Do you want to do your own research?

Consult Books

David R. M. Beck. “Collecting Among the Menomini,” American Indian Quarterly 34 (2), 2010. Historian Beck takes the position that all collecting of objects was “cultural assault.” His main criticism of the ethnographers who worked among the Menominee is that their research did not benefit the Menominee, nor did it present Native religion accurately.

Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, ed. Indians and Anthropologists, 1997. In this volume, Randall H. McGuire explains that archaeologists’ avoidance of engagement with Native Americans was rooted in the myth of the vanishing Indian. Archaeologists viewed themselves as stewards of an extinct way of life, successful in preserving sites and establishing that the Native American past was part of the American heritage. In more recent years, archaeologists have commonly involved Native Americans in their research projects with good results. Zimmerman also stresses that partnerships between Indians and archaeologists (some of whom are Indians) actually improve the science of archaeology.

Frances Densmore. Chippewa Customs, 1929. Anthropologist Densmore provides a great deal of information about the ethic of sharing, individual medicine power, and mortuary customs among the Wisconsin Ojibwa.

Fred Ettawageshik. “Ghost Suppers,” in American Anthropologist n.s. 45, 3, 1943. This Ottawa author describes how Ottawa families prepare feasts and invite all community members to commemorate the spirit of their deceased relative. To honor the deceased, they give gifts. Ottawas go from one supper to the other throughout their community. These suppers are now held in November (rather than in the spring) because missionaries associated the custom with feast days of the church.

Kathleen S. Fine-Dare. Grave Injustice, 2002. Anthropologist Fine-Dare discusses the historical and legal contexts of the repatriation movement and the implementation of NAGPRA with its complications and problems. Her examples are largely from the Southwest. She argues that the process is replete with injustices and that NAGPRA is not merely a legal matter but also involves religious, humanitarian, and human rights concerns.

Andrew Gulliford. Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 2000. Written for the general public, this book surveys the history of the treatment of Native American remains and sacred objects and argues that the repatriation movement led to thriving tribal museums and to curatorial training and participation of Native Americans in museum work.

M. Inez Hilger. Chippewa Child Life and Its Cultural Background, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 146, 1951. This ethnographer provides details about childhood as well as mortuary ritual, the Dream Dance, and Ojibwa life in general.

Oliver Lamere and Paul Radin. “Description of a Winnebago Funeral,” American Anthropologist n.s. 13, 3, 1911. The authors witnessed the funeral of a member of the Bear Clan and the role of the Wolf Clan in the ritual. Every clan was paired with another and they had reciprocal duties at funerals. Warriors told war stories at the grave to assist the soul in its journey. The authors describe the four-night feast at the grave and gift-giving to the bereaved.

Ruth Landes. Ojibwa Religion and the Midewiwin, 1968. Anthropologist Landes worked on the Red Lake reservation in the 1930s. This book has information about subsistence and religious beliefs and activities, including the Medicine Lodge.

Ruth Landes. Ojibwa Sociology, 1937. This book includes a chapter on the various kinds of property and its uses.

Nancy Oestreich Lurie. “American Indians and Museums,” The Old Northwest 2 (3), 1976. Lurie, who became curator of anthropology at the Milwaukee Public Museum in 1972, discusses the work of museum curators in the early 20th century who sought to do research on collections to answer questions about culture change and persistence. They bought everyday items from Indians (including objects that could be easily replaced, tourist art, and objects that were technologically outmoded) and provided a safe place for sacred objects or family heirlooms when there was no interested custodial successor or there were threats from federal officials. Lurie argues that, although there were instances of thefts and trickery, the majority of museum acquisitions were uncontroversial conveyances and economic transactions. Indians visited museums to make offerings to sacred objects or to educate young people. Many of the activists of the 1970s had a more critical view of museum collections, however, and they focused on trying to reclaim objects as part of a cultural revitalization movement.

James McClurken. Our People, Our Journey, 2009. This excellent book about the Ottawas in Michigan provides general information and many photographs, including one of a Ghost Supper.

C. Timothy McKeown. “Repatriation,” in Indians in Contemporary Society, ed. Garrick A. Bailey, Handbook of North American Indians, v. 2, 2008. The author provides a history of Indian activism on this issue and a history of national legislation on Indian remains. He also reports that after 1990 26 percent of the inventoried remains could be culturally affiliated with a tribe or lineal descendant. Few sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony have been repatriated, in part because museums used poison to preserve these items and they now pose health risks.

Devon A. Mihesuah, ed. Repatriation Reader, 2000. This collection of essays expresses a range of interests and opinions, including Robert E. Bieder on the historical context of the exhibition of the human body, Curtis M. Hinsley on how collecting became central to local and national identity, and Robert J. Mallouf on the problem of the looting of archaeological sites (including burials). Mihesuah makes the point that disagreements over NAGPRA implementation occur between Indians and Indians, Indians and scientists, and scientists and scientists.

