This site is no longer being
maintained at this location.

This section of the site Citizenship Rights has been moved to



The following sections HAVE NOT moved yet:

Intersectionality, Worldwide and Other Pages

Institutional Racism                                          X
01 Racial Groups                                         X
02 Citizenship Rights                                         X
03 Justice                                         X
04 Basic Needs                                         X
05 Intersectionality                                         X
06 Worldwide Issues                                         X
  Web Editor:

Vernellia R. Randall
Professor of Law
The University of Dayton






 Suzianne D. Painter-Thorne

Excerpted from: Suzianne D. Painter-Thorne, Contested Objects, Contested Meanings: Native American GraveProtection Laws and the Interpretation of Culture , 35 University of California Davis Law Review 1261- 1303, 1262-1264 (June, 2002) (299 Footnotes Omitted)


At the close of King Philip's War in 1676, Pilgrims in the town of Plymouth beheaded the Wampanoag Chief, Metacom. The colonists placed Metacom's severed head on a spike, where it remained on display for nearly twenty years. The Colony's religious leaders described their action as the proper way to deal with Native Americans, whom many of these leaders considered servants of the devil. The display served as a reminder--to both the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag--of the colonists' dominance over the native people. Thus, this first exhibit of Native American remains served both a political and religious purpose for the European exhibitors.

In the nineteenth century, museums provided more extensive displays of Native American remains and cultural objects. Museum curators determined which cultural objects in their possession would represent Native American culture. More importantly, these curators also determined how to display those objects and influenced the meanings attached to them. Without property rights over their ancestral remains, the tribes were unable to control the representation of those objects. Like the Pilgrims' display of Metacom's head, these subsequent exhibits of native remains failed to incorporate the views of those they purported to represent.

Since the early excavations of their burial sites, Native Americans sought recognition of their rights over their ancestors' remains and funerary objects. However, for much of the period after initial contact with Europeans, Native Americans lacked sufficient political influence to bring about any change. This condition of political powerlessness began to shift in the 1980s, when Native American activists focused on the theft of their tribes' ancestral remains and sacred objects. These activists raised concerns about the desecration of their ancestors' burial sites and the removal and collection of their ancestors' remains and sacred objects by museum curators and archaeologists. Further, the activists sought the return of Native American remains so that the tribes could rebury their ancestors according to their cultural traditions. Native Americans, however, lacked any legal claim to the remains and sacred objects.

Congress addressed the activists' demands by passing two laws granting Native Americans greater control over their tribes' ancestral remains and cultural objects.1 The first is the National Museum of the American Indian Act (Museum Act), passed in 1989.2 The second is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990.3 These laws provide Native Americans the right to control their ancestral remains and funerary objects. Control over the physical objects of their culture is vital to the ability of these tribes to communicate their own cultural image.

While the Museum Act and NAGPRA grant Native American tribes the right to control the physical objects of their cultures, many Native Americans continue to seek control over nonmaterial aspects of their cultures, including control over the meaning ascribed to their history and culture. Although it is important to remember that there is not one unified view of native culture held by all--or even most--Native Americans, such control is nevertheless essential to a tribe's ability to construct and debate its own cultural identity. The extent to which physical control of objects provides for the control of cultural identity is the focus of this paper.

This Comment argues that the Museum Act and NAGPRA recognize a property right that extends beyond the ownership of cultural objects. 

Part I of this paper provides an historical, social, and legal context to the issue of control of Native American culture. 

Part II discusses the Museum Act and NAGPRA in detail. 

Part III argues that these laws supplement traditional notions of property by granting control over not only objects, but also the meaning attached to those objects. Even if not exclusive, this grant of control ensures that Native American voices are considered in the representation of native culture.

Submit for Periodic Updates
Update List

Civil Rights                                         X
Indigenous People                                         X
Slavery to Reparations                                         X
Treaty of Guadalupe                                         X
Hawai'ian Sovereignty                                         X
Immigration and Race                                          X
Internment                                          X
English Only                                         X
Puerto Rico Citizenship                                         X

What's New                                         X
Obama's Administration                      x
Whitest Law Schools                                         X
Law Review Articles                                         X
Racism Surveys                                         X
Syllabus                                         X
Awards                                         X
Search This Site                                         X
Contact                                         X



Same level:
[ Native American Grave Protection Laws and Culture ] Native Americans and Land ] Tribal  Sovereignty ] Treaties - Soverenity  and American Indians ] The Demise of the Ongwehoweh ] People v. Hall, (1854). ] Recognition of Isle De Jean Charles as a Native American Tribe ] Indian Redress: How the West Was Stolen ] Allotment Act of 1891 ] Native Sense - Marshall Triology ] Dawes Act 1887 ] Indian Removal Act (1830) ] A Bird's Eye View of Native American Law ] States and The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ] Violation of Human Rights of Native Americans ]
Child Level:
Home ] Up ]
Parent Level:
Civil Rights ] Rights of Indigenous People of the US ] Slavery to Reparations ] Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ] Native Hawai'ian Sovereignty ] Immigration and Race ] Internment of Japanese Americans ] English Only and Race ] Puerto Rico Citizenship ] Global Migrations and Imagined Citizenship ]
[Race and Racial Groups] [Citizenship Rights]  [Justice and Race] [Patterns of Basic Needs] [Intersectionality Issues]  [Human Rights]


Always Under Construction!

Always Under Construction!

Copyright @ 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001. 
Vernellia R. Randall

All Rights Reserved


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment, background information, research and/or educational purposes only, without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use" provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright owner(s).

Last Updated:
Tuesday, April 24, 2012  

You are visitor number
Hit Counter    
Since Sept. 11, 2001

Thanks to Derrick Bell and his pioneer work: 
Race, Racism and American Law