When the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act became law in 1990, it provided Native American communities with legal backing to reclaim their ancestors and certain objects from cultural institutions that receive federal funds. The Pueblo of Jemez immediately began the NAGPRA process to return their ancestors and objects home, but the process took several years of consultation with the museums and government entities involved. Over that time a mutual respect and understanding developed.

Hollowed to Hallowed Ground: The 1999 Pecos Repatriation- Episode Two: NAGPRA

Narration (Graveline): Welcome to Hollowed to Hallowed Ground: The 1999 Pecos Repatriation brought to you by Pecos National Historical Park and KSFR Public Radio. This podcast was created in cooperation with and has been approved by the Pueblo of Jemez Tribal Administration. My name is Charlotte Graveline and I am a Park Ranger at Pecos National Historical Park in Pecos, New Mexico.

In Hollowed to Hallowed Ground we explore one of the largest repatriations of Native American human remains since the 1990 passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. These episodes were created using excerpts from interviews conducted with those who played a role in the 1999 repatriation including members of the Pueblo of Jemez, the Andover Peabody, Harvard Peabody, and Pecos National Historical Park. The 1999 repatriation of individuals, funerary objects, and sacred objects to Jemez Pueblo from Harvard University, Phillips Andover Academy, the State of New Mexico and the National Park Service is a story of loss, cooperation, and hope.

In our last episode we discussed Alfred Kidder’s archaeological work at Pecos Pueblo between 1915 and 1929, where the excavated individuals and associated funerary objects were sent, and the damage this did to the descendant communities of Pecos Pueblo, particularly the Pueblo of Jemez.

In this episode we discuss the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and how it set the stage for the 1999 repatriation of Pecos individuals and artifacts to the Pueblo of Jemez.

Narration (Graveline): According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “repatriation” means “the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship.” Prior to the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Native American artifacts were held in museums all over the world, often far from their places of origin and descendants. These included funerary objects, sacred objects, and sometimes the remains of individuals. Native Americans had lobbied for decades to have their ancestors and the objects of their people returned to them. In 1989, the National Museum of the American Indian Act was passed. This created the National Museum of the American Indian as part of the Smithsonian Institution. It also transferred the existing Museum of the American Indian and its vast collection of Native American artifacts to the ownership of the Smithsonian Institution. The Museum of the American Indian is located in New York City and was founded in 1916 by a collector of Native American artifacts named George Gustav Heye. As part of the National Museum of the American Indian Act, the Smithsonian Institution was required to inventory the artifacts in their museum collections, including the new collections from the Museum of the American Indian in New York to determine whether they held any Native American individuals or funerary objects. The Smithsonian staff then had to identify the origins of any individuals or funerary objects in those collections and repatriate them to culturally affiliated tribes who requested their return. This resulted in many requests to repatriate individuals and funerary objects from both the Museum of the American Indian in New York and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.

The National Museum of the American Indian Act’s requirement of inventory and repatriation paved the way for the broader Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, commonly referred to as NAGPRA. In 1990, after years of discussions, lobbying, and multiple attempts to pass similar bills, NAGPRA was passed by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush. NAGPRA requires all federal agencies and museums that have received federal funding since 1990 to complete inventories of their collections to determine whether they have the remains of Native American individuals, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony. Under NAGPRA the word “museum” has a broad definition that includes traditional museums, state and local governments, and colleges and universities. The agencies and museums are to determine who the affiliated Tribal Nations are, notify them that they have these remains or objects, and consult with them on repatriation. Museums and institutions that fail to comply with NAGPRA are barred from receiving federal funding and are fined daily until they come into compliance.

Narration (Graveline): Even though the legislation passed in 1990, the repatriation process was a long time in the making for the Pueblo of Jemez. George Toya, a Jemez Pueblo tribal member, assisted the tribal archaeologist William Whatley with Jemez’s first repatriation following the National Museum of the American Indian Act, as well as the 1999 repatriation which fell under NAGPRA.

