2007, Volume 5, Number 1
Artifacts and Native Burial Rights: Where do We Draw the Line?
Throughout human history we have gone above and beyond to bury our dead and have made extreme efforts to honor them in life and death. For example, the Chinese ritually bathe the corpse and make food offerings to the deceased, the tribes of Scotland buried men with their swords and finalized the burial with a pyre above the grave, and Native Americans honor the deceased with ceremonial chanting and dancing. The practice of showing respect for the dead transcends race, nation and religion. Death is a life process that affects us all and the practices of many cultures can attest to the importance of keeping death sacred for the individual as well as the collected.With the advent of human migration across the globe, many groups have found favorable environments where others have previously been. With this trend and the growth of the human population, it is inevitable that remains of those who passed on will be left behind and found by those who follow. What to do with these remains and what amount of “respect” constitutes proper action is a recent dilemma in burial culture and protocol. Should secondary groups be allowed to remove or relocate buried remains? For those who already have removed such remains, should these items be repartitioned to their original place of rest, to the families who claim them or are the current possessors of these remains the true owners of these items?
It is human nature to dispute an issue and those involved always have a personal agenda that can either coincide with the group mission or upset the overall agenda of the population. In the case of buried remains, personal agendas can generally be deduced according to the affiliation of the party involved. There are several “parties” that currently participate in these disputes about buried relics; and, for the purposes of this paper will be referred to as the following: the scientist, the entrepreneur, and the “culturalist”. Each of these parties has a different view on what the outcome of “recovered” relics should be and all parties actively defend their positions.
Those in the scientific and educational fields include archaeologists like David Forbes, museums such as the Smithsonian, field researchers and teaching institutions including the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. Most, if not all, support the removal of buried remains for use in a setting other than their intended purpose and actively participate in the obtainment and storage of such artifacts. They support the removal of such buried remains to a location outside of the item’s native environment. These scientists seek to be “inspired by studying and seeing ancient remains and cultural artifacts” (Conklin 3). As a community, scientists act upon the notion “that the end (education) justifies the means (removal of buried items)” (Nihipali B1) and feel that everyone can benefit from experiencing these buried relics.
Entrepreneurs include two types of individuals: entrepreneurs themselves and investors. Entrepreneurs intentionally seek out relics in order to make a living by selling the items to the highest bidder. An investor, in this case, is the highest bidder. He or she is the individual who intentionally seeks out relics in order to buy them for personal reasons. In Robert Hicks’ “Time Crime: protecting the past in the United States,” federal law enforcement officials have reported monetary amounts of up to $400, 000 paid for procured buried remains. In either case, each of the two individuals involved in such transactions have “no interest in history and see these items solely as commodities that can be bought and sold at a profit” (Hicks). The buried remains of any culture is seen by this party as a means for personal and financial gain.
“Culturalists” are individuals who hold cultural, historical and family ties to buried remains. They work to protect not only the relics themselves, but the sites in which they are found and the integrity of the practices that keep these items sacred. Hui Malama is one such group founded in the Hawaiian isles to protect the lost heritage of Hawai’i’s people. They, just as others who are part of this “culturalists” group, strive to prevent the desecration of sites significant to cultural practices and seek to reclaim their culture and ancestors from individuals (scientist/entrepreneurs) who have taken these remains.
As a community, each of these groups interacts with the other within the boundaries of current society and the interpretation of the law dictates the outcome of the buried remains in question. It is a crime to take something that does not belong to you, so in the case of buried relics, to whom do they belong? Addressing ownership is a complicated matter. These buried remains have obviously belonged to someone in the past and it is a crime to disturb them now. However, “the high prices attached to some artifacts on the commercial market inevitably invites criminality” (Hicks). The entrepreneur is key in this market and facilitates the removal, buying and selling of artifacts across the globe. When this occurs, a part of history has been stolen and the historical and cultural information these artifacts contain could be lost forever.
The issue of ownership is a deficient quandry in itself, but the procurement of these items in the first place raises an even greater concern. The process of securing buried remains and artifacts itself incurs the disturbance of the items’ initial place of rest. According to state law:
A person who removes the dead body of a human being, or any part thereof from a grave, vault, or other place, where the same has been buried, or from a place where the same has been deposited while awaiting burial, without authority of law, with intent to sell the same, or for the purpose of dissection, or for the purpose of procuring a reward for the return of the same, or from malice or wantonness, is guilty of a felony. (New York State Cemetery Board)
To disturb an area of burial is considered an act of desecration punishable by law. Consider why it is socially and legally acceptable to take artifacts from King Tutankhamen tomb yet, to uncover the remains of any individual in any cemetery is a felony?
