of Dr. Bollinger’s response in order to contrast how the original act was conceived and how it is currently being used. As was pointed out in Chapter 4, because of the wholesale unauthorized exhumation of Native American graves, NAGPRA was enacted to provide a systematic, orderly way to remedy a history of abuses. As such, NAGPRA is not the only law that addresses the illegality of grave robbery (Chapter 4) but rather, because of the abuses of these laws on a massive scale, NAGPRA was enacted as a partial remedy for those abuses. The title of the act makes it quite clear that it has been designed to protect the graves of Native Americans because these graves have been specifically targeted by archaeologists, such as Dr. Greenman of the UMMA, who plundered sacred burial grounds in the interest of science. The rationale for this scientific imperative is clearly articulated in the Society of American Archaeology text: Research in archaeology, bioarchaeology, biological anthropology, and medicine depends upon responsible scholars having collections of human 110 111 remains available both for replicative research and research that addresses new questions or employs new analytical techniques (paragraph 2); UMMA Director John O’Shea added: The past does not belong to any particular group. The past belongs to everyone, because intheend,weallshallshareinthepastandprofitbyunderstandinginit (paragraph 2). As the title makes clear, the NAGPRA act also provides for the removal of these human remains from museums and other repositories, and for their return. It states unequivocally that in no case should the remains of Native Americans become the property of museums or universities, without consent given by the owners. In fact, Section 5 of the act calls for museums to make an inventory of such remains. SEC. 5. INVENTORY FOR HUMAN REMAINS AND ASSOCIATED FUNERARY OBJECTS. (a) IN GENERAL.-- Each Federal agency and each museum which has possession or control over holdings or collections of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects shall compile an inventory of such items and, to the extent possible based on information possessed by such museum or Federal agency, identify the geographical and cultural affiliation of such item. (b) REQUIREMENTS.-- (1) The inventories and identifications required under subsection (a) shall be -- A) completed in consultation with tribal government and Native Hawaiian organization oflicials and traditional religious leaders; (B) completed by not later than the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and (C) made available both druing the time they are being conducted and afterward to a review committee established under section 8. NAGPRA states that the purpose of making an inventory is to enable the repatriation of these remains to their rightful heirs, and makes it unequivocal that human remains belong to their descendants. IncaseswheretheremainsofNative Americansarebeing heldbymuseums, theact 1 12 calls for the prompt return of these remains and provides an explicit set of directives for their return. Inno case doesthe act suggest that theseremains arethepropertyofthe museum. In spite of this federal law and its mandates the following response was sent from the President of the University of Michigan to the Chief and Cormcil of the WRFN. The President of the University of Michigan’s response Lee C. Bollinger, President University of Michigan Fleming Administration Building Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340 Chief Leona Nahwegahbow Whitefish River First Nation Birch Island, Ontario POP 1A0 Canada The University of Michigan Board of regents and I have reviewed your letter of February 10, 1997, regarding materials and human remains excavated by Dr. Emerson Greenman from the Old Birch Island Cemetery and now cared for by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. The philosophy behind the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (N AGPRA) -- to which the University subscribes -- is one of balancing the rights of individuals to control the disposition of burial remains of individuals culturally affiliated with them versus the obligation of public institutions to serve as repositories of scientific information and to conduct research in the public interest with ancient materials or materials not otherwise affiliated with an existing cultural group. There are two reasons why the University of Michigan cannot respond favorably to your request for the University to relinquish custody to you of the remains and materials fiom the Old Birch Island Cemetery. The first reason is substantive, the second is logistical and jrn-isdictional. The substantive reason is that the cultural affiliation of the Old Birch Island remains is questionable. This conclusion is based on comparative cranial measurements, on historical commentary, and on the age of the cemetery. In light of the questionable cultural affiliation there is no ethical imperative to consider transfer of the remains and materials to you. On the contrary, in the absence of established cultural afliliation, our ethical obligation is to preserve the evidence of the past for firture generations. The second reason we cannot respond favorably to your request is 113 logistical and jurisdictional. Since NAGPRA does not apply outside the United States, there is no established regulatory or legal fiamework governing discussions or potential agreements between the University of Michigan and the Whitefish River First Nation. Any discussions about transferring custody of the Old Birch Island remains and materials to Canada would have to involve governmental authorities fi'om each country. Canadian authorities have not sought custody of the Old Birch Island remains or materials. Furthermore, it is our understanding that Canadian authorities do not recognize the Whitefish River First Nation claim to the Old Birch Island materials. For the above reasons, it is not possible for the University of Michigan to comply with your request. cc Regents of the University of Michigan Professor John O’Shea Vice President for Research Frederick Neidhardt Analysis of power I. Law v. Philosophy President Bollinger makes the statement that the University of Michigan “subscribes” to the “philosophy behind the Native American Graves Protection Act.” Assuming that President Bollinger understands his responsibilities as the head of a public institution to abide by the laws of the land, the use of the term “subscrrhes” can be understood as a statement of power, that is “the University of Michigan can do what it pleases, including obeying the laws that it deems reasonable.” 