G. Toya: My name is George Toya. Jemez name is (speaks Towa). I am a Jemez Pueblo tribal member. As I recall, it started in the early 90s, or at about '89 or so when I first talked to William Whatley. And he had, he told me that, that a couple of the traditional leaders who he was in contact with or who became close associates of his had asked him about some Jemez artifacts and about some of the artifacts that were missing. And if he could help them find them. And so, they asked him what he knew about Jemez artifacts, and where they were stored or displayed--in what collections or museums, they could go to find them. Mainly in the eastern United States, because some of the tribal members have been to museums and had seen certain artifacts from the Pueblo of Jemez that shouldn't have been displayed. And so, the word got back to the traditional leaders saying, you know, “How can we get these back? Or how can we get them to take them off, off display?” And so there was, so that started the whole process, and about that time, too, is the time that NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, was adopted. And so, there are many meetings within the small groups here in the Pueblo which consisted of some of the traditional societies. And they had their meetings and were trying to figure out how to begin this process, you know, and so, it was really new to everybody, including, you know, William and myself, and so we did have to do a lot of research. We had to read what NAGPRA was all about, we had to study it and then once we figured it out, then the traditional leaders and the Jemez People along with along with William Whatley decided that would serve as a way to recover the artifacts--the NAGPRA--and that were either stolen or sold to a number of collectors and museums. But, you know, within the Pueblo here throughout the entire process, you know, from the first repatriation onto the next, there was complete collaboration within the societies and then the Pueblo people. And so, everybody agreed on how the process should go, and there wasn't very much dissension or anything like that, you know, everybody just wanted to get the artifacts back.

Narration (Graveline): This was a long and arduous process for everyone involved. It took years to do all the background work. Pueblo tribal representatives visited the Museum of the American Indian in New York, following the National Museum of the American Indian Act, and later visited the Peabody Museum at Harvard. This was the legwork that needed to be done for repatriation to even be considered. George Toya remembers late nights and reconnaissance trips with William Whatley.

G. Toya: So altogether, it took probably, I would say, eight to ten years, of doing research and of searching for, you know, finding the museums. And once we found the museums, we had to research the museum records. And, you know, they didn't just say, “Here's the records.” They give you the whole thing, he says, “Find them yourself,” you know, so, so that was a hard process, you know, and it took, it took lots of time, because, you know, it took a lot of reading and, you know, like, sometimes we would start at, you know, at seven or eight o'clock at night and or in the evening when he got home from work and, and we go to his house, in Albuquerque, and we wouldn't get out of there until, you know, four in the morning, you know, just going through things all the time. Until we find all these things, and then, but once the records were obtained, and gone over, then the remains and the artifacts had to be visually observed by Jemez Pueblo, either the elders or society members to verify that they were in fact Jemez Pueblo artifacts, you know, so we didn't have any funds, there was no funding to do this. So we, we did some bake sales, we did other types of fundraising, to get the money just to buy a plane ticket, you know. And so, the trips were, they were all done on a shoestring budget, and we shared hotel rooms and packaged food in our luggage and did a lot of walking, you know, man, we walk miles and just going from one place to another, and most of the time, we didn't know where we were going. So, it was just like, he dropped us off. And we go look around until we find what we're looking for, you know. And then. So, you know, when the artifacts were identified at the museum, a small delegation of tribal members, sometimes only one or two, along with Bill Whatley would travel to the museum. And then once we were at the museum, whoever was there with Mr. Whatley, he would, he would usually pull the museum director or whoever was showing us around, he would pull them aside and say, “Can we go talk about this?” you know, he would take them in another room, while we were with the artifacts, and we would write down the numbers, you know, the identifying numbers and descriptions of the artifacts. And so, so in the end, you know, we were able to identify each artifact, by number and description. And once that was--if we could take pictures--it was hard, because we weren't allowed to take cameras or anything in there. So, but we did sneak some. And so, once they were all recorded by ID numbers and physical description, we would compile a written list. And then once we had all the information together, then a formal complaint, formal claim would be made to the museum. And then most of the time, our lists of the artifacts were more detailed and complete than the museum's, you know, and that's what made the process go so much quicker, because the museum would say that, “Oh, it's gonna take us a year or so to compile all this information, to get all this information together.” And then Bill Whatley would just pull out the papers and say, “Are you talking about these items?” And so, they there was no nothing, no recourse they could take you know, so. So that's why we were the first ones to come up--I mean to do the repatriation. And it was large numbers of items. Because of the footwork we did, you know.

