Archaeology is perhaps the greatest tool to help us understand the past. Of course, with archaeology comes digging things up, and problems can occur here. The problems occur because in many cases, people who claim to have a cultural connection to these things desire to have these artifacts or remains repatriated back to them, so that they can be either reburied, or placed elsewhere. In the United States, there have been ongoing disputes between archaeologists who dig up the remains of ancient Native Americans, and the Native American tribes who lay claim to these remains. Because of the impact that these remains have on Native American culture, the United States should always respect the wishes of Native Americans. This means that if a tribe …show more content…
The remains of this ancient man were found accidentally on July 28, 1996 eroding out of a riverbank in Kennewick, Washington. When it was determined that the skull was not from a recent crime scene, and deemed old, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) were issued a permit to excavate. Archaeologists found bones in the area that formed a nearly intact skeleton. The remains were declared as some of the earliest remains ever found in North America, and was therefore considered a groundbreaking discovery. A few months later, the remains were claimed by a coalition of five Native American groups under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Around the end of 1998, a federal judge ordered the transfer of the remains to the Burke Museum at the University of Washington in Seattle to prevent further deterioration. In 2000, the remains were declared to be 9,300 years old and additional tests were requested, and granted. After numerous attempts to have the remains repatriated under NAGPRA, the Native American groups did not appeal because of finances and concerns over precedent-setting decisions. The remains are currently in storage at the Burke Museum and are legal property of the …show more content…
This case was so controversial because it pitted science against Native American beliefs. Moreover, by the courts not granting the repatriation of the remains, they were essentially laying the foundation that science trumps cultural beliefs. In order for one to understand why this is such a key issue for Native Americans, one must first have a general understanding of their culture. Native American tribes practice a wide range of beliefs, customs, ceremonies, and the like. All of their beliefs are passed down verbally through generations, which are known as oral traditions. In relation to death, dying for Native Americans is seen as one step in a journey. When someone dies in the Native American tradition, many ceremonies are held for the person. Above all, they do not wish to see the dead disturbed, which is very common among most modern populations as well. These beliefs are valued greatly and science should not have greater authority than the desire that most people have when they
The case was unfair in my opinion because, the state assumed Peterson murdered Kathleen after his fourth wife disappeared. In the initial autopsy of Kathleen, it was found that there was no murder and Kathleen death was accidental drowning. Furthermore, Kathleen was exhumed after three years of her death which also contends the states were only basing their hunch’s off the disappearance of Stacy. To add to the unfairness of the trial, when The defendant's motion asked the court to clarify whether it ruled under the common law doctrine when the courts ruled that some of the hearsay could be admissible, during a hearing held the same day, the court stated, “I didn't even get to that. There was no request as to any of the others. I ruled strictly pursuant there was a hearing pursuant to the statute.” This entire statement from the court shows the motion to consider was not affectively
Whitney Battle-Baptiste, the author of Black Feminist Archaeology creates the framework of this book because as a Black woman who is interested in race, gender, and cultural views, believes that too often in mainstream archaeological theory, Black culture and the experiences of Black women and our families are overlooked and dismissed. Dr. Baptiste states her explanation on how joining Black Feminist Theory and archaeology in her projects provides a way to open a discussion between archaeologists, which is her intent. It also shows that “when archaeologists critically engage with a dialogue about the intersectionality of race and gender, we begin to see the deeper forms of oppression and how they affect the lives of marginalized populations.”.
The firs settlement of the site was in 1874. Over the years, it received significant attention from the arrow head collectors. According to XXX, from then until 1964, collecting activity increased, and 3-5 ft. of surface deposits had been stripped over an area of some 5,000 ft2. Research by the University of Calgary at the site began in 1965, the tests demonstrated that the site was in excess of 3,000 years old. The artifacts found in the site from the past excavations including tipi rings, buried camps rock alignments, cairns, eagle-trapping pits, vision-quest structures, pictographs, and burials.
In January 2005, contractors were excavating blocks of pavement to place electricity cables right at the corner of Ocean Street and Octavia Street, Narrabeen, NSW. The project was suspended due to an unanticipated discovery of a human skeleton buried underground, right beside a public bus shelter. The bones were in good state although some parts were missing. Fragments of primitive artefacts were also found around and inside the skeleton.
While the case was in the state of Washington, it was seen in the plaintiff's favor: Dr. Harold Glucksberg and Compassion In Dying. Because of this the state laws changed in support of doctor-assisted suicide. The state of Washington still opposed the idea of this so they ordered an appeal.
