Overview
Title
Notice of Inventory Completion: Marshall University, Huntington, WV
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Marshall University is planning to give back some very old bones to Native American tribes because the bones belong to their ancestors. The University wanted to make sure they gave them to the right people, so they figured out which tribes to give them to and will start returning the bones in February 2025.
Summary AI
Marshall University has completed an inventory of human remains and determined a cultural affiliation with several Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. These remains were found at Huntington Mound in West Virginia and were identified during a review of a collection at the University's Geology Department. The University is making plans under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to repatriate these remains starting February 18, 2025. Repurchasers can include the listed tribes or any other group proving a connection; in cases of multiple claims, Marshall University will decide the most appropriate requestor.
Abstract
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Marshall University has completed an inventory of human and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Marshall University's recent notice, published in the Federal Register, pertains to the inventory and repatriation of Native American human remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This legislation is designed to ensure that human remains and certain cultural items are returned to their rightful Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.
Summary of the Document
The notice details that Marshall University has completed an inventory of human remains initially unearthed from a site known as Huntington Mound in Cabell County, West Virginia. These remains were discovered during a review of a collection managed by the Geology Department of the University and were traced back to a donation made by an avocational archaeologist in 1959. With this inventory completed, the University has identified a cultural link between the remains and a wide array of recognized Indian Tribes, as well as Native Hawaiian organizations, and is moving forward with repatriation efforts commencing no earlier than February 18, 2025.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues may arise from this document:
Consultation and Determination Processes: The document hints at consultations that informed the determination of cultural affiliation, yet it does not thoroughly detail the consultation process. This can leave readers questioning the methods and criteria used to establish these ties.
Overwhelming List of Affiliates: The listing of numerous tribes and organizations, while thorough, may be intimidating or confusing to some readers, as it includes many entities with similar or overlapping cultural backgrounds.
Handling Competing Repatriation Requests: The document outlines potential scenarios of competing repatriation requests but lacks specifics on how the University will adjudicate these situations, which may lead to procedural ambiguities.
Storage Justification at Geology Department: There is insufficient information regarding the reasons human remains were stored at the Geology Department, which may raise questions about the university's policies or practices in managing such sensitive materials.
Post-Repatriation Actions: The notice does not speak to preservation or conservation measures post-repatriation, which might be a concern for tribes and organizations interested in maintaining the integrity of the remains.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, this document signals an adherence to federal laws concerning the repatriation of human remains, potentially increasing public awareness of historical and cultural restitution. However, due to the complexities within the notice, its effectiveness in clearly communicating processes and implications to the general public may be limited.
For specific stakeholders, the notice represents significant progress in the acknowledgment and return of culturally significant remains to rightful tribes and organizations. For these tribes, this could have a positive cultural and emotional impact, offering opportunities for traditional practices and ancestral veneration. Conversely, the lack of clarity on certain processes may fuel frustration among these stakeholders if they perceive their interests are not being fully considered or understood in the repatriation process.
Overall, while the notice outlines necessary steps towards repatriation, resolving the investigated concerns could foster more effective engagement and communication with all parties involved.
Issues
• The document does not specify the exact nature or extent of the 'consultation' mentioned regarding cultural affiliation, which may make it unclear to some readers how the determinations were made.
• The language used in listing of all Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations is complex due to the sheer number of entities, which may be overwhelming for some readers.
• The document does not provide any information regarding the review process if there are competing requests for repatriation, which may lead to ambiguity in how decisions are made.
• The mention of the 'collection housed at Marshall University's Geology Department' lacks clarity in explaining why or how human remains were stored there, which could lead to questions about administrative procedures at the University.
• The document does not address any preservation or conservation actions post-repatriation, which might be a concern for stakeholders interested in the integrity of the remains.