Overview
Title
Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, Denver, CO
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology found a very old tooth that belongs to the Pawnee Nation, a Native American tribe. They are working with the tribe to make sure the tooth goes back to its rightful owners, and if no one else asks for it by March 26, 2021, the tooth will go to the Pawnee Nation.
Summary AI
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology has completed an inventory of Native American human remains discovered at the Buick Camp Site in Elbert County, Colorado. These remains, a tooth dating back to 664-770 A.D., are identified as being culturally affiliated with the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma. The museum is collaborating with Native American Tribes to ensure proper handling and transfer of these remains. Anyone from a Native American Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not listed in the notice who wishes to claim the remains has until March 26, 2021, to submit a request. If no additional claims are made, the remains will be transferred to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Abstract
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present- day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register provides crucial information about the process of transferring control of Native American human remains discovered at the Buick Camp Site in Elbert County, Colorado. These remains have been dated back to 664-770 A.D. and are associated culturally with the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma. The document outlines the methodology for other Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations to make a claim for these remains before their eventual transfer to the Pawnee Nation if no additional claims are received by March 26, 2021.
General Summary
The document is an official notice by the National Park Service on behalf of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, addressing the inventory of Native American human remains. The remains, a specific type of tooth, were rediscovered in 2020 after having been removed in the 1950s from a site known for its historical significance to Native American cultures, specifically the Pawnee Nation. It provides a deadline for other tribes or organizations to submit requests for control of the remains and indicates the procedures to follow.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One of the primary concerns with this document is the accessibility of its language and concepts to the general public. For instance, terms like "transfer of control," "repatriation," and "cultural affiliation" are used but not clearly defined. This might cause confusion among readers unfamiliar with the legal or anthropological aspects of these processes.
Furthermore, the document references a "shovel shaped incisor with a groove between the enamel and the tooth root," which could benefit from more context or explanation for laypersons to understand its significance thoroughly.
Broad Public Impact
The document reflects the ongoing responsibilities of museums and federal agencies in complying with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). For the general public, it underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity and legal procedures in handling human remains, which play a part in historical and cultural preservation.
This notice exemplifies federal and institutional efforts to correct historical oversights by ensuring that Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations have a voice and authority over ancestral remains and artifacts.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations: This document could foster positive engagement and cultural reconciliation by facilitating the return of ancestral remains to their rightful communities. However, it also presents potential challenges if multiple claims arise or if disputes occur regarding the identity and proper repatriation of the remains, an issue not addressed within the notice.
Museums and Cultural Institutions: Such notices hold these institutions accountable and encourage them to maintain transparent inventories of culturally significant artifacts. This can lead to better public trust and opportunities for collaboration with indigenous communities.
Legal and Anthropological Communities: The notice offers a practical example of how laws like NAGPRA are applied, providing important case studies for professionals involved in cultural heritage and legal frameworks protecting indigenous rights.
Overall, while the notice presents an important step in cultural repatriation, its impact could be more comprehensive with clear, accessible language and a detailed explanation of potential disputes and procedural steps for involved parties.
Issues
• The document describes the process of transferring control of human remains, but it might not be clear to all readers what exactly 'transfer of control' entails in practical terms.
• The notice mentions a 'shovel shaped incisor with a groove between the enamel and the tooth root' but does not provide sufficient layman explanation or context for this identification.
• The document uses terms like 'repatriation' and 'cultural affiliation' assumed to be understood by the reader, which might not be accessible to all audiences.
• The procedure for other Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations to submit a request is provided, but it might benefit from a more simplified step-by-step explanation.
• No information is provided on how disputes or disagreements about the repatriation process would be handled, which could be important information for involved parties.