Repatriation

"15. Notice of Intent to Repatriate a Cultural Item: Denver Museum of Nature & Sciences, Denver, CO (August 29, 2008).  In 1972 the museum paid Juan Melchoir of New Mexico’s Cochiti Pueblo $150 for a 26” x 19” x 2’ sandstone slab known as a piki stone, which dates to around 1930 and was “used by his family for several generations for baking piki bread” made of corn meal, water and ashes.  Representatives of Cochiti Pueblo maintained the piki stone “as used, and if repatriated would continue to be used, in traditional cooking ceremonies, conducted throughout the year by appointed Cochiti women, during times of traditional society events.  These events involve many culturally sensitive ceremonies in which cooking and piki bread, are of major significance to conduct the ceremony.”  In other words, the representatives viewed the piki stone as a “sacred object” under NAGPRA.  According to the notice, the “few references that could be found would suggest that such stones are ‘privately owned real property’ which can be owned, exchanged, traded, purchased, and inherited.”  While the tribe agreed “some stones are privately held, during consultation the Pueblo of Cochiti offered compelling evidence that a few special ones are communally owned and are stored in communal piki houses.  They are used by community members for specific ceremonies.”  This would make such stones both “sacred objects” and “objects of cultural patrimony.”  The museum agreed to turn the piki stone over to the Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico."   (American Indian Art, Vol. 34(1):95, Winter 2008).

    “Notice is hereby given under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 43 CFR 10.10 (a)(3), of the intent to repatriate a cultural item from the Prince William Sound and Kachemak Bay Regions, AK in the possession of the University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK which meets the definition of ``unassociated funerary object'' under Section 2 of the Act. The one cultural item consists of worked bone.  In 1931, this cultural item was recovered near a burial on Cottonwood Creek, AK during excavations conducted by Frederica de Laguna of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. In 1953, this cultural item was sent to the University of Alaska Museum from the University of Pennsylvania Museum as part of an exchange collection. The human remains recovered with this cultural item have previously been repatriated from the University of Pennsylvania.” (Federal Register, Vol. 65(62): 16960-16961, 30 March 2000)

   “ Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves  Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent  to repatriate a cultural item in the possession of the Bernice Pauahi  Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, that meets the definition of ``unassociated funerary object'' under 25 U.S.C. 3001.  In 1937, Emma Turnbull removed a cultural item in the sands of a West Molokai beach, Molokai Island, HI. The cultural item is one rock oyster pendant.  It is believed that Ms. Turnbull most likely found the pendant in an area known as Mo'omomi. In 1976, Ms.Turnbull's daughter, Mrs.J.D. Korsund, wrote to the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum requesting information on the pendant and mentioned that the pendant was found in an area that had human remains. In 1985, Ms. Turnbull sent a letter to the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum stating that she was sending the pendant as a gift to the museum and that there were many bones in the area where she picked up the pendant. In June of that same year, Ms.Turnbull signed the deed of gift for the pendant to the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum has classified the pendant as a ``niho palaoa'' due to its similarity in shape to other Hawaiian pendants usually made from animal ivory or whale teeth.”

  “ Consultation was held with the representatives of the Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei, Maui/Lanai Island Burial Council, Molokai Island Burial Council, Na Lei Ali'i Kawananakoa, and Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts. Based on Ms. Turnbull's description that the pendant was found in an area with evidence of burials, it was concluded during consultation that this pendant may be classified as an unassociated funerary object.”

    Dated: July 5, 2005 (Federal Register, Vol. 70(148): 44687-44688, 3 August 2005)