11. Limitations to the Act It would seem clear fi'om this that the NAGPRA act to which University of Michigan President “subscribes,” is the law of the land and it would compel the University of Michigan to return the remains to the Whitefish River First Nation, but both UMMA Director and President Bollinger argue that it does not. This is because the NAGPRA law as written in their perspective applies to the termins of prehistoric native Americans. In 114 the NAGPRA text, however, the term “native American” refers to the Webster’s II (1986) New College Dictionary’s popular meaning of the term in which “native American” refers to an inhabitant of the western hemisphere. usage: In the United States many now prefer the designation Native American instead of Indians for the first inhabitants of the Western hemisphere; although usage may vary according to tribe and region. (p. 728) The law is written so that it does not apply in the case of cultural affiliations of people living outside the United States, even if their ancestors have been placed in U.S. institutions. While one could argue that the law was written this way because the United States had no jurisdiction in other parts of the world, and the law could only apply to the return of such remains in the United States, it would have been possible to write the law so that institutions holding such remains had an obligation to use analogous procedures to seek ways to return remains taken from Canada and elsewhere in the world for that matter. Whatever the real reason for limiting the scope of NAGPRA, the globalization of the NAGPRA law would have massive consequences for museums holding classical remains taken fiom Italy, Greece, Egypt and elsewhere. One of the consequences of the law for native peoples living in Canada is that they learn that the argument is used as a justification by U.S. based institutions for not returning remains exhumed in Canada, as we saw in both the O’Shea and Bollinger letters. Dr. O’Shea: “We have offered to return all of these materials even though we are under no legal requirement to do so, and despite sound documentary and archaeological evidence countering the Whitefish River First Nation’s claim to affiliation with the burials.” Dr. Bollinger: “Since NAGPRA does not apply outside the United States, there is no established regulatory or legal fiamework governing discussions 115 or potential agreements between the University of Michigan and the Whitefish River First Nation.” As can be seen so clearly in Dr. Bollinger’s statement, the UMMA claim is based on an assumption that prior to NAGPRA, no laws had been written to prevent the removal of materials fi'om human graves. But this is not true as pointed out in chapter 4. Customary law of Native people, Europeans and virtually everywhere else throughout the world prohibit the exhumation of human remains without permission of the descendants. The written law of Ontario at the time of the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah cemetery exhumations also required permission from local health authorities. Clearly other laws bear on this case and clearly (unless the UMMA has withheld evidence) Dr. Greenmn acted illegally. III. Right of Possession When it comes to the issue of possession, the text instead takes the tactic that they have reason to believe that the human remains taken fiom Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah Cemeteryarenot affiliatedwiththe WRFN, eventhoughthislandisclairnedbythe WRFN as ancestral lands. Has this UMMA claim been made public? More importantly, the argument states essentially that because we (the university) claim them, they are not yours, they are ours. This argument bypasses the issue ofhow the UMMA came to possess them. Furthermore, the geopolitical limitations of NAGPRA do not mean that the UMMA has the right of possession of these remains, for definition (13) of the above cited section 2 of the Act states that: "right of possession" means possession obtained with the vohmtary consent of an individual or group that had authority of alienation. The original acquisition of a Native American unassociated funerary object, sacred object or object of cultural patrimony fiom an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with the vohmtary consent of an individual 116 or group with authority to alienate such object is deemed to give right of possession of that object, unless the phrase so defined would, as applied in section 7(c), result in a Fifth Amendment taking by the United States as determined by the United States Claims Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1491 in which event the "right of possession" shall be as provided lmder otherwise applicable property law. The original acquisition of Native American human remains and associated firnerary objects which were excavated, exhumed, or otherwise obtained with firll knowledge and consent of the next of kin or the official governing body of the appropriate culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is deemed to give right of possession to those remains. While the text following the first sentence brings in the “native American” limitation, the first sentence unambiguously states a more widely applicable right of possession of anything, cars, land or human remains. To obtain “right of possession” you have to receive permission from the owner. There is no evidence that the University of Michigan did this when it took the remains from the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah cemetery in 1938. IV. The Privilege of Science President Bollinger makes the claim that NAGPRA is a philosophy: one of balancing the rights of individuals to control the disposition of burial remains of individuals culturally with them versus the obligation of public institutions to serve as repositories of scientific information and to conduct scientific research in the public interest with ancient materials... But the NAGPRA Act says no such thing. The text which makes that claim was written by the Society of American Archaeology which states: The Society of American Archaeology recognizes both scientific and traditiorml interests in human remains... Research depends upon responsible scholars having collections of human remains avaihble both for replicative research and research that addresses new questions or employs new analytical techniques. (See chapter 5) l 17 V. The Role of Ethics Dr. Bollinger also clairm that: there is no ethical imperative to consider transfer of the remains and materials to you. On the contrary, in the absence of established cultural affiliation, our ethical obligation is to preserve the evidence of the past for future generations. While ethical considerations are important, the statement suggests that there is only one area of ethical consideration, that of the responsibilities to future generations. It says nothing of the university’s responsrhilities to past generations. Because of this, it follows that the University is declaring that it has no ethical responsibilities with respect to the dead and consequently there is nothing wrong in its exhuming, without permission, the remains of Indians. In fact, it is an “obligation.” Discussion The first important expression of note in Dr. Bollinger’s response is that it represents the policy of the University of Michigan, not just the UMMA, although much of the University President’s text echoes Dr. O’Shea’s response. For example, it contains a number of contested and nus-referenced meanings: funerary objects become materials; ancestors or human remains become “cranial measurements”; exhumation becomes excavated; stolen becomes removed; hierarchical titles designate authority (i.e., Dr. v. Mr. v. no title); Old Birch Island (Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah) becomes Wardrope; graves become archaeological research sites; “held without permission” becomes “cared for.” As was the case with Dr. O’Shea, the current and historic situation is described in such a way that the repatriation process is about The University of Michigan and the UMMA’s rights rather than the WRFN’s claim for repatriation of their ancestral remains. 