In 1979 the Archaeological Resources Protection Act was created to provide boundaries for removal of buried remains and to set laws in place to protect the excavation and distribution of “recovered” buried items. To be a “protected resource” under the APRA, items must fulfill the following requirements:
Objects must constitute evidence of past human existence, possess archaeological interest (not archaeological significance), and be over 100 years old. Objects, or resources, are broadly defined to include not only relics such as pottery, tools or shipwrecks, but also rock art, skeletal remains, features of houses of other constructions, and even vegetal remains or organic waste. (Hicks)
These requirements include all ancient relics and pieces of cultural significance to many groups around the world. However, this act is like a double edged sword; it cuts both ways. This document not only protects included relics, but also allows for the legal removal and distribution of these items under the provisions of the APRA’s guidelines. Reprimanding individuals for the desecration of remains is one thing, but allowing them to do so if they follow guidelines still ends up with the same outcome, the desecration of the objects, the site in which they came from and the cultures/religions they represent.
Desecration, by definition, is the deliberate damage of something sacred or the action of doing something offensive to the religious nature of an object or person. The burial practices of many religions and cultures are considered sacred. Many cultural practices involve intricate rituals that are meant to ensure the spiritual well being of the deceased individual and all those with whom they interacted. Hawaiians held such beliefs and found the bones of a deceased individual to be of the utmost priority in keeping protected:
Traditional Native Hawaiians believed na iwi (the bones) to be the primary physical embodiment of a person. Following death, only na iwi were considered sacred, for within the bones resided the person’s mana (spiritual essence)…Traditional Hawaiian belief maintains that it is the kuleana (responsibility) of the living to care for and to protect ‘ohana burial sites… thereby maintaining the integrity of the family. (Ayau)
Hawaiians and Native Americans are at the center of the battle of buried remains, trying to recover what has already been taken and working to protect what is still left. A major snag in this entire process is museum possession of cultural relics and the museum’s function as a resource and educational center for the general public.
Museums were established as early as the late1600’s to the early 1700’s--long before any of these laws were put into place. So the items they contain within their walls seem to fall under a separate category from recent findings of buried relics. Do current laws apply to past actions? In a recent case concerning the findings of the famous cave explorer, David Forbes, Hawaiians artifacts found by Forbes were in the possession of the Bishop Museum and loaned to individuals of the Native Hawaiian activist group Hui Malama. This group in turn chose to rebury these articles, after due process, and are now currently in the limelight for an issue that plagues many native people; what can be done to reclaim the artifacts of their past ?
History, in all its forms, is a significant key to connecting us to our heritage and is crucial in helping to provide wisdom that will allow us to assure progress in our future. Walking the fine line between using artifacts for education and the desecration of the items sanctity will continually be an issue that plagues our society. Future disputes and past remains will come hand-in-hand into the world of cultural knowledge and experience; however it can be a process that is both functional and respectful for both the scientific and cultural community. The Smithsonian Institution’s new National Museum of the American Indian is one such example of harmony between the two groups. They have found a way to merge both the cultural sacredness of artifacts with the necessity of museums to display the artifacts for education of the public. According to John Roach’s newswire in “National Geographic News” online:
Curator Mary Jane Lenz said the staff will even loan out items for ceremonial purposes. In fact, the museum recently loaned a beaded dance collar to a community in the U.S. Pacific Northwest to dedicate a new dance hall.
It is encouraging to see such progress being achieved in the culmination of past and present knowledge. Perhaps this is a preview of future relations between Native Nations and educational institutions. I believe it is in the best interest of all parties involved, including you and I, that we are able to learn from the artifacts of any and all cultures’ histories without having to resort to the desecration of their buried remains.
Is it absolutely necessary that buried remains be present physically to be able to learn from them? In my opinion the answer is no. Knowledge of their creation, location, and purpose is enough information to learn or to deduce answers to future questions. If we as a population cannot understand the significance of such buried remains now, how are we to ever fully realize the educational potential of these items in our future? As appropriately stated by Kunani Nihipali:
It is not for us, who live at this time, to decide the fate of these objects. The decision was made long ago when the personal items were placed in the cave…our function is simple; it is to see that the initial decision is realized and respected. (Nihipali B2)
The disturbance of remains has added a new chapter to our history and will forever change the future outcome of decisions made about this issue. It has also directly altered the education of future generations. The current process of repatriation is a journey of learning. It is my hope that we can walk away with a new and positive outlook on what has and is happening so that we can benefit from what we have experienced in our current situation.
Works Cited
Ayau, Edward Halealoha. “Native Burials: Human Rights and Sacred Bones.” Cultural Survival. 7 June 21
Conklin, Kenneth R. “NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) as applied to Hawai’i.” 2003-2005. 7 August 2006
Hicks, Robert. “Time Crime: Protecting the past in the United States” Culture Without Context 9 (2001)
Roach, John. “At New American Indian Museum, Artifacts are ‘Alive’.” National Geographic News. 21 Sept 2004. 19 Nov 2006.
New York State Cemetery Board. Cemeteries and Crematories: Laws, Rules and Regulations. 2002. 19 Nov. 2006
Nihipali, Kunani. “Seeking the rightful home.” Honolulu Advertiser. 25 May 2003, B1+
United States. Federal Historic Preservation Laws. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. 31 Oct 1979. 19 Nov. 2006 < http://www.cr.nps.gov/local- law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf>
This paper was written for English 100.