Cary Miller. “Gifts as Treaties,” in American Indian Quarterly 26, 2, 2002. The author explains the meaning of gifts to the Anishinaabeg people and explores how gift giving created and maintained relationships of mutual obligation. Historian Miller focuses on early diplomatic encounters between Great Lakes tribes and the U. S.

J. Anthony Paredes, ed. Anishinabe, 1980. The ethnographers’ essays document Ojibwa community life in Minnesota in the late 1960s. Generalized sharing and gift-giving ceremonies at powwows and traditional mortuary rites on Memorial Day are described.

Nancy J. Parezo and Don D. Fowler. Anthropology Goes to the Fair, 2007. The authors focus on the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, describing the role of anthropologists in planning exhibits and promoting the profession of anthropology, as well as detailing the experiences of the non-Western peoples there. The book provides information about Native American participants (including seven Kickapoos from Kansas , a group of Ojibwa from Minnesota, and several Ojibwa, Menominee, Winnebago, Oneida, Potawatomi, and Kickapoo children from boarding schools). Among the topics discussed are the performances for tourists, money-making activities, and the ways that Native people tried to prevent unwanted intrusions and disrespect. The authors also provide much detail about the daily life of the children in the model school. An appendix gives the names of the participants.

Alanson Skinner. “Collecting Among the Menomini,” Wisconsin Archeologist 3 (4), 1924. Anthropologist Skinner describes how he purchased individually-owned medicine bags through gifts of tobacco and negotiations over price from people who no longer wanted to rely on their medicine bags, for example, converts to other religions.

Janet D. Spector. What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village, 1993. The author discusses archaeological research at Little Rapids site in Minnesota, where the Wahpeton Dakota had a summer village in the early to the mid-19th century. Spector and her colleagues excavated for four summers in the 1980s, while collaborating with Dakota descendants of the villagers who once lived there, and drew on historical records. Research established how men and women used their property (for example, tools), what work was done by men and by women, and what this work meant to the Dakota. Spector argues that women’s work was not less valued than men’s, and she makes a strong case for the value of collaboration between archaeologists and Native people.

David Hurst Thomas. Skull Wars, 2000. Archaeologist Thomas views the struggle over the control of Native remains as a much broader battle over control of America’s ancient past. The federal government entrusted the record of the past to archaeology, and Indians were perceived as untutored amateurs or archaic survivals destined to disappear. Thomas argues that this viewpoint about Indians was reflected in a mainstream narrative, as well as academic circles. NAGPRA acknowledged the Indian past as relevant to the American present and recognized the Indian perspective on America’s past.

Thomas Vennum, Jr. The Ojibwa Dance Drum, 1982. The author provides a well-illustrated study of the history of the Dream Dance in the Great Lakes region and a description of the ritual itself.

View Videos

“Myths and the Moundbuilders.” PBS video, 1981. 60 mi. The program discusses the early attempts to study cultural evolution from Indian remains and the modern critique of this effort. The program also shows archaeologists working to understand how horticulture and dietary change affected the moundbuilders.

“Thieves of Time.” PBS video produced by Don Hopfer for KAET-TV, 1998, 30 mi. This program provides a history of repatriation, focusing on the human remains issue and NAGPRA. It does a good job discussing how Indian remains and sacred objects became the property of the federal government and the American public, and discusses the damage done by “pot hunters,” that is, individual collectors who deal in antiquities for profit. The video concludes by discussing the new research partnerships between archaeologists and Indians.

“Who Owns the Past?” PBS video, produced by Jed Riff, 2002, 56 mi. This program gives a history of the repatriation movement, and also discusses the Kennewick Man controversy over who should control what happens to a 9,000-year-old skeleton found in Washington.

Use Online Sources

National NAGPRA resource site at the National Park Service
http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/
The National NAGPRA site offers information for tribes, museums, agencies, the public, and the press. For the public, a “Frequently Asked Questions” section addresses many commonly asked questions regarding NAGPRA and its implementing regulations. The website also offers a useful glossary, which defines many of the terms used when discussing NAGPRA (for example, “associated funerary objects,” “objects of cultural patrimony”). For those who want to know more about NAGPRA, one can find a PDF or text link to any of the midyear and final reports since 2002. The midyear and final reports contain the minutes of the Review Committee, where disagreements are handled. In addition, an “Online Database” section offers searchable databases where one can find out about the Notices of Inventory Completion (submitted by museums) and Notices of Intent to Repatriate (submitted by tribes) from 1993 to the present for tribes and museums across the United States. These databases are searchable by tribe, region, or museum. The following URL links to the searchable databases: https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/ONLINEDB/index.htm

Return to previous page