Narration (Graveline): Once museums had completed their inventories and notified the affiliated tribal nations, the next step was for the museums and tribes to engage in consultation about the individuals and artifacts. This can be a very complicated process because there are usually multiple affiliated tribes with an interest in repatriation. In the case of Pecos Pueblo, there are multiple tribal nations with an affiliation to the site; however, Jemez Pueblo has such a clear line of descent from Pecos that other tribal nations deferred to Jemez Pueblo on decisions for the 1999 repatriation. Because of Pecos Pueblo’s history as a major indigenous trade center, it was recognized that some of the individuals taken from Pecos were probably not of Pecos descent. However, it was decided during consultation that it did not matter what an individual’s origins were; all of the excavated individuals would be repatriated to the Pueblo of Jemez and reburied at Pecos National Historical Park near their original resting place. It took several years of consultation between museums and Jemez Pueblo to get to the 1999 Pecos repatriation. Raymond Gachupin was the Governor of Jemez the year the repatriation took place.

Gachupin: In 1999, lo and behold, a year after I was a First Lieutenant, I was appointed as the Governor. And that was the year that we- this whole thing kind of came to fruition. And the whole repatriation started to take shape at that point. And it happened. So that's basically kind of my role was to keep it rolling. But I put a lot of faith and trust in Bill Whatley because he's the one that I kind of basically just gave the reins. I said “Do it. Do it and run with it. I'll be there to support in any way that I can in my capacity as a governor.”

Narration (Graveline): The Andover Peabody and Harvard Peabody were not the only institutions repatriating individuals and items to Jemez Pueblo in 1999. The Maxwell Museum of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico had items from excavations done when Pecos Pueblo was a New Mexico State Historic Site and Pecos National Historical Park had items to repatriate as well. Judy Reed was the Cultural Resource Manager at the park beginning in 1995 and through the 1999 repatriation. We discussed the park’s collection and what was repatriated.

Reed: The park’s collection that they quote, owned, was very minimal that met the letter of the law of NAGPRA. And we had, you know, a tooth, a human remain, a bone or two, I guess. And we had a couple of what would be called sacred objects. And I don't think we had any burial objects because we didn't have a- we never, as a Park Service entity- never excavated a full burial that I recollect. And so, we had bits and pieces that just kind of showed up because there's a lot of fill from the Pueblo that got dumped in other places when we had to put in a water line or something- bits and pieces of human remains would show up. So, we had the fewest of all the entities involved. I would say maybe three or four, maybe five individuals from human remains, bits and pieces could be identified. We had maybe a sacred object that happened to be in the collection, that I think I remember one that Jemez thought was sacred, and I think it got reburied, but we had no burial items. So, we had probably less than 10 items and everybody else, you know, like the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard, they had nearly 2000 human remains. And of course, the burial items belong to- at the time, Robert S. Peabody Museum in Andover at Phillips Academy. And although they were stored at the park, they didn't belong to the park, they never had belonged to the park. So, they were the entities that had the most work to do in this whole process.

Narration (Graveline): When NAGPRA was passed, it permanently changed the relationship between the archaeological community, museums, government agencies and tribal nations. Jim Bradley, the former director of the Andover Peabody remembers his initial reaction to NAGPRA.