118 This strategy makes the relationship a contest (i.e., us versus them). In structuring the relationship this way, as a conflict, it allows for the University to speak fi'om an authoritative position (i.e., the University subscribes to federal law). Meaning is clearly interpreted as if the NAGPRA Act protects the University fiom the WRFN. Furthermore, the language the University President used focuses on scientific values as if that is the subject matter of the NAGPRA Act. Dr. Bollinger reinforces Dr. O’Shea’s objectification of human remains when he references the Old Birch Island human remains as valuable scientific information and ancient materials. The human remains become ancient objects for scientific analysis. Thus, the University of Michigan cannot respond in favor of the WRFN request because of professional scientific ethics. This can also be interpreted to mean that the university had rights to return the human remains, if willing, but it has locked itself into a limited internal thought process that will not allow thinking in terms of returning Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah human remains. The closest Dr. Bollinger comes to a thought about returning the human remains and sacred items to the WRFN is the possibility of transferring custody to Canadian authorities, but only if they want them, which he claims they do not. But he does not suggest rettu'ning them to the WRFN. Within this statement he implies that the university has a legal obligation to return the remains to Canada if they want them. As was the case with Dr. O’Shea, Dr. Bollinger’s evidence for questioning cultural affiliation to the WRFN was not made available to the WRFN or anyone else as far as the WRFN knows. Why not? Did they break the Canadian grave robbery laws? 119 The university argument weakens further when the two responses to Chief Nahwegabow are compared and analyzed for reference sources. First of all, they make claims that the university subscribes to the NAGPRA. But their statements reveal that they do not obey federal law. Rather, they use it as needed. Conclusions drawn from official university responses to the WRFN repatriation claim The NAGPRA repatriation mandates require the inclusion of related tribal people who have wisdom necessary for determining cultural affiliation But the university did not adhere to these mandates. Specific meanings as claimed by the university representatives are not found in the NAGPRA text. The source of each argument begins and ends within the university’s own texts. Dr. Bollinger and Dr. O’Shea reference each others interpretation of the NAGPRA but not the NAGPRA itself. There are similar ideas found in the SAA texts but this is not the correct source of NAGPRA language and meaning as they claim it to be. As presented in Chapter 4 there are other relevant laws that were not cited as key reference guides. Also, the WRFN Elder Nungess (Art McGregor) pointed out that a lack of formal agreements did not prevent Dr. Greenman fiom removing human remains fi‘om Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah graves and taking them across international borders in the first place. It is imperative to note that the university is presenting a new set of arguments and it is not clear in their references whether the Canadian govemment sees merit in their claim or whether Canadian authorities are aware of it at all. They do not say who the Canadian authorities cited are. Are they national, provincial, or other? 120 This is another example of reference to essential evidence that has not been made available to the WRFN. The University of Michigan has decided without WRFN knowledge that they have the right to possess Old Birch Island human remains. Reference sources remain secret. Chapter 9 SUMMATION Helen Hombeck-Tanner (1987) provided a massive resource of pertinent illustrations on the extent of domestic and international repatriation processing that lay ahead for the Great Lakes cultural region. Her presentation was based on a theory that contended that the only way to study the problem of Anishinaabek history is with the aid of maps. This statement is more debatable now that the NAGPRA has begun to reveal the extent of holdings in museums. Yet, it must be considered as a very serious research needs indicator relevant to the size and scope of the problems that await repatriation researchers in the Great Lakes region. This case differs fiom the bulk of ongoing repatriation processing because it involves the WRFN, an Anishinaabek Ojibway community that lies outside U.S. borders. However, the impact of the NAGPRA repatriation process was not contained within U.S. domestic territory, as this case and a growing body of literature demonstrates (Smythe, 1996; UNIDROIT, 1995; Green, 1994; Bieder, 1990). While WRFN is not included within the jurisdictional parameters set for repatriation in the original NAGPRA law, the basis for the NAGPRA law was a recognition that abuses by archaeologists in the unauthorized exhumation of human remains were so extensive that they could no longer be dealt with on an individual basis, but required a general legal remedy. 121 122 As was shown in chapters 2 and 5, the primary goal ofthe WRFN repatriation process is to promote spiritual healing in their community. This logic stems fi'om traditional Anishinaabek medicine wheel teachings. It is appropriate for conflict resolution in their community. Conflict resolution with the UMMA is directly related because of the 1938 exhumation of 20 graves. Current conflict stems fiom an international repatriation process and an arclmeological argument over methods most appropriate for determining cultural afliliation to human remains, sacred items, and all items taken flour a sacred site traditionally afliliated with the WRFN in 1938. The WRFN defines cultural affiliation as spiritual in terms that mean ancestral relations to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. The UMMA defines cultural afliliation in terms that identify an “Old Birch Island museum collection.” The museum collection has valuable scientific data in the form of DNA. This language and meaning conflict is further complicated by the fact that international repatriation research is generally not acknowledged as an important scientific research issue, nor is international repatriation defined as a significant research ethics phenomenon by most professional U.S. archaeologists. Great Lakes Anishinaabek and other indigenous scholars contend that, historically, indigenous people and cultures have been portrayed obscenely in educational texts and museum exhibits. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, PL. 101-601, 1990) validated this charge with a nundate for equal partnership between scientific and indigenous community representatives in order to 123 determine cultural afliliation appropriately. But there are few indigenous anthropologists or repatriation experts. Until 1995 most meaningful dialogue on repatriation was contained within non-native institutions involved in domestic U.S. repatriation processing. After 1995, the actual return of museum collections began in response to those institutions which were found to be in violation of the NAGPRA. Analysis of international repatriation language and meaning began with an acronym “NAGPRA,” a previously meaningless noun phrase for those who could not translate the acronym into the full text “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” when this study began. This acronym pinpointed a basic limitation of understanding in repatriation processing in both the WRFN and within the field of Anthropology and Archaeology. As meaningful expressions were discovered the focus turned to historic conflicts stemming fi'om archaeological expressions as the primary source of conflict in this language and meaning study. Missing information required a review of international Grave robbery and Common law of the time. As was pointed out in chapter 4, several laws appear to have been broken. Wrthout more evidence fi'om the UMMA archives it was not possible to conclude this as fact. Intergroup meaning analysis followed beginning with another review of Dr. Greenman’s transcribed field notes as a historic research perspective of the setting and it’s meaning to the current UMMA staff. Nungess (Art McGregor) and other WRFN repatriation researchers and community representatives provided mixed Ojibway-English explanations of the importance of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah in chapter 5, effectively establishing an oral tradition source perspective 124 of the exhumation in 1938. The WRFN perspective began before Dr. Greenman came into contact with Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah and the modern WRFN commrmity. This knowledge further established a traditional WRFN basis for understanding pre-contact meanings about cultural afliliation to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah. At various times in the analysis William Leap’s (1993) theory about “Indian english” as a primary source of ancestral language was useful for understanding how WRFN oral tradition (ancestral language) embodied a traditional history of Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah and its relationship to other sacred sites. This perspective further thickened the historic descriptions contained in UMMA texts and expressions. This combination of knowledge sources firlfilled a primary requirement for partnership between scientists and indigenous people as mandated in the NAGPRA repatriation process. Conflict was easier to understand after comparing WRFN traditional cultmal meanings of affiliation to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah with archaeological voices, and the UMMA and the University of Michigan administrative accounts presented in chapters 6, 7 and 8. While discovery of cultural affiliation through scientific research was meaningful to UMMA and University oflicials who perceived the Old Birch Island collection as an ancient DNA source it was not acceptable to WRFN researchers who perceived these same human remains as their Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah ancestors. They were insulted by the fact that their ancestors are valued as objects (e.g., inanimate specimens and research data). On the other land, UMMA and other University of Michigan oflicials did not accept the WRFN meanings and ended the repatriation process abruptly. This use of power in negotiations was found to be the primary essence of ethical research conflict 125 found in this study. The UMMA practice is contradictory to modern day WRFN spirituality. By denying traditional WRFN cultural afliliation to Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah the UMMA is denying that the WRFN traditional way of life exists. The reverse can be said for the WRFN opinion of theUMMAperspective. The WRFN doesnot acceptthe ideathattheUMMAcando a better job of teaching others about WRFN traditions and history. That is their own privilege. This type of conflict is to be expected because contemporary native people of the U.S. and Canada are experiencing an era of government recognition. Not by their own governments, but by foreign governments. In the U.S. the practice is called Federal Recognition (chapter two). This era is represented by a foreign government identification policy and practice based on a mythical measure of blood (e.g. blood quantum) and imposed on the indigenous people by the foreign govemment. The meaning of identity is formulated by scientists and politicians who legislate identity. But the practice is not scientific. It is politically motivated. For example, Physical anthropologists generally agree that humans cannot be racially categorized, whether by blood type or any other measures, because the boundaries between the so-called racial groups are firzzy, making separation into races impossible. As a result, many well-recognized physical anthropologists have discarded the concept of race entirely (Kelso and Trevathan, 1984, p.289). Furthermore, as a matter of legislated biological identity policy in U.S., Canadian, and many First Nations and Federally recognized tribal governments, millions of native people are identified by, or have learned to rely on an erroneous blood quantum 126 conceptualization of their aboriginal identity. The problem is exacerbated by mass media influence on the general populous. Michael Real (1989) found that “Changes in the dominant medium of communications -- oral, print, electronic - are as important as the content of the media in determining the dominant definitions of personal and social reality in any given historic period.” (p.23) The spread of a mythic “American Indian” identity has proliferated as mass media has proliferated. Our contrived histories become "natural" and taken for granted. One culture’s "common sense" becomes for its members the universal laws of nature. Ethnocentrism makes the resulting mythology invisible to members of the culture. This is where ideology and hegemony can most easily manipulate people and social forces. Mythic analysis can identify the ideological forms within which we think and act but of which we are largely unaware because they are taken to be natural." Ideology, world view, and a sense ofwhat isrealandtrueariseincreasinglyfiomourmedia experience. (p.228) The good news is that "Super media create a complex and wide-ranging expression of culture that finds in cultural studies