The Royal Alberta Museum holds a sacred object of the First Nations groups of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Manitou Stone. This sacred object has a vast history to the Aboriginals but also has much controversy that surrounds it. Hundreds of years ago the object was removed from its original spot and was moved back and forth across the Canada, eventually ending up in Edmonton at the Royal Alberta Museum. This sacred object was said to have many powers for the First Nations people and when it was taken it brought great hardship to the First Nations groups that believed in the power of the Manitou Stone. This is only the beginning of the issues that surround this sacred object. Many different Aboriginal groups claim to own the piece but no decision has been made as to where the object should be placed. With the Manitou Stone now in the Royal Alberta Museum issues arise about the proper housing of the item and whether or not it should be retained in a museum or if it should be on First Nations land. Where the Manitou Stone is placed brings many complications and struggles for the Aboriginal people that claim ownership of the sacred object. When researching this object I was initially unaware of the significance that a museum could have to groups of people and the struggles that this could bring to these groups. This paper will explore the significance of the stone, the various viewpoints on why the object was moved originally from Iron Creek, who claims ownership to the object, and whether or not a museum is the proper place for sacred objects like the Manitou Stone to be kept.
“Skeletons in the Closet”, written by Clara Spotted Elk, is a well-built argument, but it can be enhanced to become immensely effective. Firstly, Elk’s position is effective in obtaining her purpose and connecting her audience to it, because she includes a broad scope and background of the problem in the first few paragraphs. She describes the amount of Indian skeletons preserved and contained by American museums, through the use of data and statistics. For instance, Elk states: “we found that 18,500 Indian remains…are unceremoniously stored in the Smithsonian’s nooks and crannies” (13-15). By using this data, the background of the argument is illustrated to assist the audience in understanding her argument. Now, by knowing this statistic, readers can connect with Elk and her assertion, since we realize that there are plenty of skeletons that
Both parties the Coalition of the tribes and NAGPRA and the scientists believe that they are doing the right thing by this discovery. In this paper I will introduce the Kennewick case and discuss the parties and their personal views that have made this such an important case along with thought of my own to add to the criticisms of the professionals that were involved.
The United States government's relationship with the Native American population has been a rocky one for over 250 years. One instance of this relationship would be what is infamously known as, the Trail of Tears, a phrase describing a journey in which the Native Americans took after giving up their land from forced removal. As a part of then-President Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, this policy has been put into place to control the natives that were attempting to reside peacefully in their stolen homeland. In the viewpoint of the Choctaw and Cherokee natives, removal had almost ultimately altered the culture and the traditional lifestyle of these people.
There has been a lot of controversy regarding human remains and the field of archaeology for some time. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect the Native American’s rights over their human remains and cultural items. Proposed by the Morris Udall, former Congress Member for Arizona second District, NAGPRA was passed by the Congress in November 1990. The congress’ intention was to facilitate the repatriation of the Native Americans skeleton and cultural remains that were held in museums and federal agencies. In compliance with the Act, anthropologists returned several skeletal remains that were conserved in their study laboratories and museums to the respective Native tribes. In 1998, for example, the University of Nebraska repatriated over 1702 cultural artifacts to the affiliated Native Americans (Niesel 1). This was a significant blow to the scientific and anthropology studies as it marked the loss of necessary resources in unraveling the development of the human being.
Upper Missouri River area. Eastern Sioux, 19th century. Wooden board, buckskin, porcupine quill, length 31″ (78.8 cm). Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington, D.C. Catalogue No. 7311
For years on end, countries have been fighting with big museums from other countries for ancient artifacts that belong to the original countries. The argument of whether or not the museums should be able to keep them still remains. It is the right of the country to have their own artifacts. It is imperative for countries to be able showcase their historical artifacts, therefor museums should return them to their rightful owners.
... American culture and the livelihood of the Indian tribes. However, there are some significant ideas that are brought up in the federal law. One of the most specific and controversial is the concept of whom is considered a parent and how might they prove their legitimacy to parenthood. Other debates examine whom may adopt or care for an Indian-American child and is it correct to deny a family from adopting or temporarily caring for a child because they are not of Native American descent? These are all broad questions that will examined in the future. As the United States Supreme Court ruled, specific portions of this law are up for further examination and analysis. This will be very beneficial to the future of the law and maintaining its relevance to child custody cases.
In any justice system that is flawed and allows bias in certain cases, the death penalty should not be used as a means of punishment because of its irrevocable nature. When I came across Sarah Hawkins’ article regarding the case of Karla Faye Tucker, I was surprised to see the manifestation
According to The Society for American Archaeology, the definition of Archaeology is, “to obtain a chronology of the past, a sequence of events and dates that, in a sense, is a backward extension of history.” The study of ancient civilizations and archaeology is rather ambiguous due to the primitive nature of the time period. With little imagery and even less textual evidence, professionals in the field must work diligently when studying their subjects. Naturally, archaeologists cannot see or communicate with those whom they are studying, so they must be extraordinarily meticulous when analyzing past cultures. This relates to all aspects of the ancient world including; foods, raw materials, artifacts, agriculture, art work and pottery. All of these elements can collectively provide new and innovative information to curious archaeologists who may wish to gain a better understanding of those who came before us. This information is equally beneficial for both historians and archaeologists who plan to compare the histories of societies from all around the world. In the world of archaeology, archaeologists strive to better explain human behavior by analyzing our past. Therefore, the study of archaeology is a key element in understanding a time before our own.