WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?
Indigenous students, alum and supporters at the University of Michigan
have blocked off one seat for each human being held by the University of
Michigan Museum of Anthropology. Each block of chairs represents a site
where indigenous person(s) were removed from the earth. The vast
majority is from Michigan, many taken from or near existing Indian
communities. Dozens of individuals are kept here even though the UMMA
has no posted information about the location of their disinternment, age or
culture.
U of M currently holds 1,390 human skeletal remains and 9,840 burial objects. In
January, the University declined the disposition submitted by the SaginawChippewas for some 400 remains taken from the their ancestral homelands.
While many sister institutions proactively and extensively collaborate with
tribes, the University of Michigan continues to alienate and anger Michigan’s
tribal communities with their practices concerning repatriation and “disposition.”
QUESTIONS & CONCERNS RE: UM PRACTICES
University of Michigan—holds 66% of Michigan’s unidentifiable human remains
Michigan State University—holds 5% of Michigan’s unidentifiable human remains
 There are 2,117 culturally unidentifiable human remains in Michigan
 U of M holds 1,390-----MSU holds 112
 MSU established proactive repatriation procedures They followed the spirit
and the letter of the law. MSU’s Native American Institute faculty worked
in conjunction with university archaeologists to proactively seek input from
tribal leaders and foster repatriation and “disposition” of ancestral remains.
 Unlike many other leading museums and universities, the University of
Michigan did not establish a repatriation committee or vibrant collaborative
relationships with Indian communities before declaring the cultural
affiliation of remains in its “collection.” No such committee or collaborative
policies currently exist in the museum’s public policies.
University of Minnesota—holds 5% of Minnesota’s unidentifiable human remains
 There are 1,249 unidentifiable human remains held by Minnesota’s public
institutions. The University of Minnesota and other state museums turned over
several thousand ancestral remains to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. The
majority of the remains were deemed culturally unidentifiable by these institutions.
1) Though new NAGPRA regulations on “culturally unidentifiable” remains are
in the works, they've been in the works for years. In the meantime, thousands of
"unidentifiable" remains have been given back to tribes by university museums
and other public institutions.
2) U of M has set a precedent of “dispossessing” "unidentifiable" remains. In
2006, they returned “unidentifiable” remains from Whitefish River, Ontario.
According to repatriation officers at Michigan’s Little River and Little Traverse
Bay bands, the university added “unidentifiable” ancestors when they handed
over “affiliated” remains.
3) If the remains are deemed “unidentifiable,” are they of any research value?
What can scholars say about bones that are claimed to have no identifiable
cultural affiliation? NAGPRA prohibits denying affiliation because remains are
desired for research unless it's a project of significant benefit to the U.S. This
provision has never been used.
4) The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology is not accredited by the
American Association of Museums. The UM Museum of Art and Kelsey Museum of
Archaeology are. Why isn’t the UMMA accredited? How would accreditation affect
their accountability? As a public institution started on a tribal land grant, is the
Museum of Archaeology not particularly bound to such ethics and professionalism?
BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS: In 1990. the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act passed into law. NAGPRA is, first and foremost, human rights
legislation. It was enacted to help protect the innate rights of indigenous peoples to
restore and protect their dead and their burial items. According to Sen. Daniel
Inouye, who advocated in favor of NAGPRA before the Senate, the law was created
to protect the “civil rights” of indigenous peoples. “(NAGPRA) is not about the
validity of museums or the value of scientific inquiry. Rather, it is about human
rights…. ”(136 Cong. Rec. S17174, October 26, 1990.)
This is a global problem. The world community has identified it as an irrefutable and
basic human right. Last September, the United Nations passed the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 12 states:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to …the use and control of their
ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human
remains. 2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of
ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair,
transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with
indigenous peoples concerned.
HOW DOES THE UMMA HOLD UP TO AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
MUSEUMS STANDARDS?
Below are excerpts from the American Association of Museums requirements and Code
of Ethics. The code was adopted in the early 1990s and revised a decade ago. According
to the AAM website, “stewardship of collections entails the highest public trust and
carries with it the presumption of rightful ownership, permanence, care, documentation,
accessibility, and responsible disposal.” (www.aam-us.org)
Thus, the museum ensures that:
 collections in its custody support its mission and public trust responsibilities

collections in its custody are accounted for and documented

access to the collections and related information is permitted and regulated

acquisition, disposal, and loan activities are conducted in a manner that respects
the protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources and
discourages illicit trade in such materials

acquisition, disposal, and loan activities conform to its mission and public trust
responsibilities

the unique and special nature of human remains and funerary and sacred objects
is recognized as the basis of all decisions concerning such collections

competing claims of ownership that may be asserted in connection with objects
in its custody should be handled openly, seriously, responsively and with respect
for the dignity of all parties involved.
This Code of Ethics for Museums takes that compliance as given. But legal
standards are a minimum. Museums and those responsible for them must do more
than avoid legal liability, they must take affirmative steps to maintain their
integrity so as to warrant public confidence. They must act not only legally but
also ethically. This Code of Ethics for Museums, therefore, outlines ethical
standards that frequently exceed legal minimums.
AAM governance guidelines require that museums “ensure that all these resources
support the museum's mission, respond to the pluralism of society, and respect the
diversity of the natural and cultural common wealth.”
“Each nonprofit museum member of the American Association of Museums should
subscribe to the AAM Code of Ethics for Museums. Subsequently, these museums should
set about framing their own institutional codes of ethics, which should be in conformance
with the AAM code and should expand on it through the elaboration of specific
practices.”