an ideal tool for examining and rmderstanding it.” (p. 52) Handel’s (1982) Ethnomethodology of reflexive accounts and Fairclough’s intertextuality method for analyzing changes in texts (chapter 7) are also relevant to developing a better understanding of this confusing set of problems. In 1969, Vine DeLoria, Jr. delivered an indictment of historic attempts to define Indian identity describing the perpetrators of the process as practitioners of an “authoritarian rule” over indigenous people and their knowledge. DeLoria’s Custer Died for Your Sins included a chapter titled “Anthropologists and Other 127 Friends.” It was a significant but negative gesture to many anthropologists and other researchers that symbolized to many indigenous people a demeaning profile of anthropologists; one that has since carried significant meaning, and is especially relevant to an interpretation of the status and role that American anthropologists play in modern research efforts in their communities. The significance of this message to modern anthropologists was debated by Dell Hymes and other anthropologists at the 1989 American Anthropological Association annual meeting (Hymes, 1992). The focus of the discussion was on the past twenty years of relations between Anthropologists and American Indians A similar message has impacted Government Organizations, Museum people, and other Indigenous repatriation researchers as a result of the NAGPRA. In fact, at least five new repatriation research type groups have been brought together in repatriation research processes (domestic and international) as a result, with more developing in the new UNIDROIT international repatriation network. 0 University museum repatriation researchers 0 Tribal archaeologists 0 Curators representing museums 0 Smithsonian repatriation researchers 0 Tribal museum repatriation researchers Kress’ (1989) discourse analysis provided an important model for understanding institutional expressions of value and power usage in determining cultural affiliation Institutional identification replacement processes have been used historically to replace traditional indigenous identity. For example, Edward Said’s (1978) “Orientalism” was useful for considering historic identification 128 replacement processes that developed as a result of inappropriate identification of indigenous people of eastern cultures. Like Said’s Orientalism process, this study found a systematic institutional identity development and replacement process in operation and one could easily substitute American “Indianism” for Said’s Orientalism without changing the argument. Certainly, message delivery about indigenous identity has changed in the past hundred years as a result of super mdia technologies, but more recently, challenges to inappropriate stereotypes fiom increasing input by indigenous knowledge holders have added to the diversity of opinions on cultural afliliation and identity (i.e., emic interpretations in indigenous language forms). But again, much of it is recent, and the effort is regarded by many as incomplete. The NAGPRA counters historic identity replacement practices by requiring publicly fimded American universities and museums to work with native community experts in domestic repatriation processes. One outgrowth of this policy is an international cadre of repatriation researchers. But these developments are confounded by a disturbing history of international research issues. Heginbotlmm’s report to The Social Science Research Council (1994) described the problems as follows: In retrospect it seems clear that those who shaped emerging institutions of international scholarship in the early years of the cold war should have been more attentive to a range of issues involving the autonomy and integrity of scholars and scholarly institutions. It willbe irnportanttounderstandthose issuesasweadjustto anew environment for international scholarship. Unless we understand clearly the differences between the old and the new environments, however, we will be doomed to protect against the wrong threats 129 and respond to the wrong challenges and opportunities. Brush (1993) provided a more specific set of five historic factors that have led to current problems in international research. Five current trends connect indigenous groups, environmental change, and international trade in the debate about extending intellectual property rights. The first trend is the demise of indigenous populations and the loss of indigenous languages, changes that have eroded indigenous knowledge. Second, the loss of biological diversity--especially fi'om . . . deforestation and agricultural intensification -- has increased the apparent value of biological resources that remain in their natural habitats. Third, biological resources are thought to have become more valuable as biotechnology has given scientists the tools to use them in new ways. As biological diversity becomes more scarce and valuable, the inforrmtion about biological resources tlmt is contained in indigenous knowledge systems should also become more valuable. Fourth, intellectual property rights have been expanded in advanced industrial countries to include biological materials and life forms, such as new plant varieties. Finally, there has been increased pressure for all nation-states to implement intellectual property protection and to conform to a common international standard. These trends raise questions about the legal status of indigenous groups and their control over culturally specific but widely useful information, and point out the need to conserve both biological resources and indigenous knowledge. Intellectual property is a means toward this goal, because it retmns economic benefits to indigenous peOple for the use of their knowledge and resources. (p. 653) Insum,thisthesisdemonstratedthatthereisameaningfirllanguageand culture of international repatriation processing. Also, that indigenous knowledge is relevant because it is not an attribute of most museologists, anthropologists, and archaeologists. Individuals with this type of expert knowledge are being identified and introduced into international repatriation research studies now. The impetus is hampered by exclusionary scientific research tactics. 