Bradley: I felt NAGPRA was- well, initially, I was taken aback, because that is a huge change in the lay of the land, the way things are done. It didn't take a lot of thought, for me to decide it was the right thing. Let's just say, as a museum professional, I've seen enough abuses. And because I know and like Indian people, I felt there was validity in what they were asking for, which essentially, was equal protection under the law. So, and then it happened to fit very well with what my needs at Andover were in terms of getting some kind of intellectual control over what was sitting in that building, and where it had come from, and what needed to be done with it. So, from a pragmatic point of view, it was easy to say NAGPRA is great, but I think from a personal point of view, and I feel this even more strongly, and certainly my six years on the review committee, you know, it undid an injustice. Human remains, Indian bones, sacred objects should not be in there with mastodon teeth and stuffed sparrows and natural history specimens. It's just, it's just not right. So, I'm glad that that has been corrected. And I think the museum community has found that this has not destroyed their livelihood. And in fact, in many ways it's created partnerships, as we did with Jemez and Pecos, that has completely enriched their programming. And that's good for everybody.

Graveline: Today, NAGPRA has opened up a dialogue between Native American tribes and the archaeological community. Archaeologists and scientists now consult with Native American tribes and make sure to clearly explain the value of the archaeological record, the material past, and its preservation. Today, many Native American groups, including the Pueblo of Jemez, acknowledge the scientific value of archaeology. Jim Bradley of the Andover Peabody, recalls how the dialogue of consultation with Jemez eventually led to each side understanding the other’s perspective.

Bradley: And you know, as far as they know, someone came, dug up a bunch of their ancestors and took them way back east. And so, while we began to understand what harm that had done in the Pueblo community in Jemez, and you know, from their point of view, you don't just wrench a part of the community away and not have consequences, there are consequences, and they were not good consequences. On the other hand, they began to understand that in our own weird, Western techno fetishy way, we had put a lot of effort into that collection. And so, they started to say, “You know, you've actually been good at surrogate parents, and we are happy to work with you now, to see the right things done.”

Narration (Graveline): Following the 1999 repatriation, the Pueblo of Jemez supported the Harvard Peabody in publishing Pecos Pueblo Revisited, which pulled together the documentation related to the Pecos items that had been in the Harvard Peabody collection and had been repatriated to the Pueblo of Jemez. Michele Morgan was a curatorial assistant at the Harvard Peabody in 1999 and edited the book.

Morgan: Pecos Pueblo Revisited is an edited volume. And the idea for the book came- really developed after the physical repatriation in 1999. I mean, as we've just discussed, a tremendous amount of work went in to producing the inventories and so much knowledge was gained and shared during the many consultation visits and communications. So, the Peabody Museum data verification process had resolved and corrected many questions regarding the provenance of the human remains and the associated funerary objects. And then that together with the physical documentation that I had done, you know, that generated standardized descriptions of all of the human remains from Pecos. So, it seemed important to me to make this available both as a kind of a final record of documentation, but also as a resource for future research and then through conversations with Trish, and we talked about it with members from the Pueblo of Jemez and with other scholars that the scope of the book ended up expanding to really include as much primary data as possible. Along with new insights that were gained into what we call the biological and the social context of those connected to Pecos. And I really would like to stress how grateful I am to the members of the Pueblo of Jemez who were so generous with their knowledge and with their interest in the work that Trish and I and the team were doing, it was really invaluable.

Graveline: Jeremy Moss, Pecos National Historical Park’s Chief of Resource Stewardship explains how NAGPRA changed the relationship between institutions and tribal nations in a broader context:

Moss: Before NAGPRA archeologists really gave little thought to the feelings of Native Americans when it comes to the disturbance of burials. And a lot of decisions were being made without talking to the descendants of these prehistoric cultures, because we have to recognize in many of these places in the Southwest, we can make a direct connection between modern-day Native groups and these prehistoric sites or the ancestors. So, really recognizing that has changed a lot- we consult a lot more, we also consider how we design projects, both on archaeological projects and facility projects to make sure that we're disturbing less, and really trying to focus on what are our research questions, and often trying to avoid disturbance of human remains, because of the fact that we recognize that it causes a lot of pain for Native Americans- the idea that their ancestors are being disturbed for a scientific inquiry. It's also created a bit of, you know, conflict and consternation in the archaeological community because ultimately, it's about learning about the past through things that are left behind. But to a lot of Native Americans, they don't want us to view their ancestors as objects- as things, and that's why we refer to them as individuals. And we try to avoid using the term "human remains" because it implies that they're just objects to be studied. But these terms tend to stick, and they're hard for us to lose easily. Not everybody understands what it means when we say individuals. NAGPRA, has also changed the practice of archaeology because it has legal, political, social, and intellectual ramifications, some of which we've touched on.

