The archaeological past is negotiable. And we don't mean "negotiating" the past as in constant critical reapparaisal of ideas in view of new evidence, fresh insights, or re-evaluation of old evidence. If you're not familiar with the topic, here's a very good article on the politics of the repatriation of remains.

Concerning a different but related issue is this new bill presented in the House this summer, whose purpose is "to protect sacred Native American Federal land from significant damage". I'll be digging up more info and writing more about it, but you might want to take a look at that link and chew on the implications. First, you might want to consider the definition of federal land - "(1) FEDERAL LAND- The term `Federal land' means any land or interests in land owned by the United States, including leasehold interests held by the United States, except Indian trust lands" - and then google up a map of the U.S. with federal land delineated.

For now I'll just point out a few more definitions and items of interest in the bill. [All italic emphasis mine - mb]

SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE- The term `significant damage' means any action or activity which results in the loss of the sacred meaning and value of the site to the affected Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Hmmm. A lot of land and a lot of vagueness we've got here.

(1) IN GENERAL- Any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization shall have the right to petition any department or agency of the United States with administrative jurisdiction over Federal land to have Federal land under the jurisdiction of that department or agency designated as unsuitable for any or certain types of undertaking.

(2) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE- Such a petition shall contain allegations of facts with supporting evidence which would tend to establish the allegations. Oral history and Native science shall be given no less weight than any other evidence. After an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization has filed a petition under this section, and before the hearing as required by this subsection, any person may file allegations of facts, with supporting evidence, that are relevant to the petition.

If you're curious about the definition of "Native science", it is provided:

(4) NATIVE SCIENCE- The term `Native science'--

(A) means the oral knowledge of Native Americans gained throughout history by observation and experience;

(B) embodies traditional tribal lifestyles and values;

(C) is based on the fundamental belief of the sanctity of all life;

(D) is guided by principles that include interdependency, reciprocity, and the significance of place;

(E) is a living, spiritual knowledge of the relationships between the land, natural resources, and the environment; and

(F) is transferred from one generation to the next often through oral tradition and practice.

You might want to ponder that for a bit, but to my mind an even more interesting part of the bill concerns "confidentiality":

(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 5 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act) or any other law, no information obtained as a result of or in connection with a petition filed or a hearing held under this Act that contains a reference pertaining to a specific detail of a Native American traditional cultural practice or religion, or the significance of an Indian or Native Hawaiian sacred land, or the location of that sacred land, shall be released except as provided in subsection (c). [Subsection (c) allows a waiver of this section by petitioners.]

Now let me see what more I can find out about the status of this bill.

(Thanks to Friends of America's Past for the alert.)

Posted by Moira Breen at December 03, 2003 05:12 AM