I do not quits understand how I have failed to make myself clear. We believe that our refusal to allow new research on culturally unafiliated materials conforms to the latter of the law. Your lectures and threats will not persuade me or the university that we should break the law. I am certain that our attorney be willing to change his opinion if new facts make it clear that it is appropriate to do so. I do believe would be most interested in the opinions of other attorneys, particularly those of the Department the Interior.

You sign yourself as a Member of the NAGPRA Review Board, Dept of the Interior. Surely it would be most appropriate for Department attorneys to issue opinions in support of your statements. If they have done so, where are they published and why are they not automatically circulated to NAGPRA coordinators across the country? If they had been, I would have immediately forwarded them to the University anomey and we would all be on the same page.

Please note the comments that I have made in the body of your text. I am disappointed that you feel it is more appropriate to make assertions and threats than to present evidence.

At 12:25 PM 4/17/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Dear Tom,

> Russell has been forwarding me some of the conversations he's been
>having with you ra: research access to osteological collections. In light
>of the discussions I was going to give you a call next time I was in
>Lincoln visiting family to ane if I could help clarify some of these
>issues, but maybe this is a quicker way to offer some assistance.
> There is nothing in the magpra statute or regs to prohibit scientific
>sesearch, new or ongoing, on culturally unidentified remains. Indeed, it
>is the emerging legal opinion in the Department of Interior that the
>Secretary probably does not even have the authority to write regulations
>that would do so. Culturally identified semains are a different story.

Our lawyer reads it differently. Obviously, he is open to argument from another attorney. It would be helpful if you could point to the opinions that have been issued. I am certain that the university attomey would be glad to consider them. This is really so easy. It is only necessary to demonstrate to our attourney that he should revise his opinion.

> In terms of the legislative history, the clanse that is referenced in >the nagpra policy statement you sent to Russell, was inserted at the

>request of the American Museum Amsociation so that museums would not be

>required to pay for state of the art kinds of molecular analyses to

>determine affiliation (this was a reaction to the wording in the national
>museum of the american indian act which was then binding on the
>Smithsonian Institution.

> So, Nebraska can obviously have a policy that is more

>restrictive than nagpra, but it cannot be justified or blamed on nagpra.

>At the same time, it would asem a little difficult to justify the

>existence of a museum or its collections if legitimate scientific research

>is banned.

I'm sorry, I take offense at that. This museum and this university believe that they are complying with the letter of the law on advice from the university attorney. Obviously, an attorney's opinion is only an opinion but until there is case law, that is all that any of us have to go on.

This would certainly have to be taken into consideration when
>evaluating sequests for outside research or collection funding, etc.

That sounds a great deal like a threat.

> Anyway, if I can be of any help in clarifying these issues either
>later in the summer or earlier, please let me know. I would equally be
>happy to speak to the University's lawyers, or put them in touch with
>their counterparts here at Michigan.

John Wiltse is the University attourney. His email address is:

John Wile/UNCA/JUNEBROUNebMail UNeb.EDU. I'm sure he will be looking forward to hearing from you. No doubt he will be interested in the opinions of Michigan's attorneys that permitted the kinds of research in the Michigan collections that have been undertaken. I am sure that he would also be interested in attorney's opinions that permitted similar research at other institutions. Of course, our attorney may persuade the Michigan attorneys, and others, that they are mistaken. Can we expect copies of these opinions early next week?

>Best regards,

>John O'Shen

>Cazator, Great Lakes Archaeology, University of Michigan >Member, NAGPRA Review Board, Dept of the Interior

nied for "Thomas P. Myers"

OUR ANCESTORS TALK AMONG US:

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN INTERNATIONAL REPATRIATION

By

Thomas A. Biron

A THESIS

Submitted to Dr. David Dwyer

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

103

processing. To reiterate briefly for contextual purposes, the repatriation process began when one of the UMMA professional staff (Dr. Greenman) exhumed grave contents from

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 return the remains if WRFN would give permission to the UMMA to 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 grateful 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 materials even though we are under no legal

105

Meaning: Designation of human 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.

III. Authoritarian persona: I simply can go no further without
jeopardizing my own ethical responsibility 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.

IV. Assertion of Power: I must conclude, therefore, that the present
negotiations are at an end.

Meaning: I have the ultimate decision making power.

V. 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 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.

Meaning: I will use my power to determine cultural affiliation.

1. I have power to grant your wish.

2. Scientific interests are legitimate. I am a scientist; you are not.

3. I determine the beginning and end of these negotiations.

4. I impose and end the moratorium on research on these human remains.

Dr. O'Shea added structural power to his view of the situation. In this perspective Wah Wah Skin Ah Gah grave contents (human remains) are valued only as scientific materials. The functional 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