A big thing NAGPRA also changes is that it really gives Native Americans property rights to grave goods, cultural patrimony, and a right to repatriate which is ultimately what we're talking about today as it relates to Pecos. NAGPRA does not apply on private lands, however. It only applies to federal lands or- individuals or associates funerary objects acquired during federal projects. So that creates a lot of consternation, you can imagine, amongst Native American groups, because they do not see a distinction in property when we go back to prehistory when none of the land was really owned.

Graveline: George Toya, who assisted with the legwork for multiple repatriations to Jemez Pueblo gives a Jemez perspective on NAGPRA.

G. Toya: Well, though the repatriation of the artifacts and human remains is thought by the museums and the scientific community to be a huge scientific loss. But then there's also the moral aspect of having respect for the remains of our ancestors. And they don't deserve to be kept in boxes, and in the cold shells of a building, that are thousands of miles away from their home, you know, from where they originated, and each one of the ancestors that was dug up and taken- they were buried with respect and ceremony and items that- to help them on their journey to the afterlife. And there's so many other remains of other indigenous people throughout the world that are being kept in museums and warehouses that need to be returned to their people. And with the- and now with the news of the remains of indigenous children that died in Christian boarding schools, across the US and Canada and the rest of the world where European colonizers attempted to kill the Indian and save the kid, the child, you know, the ongoing repatriation effort will continue for the next few generations. And we need to understand that although the human remains and artifacts that are held in the most prestigious museums throughout the world, are beautiful and interesting to observe, the majority of them were just taken or stolen without regards for the feelings or opinions of the descendants of those people. That's what I got.

Graveline: NAGPRA was long time coming for Native Americans and when it was passed by Congress and signed by the president, it shook the foundations of the museum world. It has enabled hundreds of tribal nations to repatriate their ancestors and funerary objects, along with sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. In many cases, museums and federal agencies have developed new relationships with their affiliated tribal nations and dialogues have been started. There is now a sense of common purpose. Jeremy sums up for us:

Moss: I think from my perspective, the shift in ethics has to do with shifting away from a merely collections-focused archaeology and endeavor to just stuff museums with cool stuff that will allow people- towards more of a focus on targeted research questions and also involving tribal communities in developing these research questions. So, we're not just trying to collect things to collect things. We have scope of collections that define what we're supposed to be collecting and why. And the limitations on that now, since NAGPRA came in, you know, really relate to human remains and individuals as well, we really try to avoid bringing human remains into our collections. Partially because of NAGPRA, but also because the Native American groups have told us, they don't want their ancestors in a box on a shelf. So, you know, we try and leave individuals or human remains in place as much as possible.

And sometimes there are cases where, you know, Native groups are working with archaeologists, and this has become much more common and is really also developed out of NAGPRA, it's kind of forced us to work together more, which has made a much more richer, you know, understanding of the past, and much more richer narrative where, you know, we study human remains in place, within the burial and don't remove them from the burial, and then rebury them right in place. So, they don't even have to be brought into a collection storage facility, catalogued, go through that whole process. So sometimes that happens, because there are a lot of Native groups who are really interested in learning about the past, because we can learn a lot by studying, you know, individuals in burial context, not only religious aspects, but aspects of diet, health in the past, mortality, many things that help us understand how people used to live and hopefully can inform us for today.

Narration (Graveline): Join us next time on Hollowed to Hallowed as we discuss the 1999 repatriation and reburial event at Pecos National Historical Park.