1 30 International repatriation processing is new to both WRFN and UMMA. Cataloging domestic museum collections is still ongoing and many collections that are thought to be completely catalogued and returned are only becoming available to related claimants. However, it was demonstrated by the WRFN that they have shared common ground (i.e., space, territory) with UMMA and other anthropologists and archaeologists for at least sixty years. The history of research and data collections speak vohrmes in support of this fact. But these relationships are fiaught with conflicts that continue to feed a historic distrust of American anthropology. The NAGPRA, other civil rights laws, and theoretical and ethical revelations in the past thirty years have caused the United States federal govemment to redesign their own museum system, beginning with the Smithsonian and extending the practice to other museums that utilize federal fimding for Operations. Many are now trying to create partnerships and alliances with tribes that are slated to get museum collections back soon, in part or whole. Given this national museum systemcrisisit issafeto assmnethattheUMMArepatriationresearchersare experiencing other international repatriation requests. It should be expected that there will be changes made in international repatriation research activities (i.e., international guidelines for museum accession policies, international guidelines for anthropological/ archaeological research projects, international human rights ethics, international research methodology and international law). Conflict is maintained when groups like ACPAC allude to indigenous 13 1 research theory and methodology as myth, and when indigenous researchers renounce scientific theory as Euro-American myth and folklore. In order to alleviate conflict fiom repatriation processes and get back to the task of accurate identification of cultural afliliation, it is imperative to begin with a research perspective that avoids insignificant conflicts based on personal emotions about others. This can be done by beginning the analysis with firll recognition ofthe others’ methods of identification. In this case, indigenous knowledge was gleaned from ancestral language of the indigenous group occupying the territory where the collection came from originally. Even though it was not accepted by the UMMA during this study these findings demonstrate that a combination of data (WRFN and UMMA) is much more robust for analysis of cultural affiliation meanings. Within the field of professional archaeology discussions of ethics are ongoing, but few texts found in this research mentioned international research ethics. In fact, Janet E. Levy, former Chair of the American Association of Anthropology Ethics cormnittee noted they generally ignored living cultural study issues presented by the NAGPRA. It is clear fi'om this that the NAGPRA act to which University of Michigan subscrrhes is the law of the U.S. Does it compel the University of Michigan to return the remains to the Whitefish River First Nation? Both UMMA Director and President Bollinger argue that it does not. This is because the NAGPRA law as written, in their perspective, applies to the remains of prehistoric native Americans. However, in the NAGPRA text, the term “native American” is defined to mean the 132 native people living within the United States. This usage contrasts sharply with standard dictionary definitions which quite literally take the term to mean people native to the western hemisphere at the time of European contact. Whatever the real reason for limiting the scope of NAGPRA, the globalization of the NAGPRA law would have massive consequences for museums holding classical remains taken from Italy, Greece, Egypt and elsewhere. One of the consequences of the law for native peoples living in Canada is that they learn that the argument is used as a justification by U.S. based institutions for not returning remains exhumed in Canada. As can be seen so clearly in Dr. Lee Bollinger’s statement, these claims are based on the assumption that prior to NAGPRA, no laws had been written to prevent the removal of materials from human graves. But this is not true as pointed out in chapter 4. Customary law of native people, Europeans and virtually everywhere throughout the world prohibit the exhumation of human remains without permission of the descendants. The written law of Ontario at the time of the Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah cemetery exhumations also required permission from local health authorities. Clearly other laws bear on this case and clearly (unless the UMMA has withheld evidence) Dr. Greenman acted illegally. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Berube, Margery S. W Houghton Mimi" Company, 1995. Bieder, RobertE. ‘ _ ° ' ' ' ’ 1351mm Native American Rights Fund, Bloomington, Indiana, 1990. Bollinger, Lee C. “Official letter of response to Whitefish River First Nation Chief and Council request that the University of Michigan stop all research and repatriate their ancestors.” April 22, 1997. Broome, Pearly 1. “Memo fiom People of the Lake Repatriation Committee.” The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Jan 17,1996. Brush, Stephen R. “Indigenous Knowledge of Biological Resources and Intellectual Property Rights: The Role of Anthropology.” American Anthropologist 95 (3): 653-686, 1993. Cemeteries Act of Ontario. Section 29, Chapter 317., c. 63, s. 31, 1926. Cleland, Charles E. IheMishisauAmhamlcsist 20 (1), 1974. Cleland, Charles E. W Michigan History Division, Michigan Department of State, 1975. Cleland, Charles E 311W W. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 1992. Deloria, Vine Jr. W New York, MacMillan, 1969. Deloria, Vine Jr. Godisfied, New York, Dell Publishing, 1973. 133 134 Deloria, Vine Jr. “A Simple question of Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of the Reburial Issue.” NARF (Native American Rights Fund), Legal Review. Vol. 14, No. 4, Fall, 1989. DeLoria, Vine Jr. “Ethnoscience and Indian Realities.” Winds of Change Summer (12-18), 1992. Vol.24,No.1.,College ofLawArrzona StateUmversrty Tempe, Arizona 85287-7906,1992. Diehl, Madeline Strong. “The Skeletons in the U-M’s Closet.” The Ann Arbor Observer, Nov, 1991. Dwyer, Anabel. “Personal communication: Discussions on U.S., Canadian, and European Common Law relevance to the WRFN repatriation claim.” 1 997-98. Echo-Hawk, Walter. “Tribal Efforts to Protect Against Mistreatrnent of Indian Dead: The Quest for Equal Protection of the Laws.” NARF: Native American Rights Fund Legal Review, Vol. 14, No.1, Winter 1988. Echo-Hawk, Roger C. “Working Together - Exploring Ancient Worlds.” Society for American Archaeology, Vol. 11, No. 4, Sept/Oct, 1993. F airclough, Norman. W Longman Group Ltd. Singapore, 1989. Fox, Marylou, Director. t ' ., - ° . ° ' _ ' ' theMedrcineflheeL Published by the Ojibwe Cultural Foundation, West Bay, Ontario, 1992. Grhbons, John. Ed. ._ . - ; . ' ' - . of communicative clash: Aboriginal English and the legal system.” Diana Eades (p. 234-264). Longman Publishers, London; New York, 1994 Goldstein, Lynne, and Kintigh, Keith. “Forum: Ethics and the reburial Controversy” American Antiquity, 55(3), pp.585-591, 1990. Museumof Amencan Indian History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560, 1994. 135 Greenman, Emerson F. , ' _ ' W9. Umversrty of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1951. Handel, Warren. WWW Prentice-Hall. Inc. New Jersey 07632, 1982. Harry, Debra “The Human Genome Project and Its Implications for Indigenous People.” Information About Intellectual property Rights, IPR No. 6, Jan 1995. Heginbotham, Stanley J. “Rethinking International Scholarship: The Challenge of Transition fi'om the Cold War Era.” Items: Social Science Research Council Vol. 48, No. 2-3, June-Sept, 1994. Henry-Shipman, Thelma, and Holappa, Ted, Co-Chairpersons. Michigan South CapitolAve” .Box 30037, Lansing,MI48909, 1989. Hill, Rick. “Beyond repatriation: The Impact of Museums on Indian Culture.” Occasional Paper fiom the National Museum of the American Indian Dec 28, 1992. Hogue, Arthur R. Qfiginsnfithcmmmnjnw, Lrherty Press, Indianapolis, 1985 1966 Hombeck-Tanner, Helen. Athsnffireatlakcslndianflistcnr. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK, 1987. Hymes, Dell. “Custer and Linguistic Anthropology.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol.1, Issue 1, June (5-11), 1991. Inouye, Daniel K. [Foreword] “Repatriation: Forging New Relationships.” Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, Spring, 1992. Jacko, Esther. 1. “Opening remarks.” Repatriation committee meeting, Whitefish River First Nation, Birch Island, Ontario Canada POPlAO. Jan. 6, 1996. 2. “Interview and statement on visit to UMMA 1982.” July 1996-March 1997. 3. “Oficial statement of the WRFN Band Council to the University of Michigan.” August 7, 1996. 136 Jacko, Roxanne “Youth Representative statement submitted as part of Esther Jacko’s remarks.” March 1997. Kelso, Al. and Trevathan, Wenda. PhysicalAntthmlmthitdsditmn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984. Klesert, Anthony L., Powell, Shirley. “Forum: A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity, 58 (2) pp. 348-354, 1993. Kress, Gimther. The linguistic expression of social meaning: discourse, genre, and text. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford University Press, 1989. Leap, William L. _Am9n9anlndianfingh§h University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1993. McCain, John. “Letter fiom Vice-Chairman, United States Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs.” Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 24, No.1 Spring 1992. McGregor, Art “Personal communications and interviews with the Whitefish River First Nation Elder Historian.” February 1996-November 1997. McGregor, Lorilee “The Whitefish River First Nation experience with the repatriation process.” Oflicial statement submitted for thesis March 13, 1 997. McManamon, Francis P. and Nordby, Larry V. “Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, Spring 1992. McManamon, Francis P. “The Reality of Repatriation: Reaching out to Native Americans.” Federal Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 3: 2, Fall/Whiter 1995. Meighan, Clement W., Cameron, Constance, Editorial Staff. “Physical Anthropology Studies Under Major Attack.” ACPAC NEWSLETTER: The American Committee for Preservation of Archaeological Collections, PO. Box 1171, Whittier, CA 90609-1171, April 1995. Michigan Compiled Laws, Annotated “PA. 1931, No.328, 160, Eff. Sept.18. Chapter XXVI. DEAD HUMAN BODIES 750. Disinterment, mutilation, defacement, or carrying away of human body” (amended 1974). St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing Co., 1989 NAGPRA ,...- - 5.! - - ' - ' .. a Public Law 101-601 101“ Congress, November 16 1990. Nichols, John D., and Nyhohn, Earl W University of Minnesota Press, 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520, 1995. O’Shea, John M. “Official letter of response to WRFN refusal to allow DNA testing.” August 8, 1996. O’Shea, John M. “35 transcribed pages of Emerson Frank Greenman’s original field notes.” Provided to the WRFN January 6, 1996. Petoskey, Michael D. “Tribal courts.” Michigan Bar Journal, Northern Michigan Vol. 67, No.5, May 1988. RAFI COMMUNTQUE. “The Patenting of Human Genetic Material.” http//www.charm.net/~rafi/19941 .htrnl (03/ 1 7/96, 19:52:02) Rural Advancement Foundation International Jan/Feb 1994. Real. Michael R W Sage Publications, London, 1989. Rhodes, Richard A. -.. 1 , ' Mouton de Gruyter, New York, 1993. Riding In, James. “Without Ethics and Morality: A Historical Overview of Imperial Archaeology and American Indians.” Arizona State Law Journal Volume 24, Number 1: 11-34, Spring 1992. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Vintage Books, New York, 1979. Smythe, Charles W. “Assessment of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy Request to the National Museum of Natural History to repatriate two Wampum Belts.” Repatriation Oflice National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. 20560, August 15, 1995. Society for American Archaeology, Executive Board Meeting April 10, 1996 http://www.saaorg/Government/governmenthtml (May 1986). SAA ethics address: http://www.saaorg/AboutSAAlEthics/prethichtml 138 Steckley, John. “Memo fi'om Ontario Archaeology Society” 1. Huron Indian Cemetery Preservation Site http: //www. sfo com/~denglish/huroncemetery 2. Wyandot Nation of Kansas http ://www. sfo. com/~denglish/wynaks/wyandot2 .html 3. E-MAIL: triballaw@thecity.sfsu.edu Liberal Arts and Sciences, Humber College, 205 Humber College Blvd. Stobicoke, Ontario M9W 5L7. June 5, 1996. Trope, Jack F. and Echo-Hawk, Walter R. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History. Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 24, No.1, Spring 1992. Trope, Jack F. “Existing Federal law and the Protection of Sacred Sites: Possibilities and Limitations.” Cultural Survival Quarterly (Winter) 30-35, 1996. UNTDROIT. “Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of the Draft UNTDROIT Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. Rome, Italy (June 24, 1995).” FAX copy fi'om Mandy Murphy in the Department of the Interior National Park Service, National Center for Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Archaeology and Ethnography Program. PO. Box 37127, Washington DC 20013-7127, 1995. Vanderburgh, R. M., Fox, Mary-Lou, Radulovich, Steven. W IlsThinkAheadEchemfieneratians. The Ojibwe Cultural Foundation, West Bay Ontario, 1992. Zimmerman, Larry J. “Archaeology, Reburial, and the Tactics of a Discipline’s SelfDelusion.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 16:2, pp. 37-56, 1992. 139 General References Aronsen, Gary P., Tarmra Bray, Philip Minthorn, Charles Smythe. “Interview: The Language of Repatriation.” An Informal discussion with Repatriation Oflice Staff and Researchers, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC 20560 (Tel: 202/357- 1583), July 1995. Bain, James, Editor. Publisher, New York, 1969. Barthes, Roland. Myth9l9gics, Hill and Wang, New York, 1972. Benton-Banai. Edward. IheMishcrnianokthelcicenflheDjibmy Indian Country Communications, Inc., Hayward, Wisconsin 54843, 1988. Boyd, W. L., Koontz, Richard, Haas, Jonathan, Meyer, Kendall. “Procedures for Repatriation Decisions for Responding to Requests by Native Groups under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act for return of Human Remains and Cultural Items.” Anthropology Department, The Field Museum. Source person : Susan Daniels, Director, Repatriation Program, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin PO. Box 365, Oneida, 1993. Bohannon. Paul and Glazer. Mark. W McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1988. Brace C L., Montagu, Ashley. M F MausExahuiQnLAnlnmduotiaan W The MacMillan Co., New York, 1965. Brady, James. “Harvest of Skulls and Bones.” Archaeology Magazine, Vol. 48, No. 3. Archaeological Institute of America/ SIRS Researcher, 1995. Brooks, Alison, London, Marilyn R., Selig, Ruth 0. “AnthroNotes, A National Museum of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers.” Vol. 17, No. 1-2 (Winter/Spring). Smithsonian Institution Anthropology Outreach & Public Information, NHB 363 MRC 112, Washington DC 20560, 1995. Burke, James. W. Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1996. Chisolrn, Barbara D., Editor. ; ’ - ° W911. Metrolithlnc” Toronto, CanadaMSWU 1P4, 1997 140 Clifford, James. ‘ ‘ an. , _ , W, Harvarld University Press, 1988. Coombes, Rosemary J. “The Properties of Culture and the Politics of Possessing Identity: Native Claims in the Oiltural Appropriation Controversy.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Vol. 6, No. 2, July 1993. DeLaguna,Frederica,Ed.x-.- - w' , ' 1888;19211,‘ ‘The beginnings of Anthropology in America,” Irving Hallowell (1 -90) “Physical Anthropology in America by Ales Hrdlicka” (1914: 310-56) Row, Peterson and Company, Ehnsford, New York, 1960. Dobzhansky, T. _- - ’ . ' W New Haven, Yale(86-155), 1950. Donald, James and Hall, Stuart. “Politics and Ideology.” Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1986. Du Bois W.E.B. “Prospect of a World Without Race Conflict” American Journal of Sociology, No. 4, March (450-56), 1944. Ferguson, T.J. “Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology.” Annual review of Anthropology 25:63-79, 1996 E-mail: arpr@class.org Ferguson, T.J. “Archaeology For and By Native Americans.” 95th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Fransco, CA November 23, 1996. Foss, Michael. - Hanap, London, 1974. Goldstein, Lynne. “The Potential for Future Relationships Between Archaeologists and Native Americans. Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future.” Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, 1992. Goody. J. and 1. Watt. WW Language and Social Context. Penguin Books, 1972. Gould, Stephen Jay. “Morton’s Ranking of races by Cranial Capacity: Unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm.” May 5, 1978. ANP 840 “Biocultural evolution,” Michigan State University, 1997 141 Gould, Stephen Jay. “Ghosts of Bell Curves Past.” Natural History (p. 12-19) February, 1995. £1111th, Thomas Y. Crowell Comapny, New York, 1968. Harry, Debra. “Patenting of Life and Its Implications for Indigenous Peoples.” IPR No. 7 (Jan) Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 1313 5‘” Street SE, Suite 303, Minneapolis, MN 55414, 1995. Higginbotlmm, Evelyn Brooks. “Afiican-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race.” Signs, Vol. 17, No.2 (251-274), 1992. Hinchclifli John. z. .- - NmZealnnd, MirileaPress,NewZealand, 1997. Hooper, Greenhill, Eilean. Mnsemnngnhcflisitm Routledge, New York, NY, 1994. Hymes, Dell. ed. Reinventingfinthmmbgy, New York; Pantheon Books, 1969. Inglis, Julian T., Ed. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases” International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa Canada, 1993. Jacoby RussolandNaomi. Glauberman. W W Random House, 1995. Killion, Thomas W. “Guidelines for Repatriation National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution.” Repatriation Review Committee, Repatriation Office, Washington DC. 20560, 1994. Kinietz,W. Vernon. lit ' - ._ The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1965. Kulchyski, Peter. “Aboriginal peoples and Hegemony in Canada.” Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 30, Spring 1995. Lewis, Ron L. “Federal Policy and American Indian Relations through Colonization.” Journal of Multi cultural Studies, Spring (112-125), 1991. 142 Marcus, GeorgeE., andFischer, MichaelM. WWW. - ' ' .- TheUniversityof Chicago Press, Chicago 60637, 1986. Maybury-Lewis, David. “American Indian Religious Freedom: First Pe0p1e and the First Amendment.” Cultiual Survival Quarterly, Winter 1996. Mch Franklin T. Englnhmmemcfmmtalfli Octagon Books, New York, 1951. McKeown, C. Timothy. “Confessions of a Bureaucrat.” Federal Archaeology, (p.13-17) Fall/Wmter, 1995. Meighan, Clement W. “Burying American Archaeology.” Archaeology (N ov- Dec), Vol. 47, No. 6 (p.64), 1994. Morel], Virginia. “An Anthropological Culture Shift.” Science, Vol. 264, April 1994. Ortiz, Alfonso. “American Indian Religious Freedom: First People and the First Amendment.” Cultural Survival Quarterly (Winter) 26-29, 1996. Prucha, Francis Paul. Dru _ ,, '1-. University of Nebraska Press, 1990. Rawls, James J. ' ° ° '1‘ - . 1945, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth TX, 1996. Roberts, Leslie. “A Genetic Survey of Vanishing Peoples.” Science, Vol. 252, Research News, June 21, 1991. Rovin, Ann. “Dig this: Home sites offer chance to dig for Indian ruins.” The Detroit News, June 26, 1995. Thunderbird Enterprises,Phoenix, AZ 1994.1 Said, Edward W. W Vintage Books, New York, 1994. Sale, Kirkpatrick. “The Conquest of Paradise, Christopher and the Columbian Legacy” 1990. Sallah, Michael D. “Researcher: Indians have no claim to bones.” Grand Rapids Free Press, Sun/Jan 29, 1995. 143 W estvrewPress Boulder, Co. 1993. - Shute, Jeremy J ., and Knight, David B. “Obtaining and Understanding of Enviromnental Knowledge: Wendaban Stewardship Authority.” The Canadian Geographer 39, No. 2. (101-111), 1995. Trigger, Bruce, ed WWW vol. 15, Northeast Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1978. Taliman, Valerie. “Return What is Sacred.” The Circle. Vol. 14, No.9 Ethnic Newswatch, Sofiline Information, Inc. Stamford, CT, 1993. Tanner, Helen Hombeck. WWW Bloomington Indiana University Press, 1976. The Honourable Mr. Justice McKeown, II. “T-434-90.” Federal Courts of Canada, Trial Division, Toronto, Ontario, June 27, 1997. Thom, Stephen N., Myers, Larry, Klugman, Julian. “Mediation and Native American Repatriation of Human Remains.” Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4, Summer 1993. Tomas, Lois. “Gov. Chiles fights Native Casinos: Seminole react to Supreme Court’s decision.” News from Indian Country: The Nations Native Journal, Vol. X, No. 8 (April) Rt. 2, Box 2900-A, Hayward, Wisconsin 54843, 1996. Trautman, Thomas A. , - ,- . - .' University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1987. Treasury Department, Author unknown. “The Jay Treaty as it affects North American Indians (The International Boundary Between the U.S.A. and Canada).” Washington DC. March 15th, 1878. Two Shoes, Minnie. “Oral History confirmed by ‘modern science’: Midewiwin beliefs date back thousands of years before the birth of Christ.” News fi'orn Indian Country, Vol. IX, No. 24, Late Dec 1995. Vollom, Judith and Thomas M. Vollom. W, Winn. Ojibwe Language Publishing, Ramsey, Minnesota, 1994. Weatherford, Jack. I; ' ‘ F awcett Columbine, New York, 1991. Wimbicmm. 0- . ._ .. - a I. ' .. . . ' 5.. . .2. MW Oxford University Press, 1992. Williams, Raymond. W Oxford University Press, 1977. Wubekeniew. In . '.l ' II‘ ' ‘1 0,00,. ‘ '_ 0.|__._l.‘J nu. e4! LIL, 104105.10 ' o Perspective, Black Thistle Press, New York City, 1995.