New Developments in the Repatriation of Native American remains at Lawrence

Primate bone replicas line the anthropology hallway. Photo by Alex Freeman.

This month, Lawrence University began new conversations with the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin regarding the return of 19 Native American remains held in Lawrence’s archaeological collections. 

As an institution which receives federal funding, the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires Lawrence to compile an inventory of all its archaeological remains and consult with Native American tribes toward the potential repatriation of these remains. NAGPRA goes on to detail the process in which Native American remains and artifacts should be returned to descendent tribes, if one or more of the tribes contact the university to make a claim.  

According to Professor of Anthropology Peter Neal Peregrine, who is responsible for Lawrence’s archaeological collections, NAGPRA was intended both to recognize the sovereignty of Native American tribes over their archaeological record and to restore the human rights of the excavated individuals whose remains have been removed from their original burial sites. 

The creation of NAGPRA also spoke to efforts by Native American tribes to reclaim their cultures and history, according to Lawrence University Native Alliance (LUNA) Secretary and senior anthropology major Oscar Loya. 

“This was part of a larger Indigenous movement of trying to re-center voice, trying to re-center the ability to have control over your own cultural material but also just your own past,” Loya said. 

According to Lawrence’s official inventory, Lawrence has 62 sets of remains in its collections. Of these, 11 are maintained on behalf of the state of Wisconsin, and 32 are medical specimens which have been donated to the school. However, that leaves 19 sets of remains, largely collected from Door County and the Fox Valley in 20th century excavations, for which Lawrence would be responsible for repatriating if a claim were to be made. However, until this happens, Lawrence is required to curate and maintain these remains as part of its archaeological collections.

“In a sense, in terms of human rights, we hold 19 people captive against their will,” Peregrine said. “And so repatriation is a form of human rights. It’s letting those people essentially out of jail.”

In the 1990s, Peregrine and his predecessor, Ronald Mason, notified all the Native tribes who could theoretically make a repatriation claim under NAGPRA through their geographic association with the remains. However, no formal repatriation claim has been made, and Lawrence cannot move forward without an official claim from a tribe. 

Lawrence is far from alone in its slow-moving pace toward repatriation. As reported by ProPublica, American institutions still hold over 100,000 human remains in their collections. In April, a group of 13 senators raised concerns about the repatriation practices of major universities, writing a letter to the universities and museums with the largest collections and demanding an update on the pace of repatriation. If this pace continues, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicts that it could take another 26 years before institutions fully repatriate. 

These recent national conversations sparked the Lawrentian to investigate the status of repatriation here at Lawrence. 

According to Peregrine, no one wants the remains to stay in Lawrence’s collections, and he would like to eventually see them repatriated. They are sitting in a locked room in Briggs Hall, and Peregrine has not touched them since 2018.  

But the repatriation process is complicated. 

The biggest hurdle has been that all of Lawrence’s remains are culturally unidentifiable, Peregrine said. Most of the remains are thousands of years old, which, given the history of tribal movement in Wisconsin, means that it cannot be archaeologically determined which tribe the individual would have belonged to.  

“Even if they were found on the Lawrence campus, which none of them have been, […] if we determine that they were interred in 1550, let’s say, they could quite reasonably be from any of five groups of people,” Peregrine said. 

Historically, the burden has been on the tribes to somehow prove that they are descendants, which can be a significant challenge. In situations when no single tribe can prove affiliation, all the tribes who could potentially have a claim could come to a formal agreement, but this can be difficult to coordinate, especially given the vast numbers of remains which still have not been repatriated. 

However, due to NAGPRA regulations on the disposition of culturally unaffiliated remains which went into effect in 2010 (with minor revisions in 2013), there is now a clear legal pathway in which unaffiliated remains can be returned to tribes on whose aboriginal land the remains were found, should a request to repatriate be made. In the case of Lawrence’s remains, Peregrine believes this could potentially be applied to the Menominee under the 1836 Treaty of Cedars, though he also said this would need further legal examination.

Following a discussion about the passing of the 2010 regulations during a May 2 interview with the Lawrentian, Peregrine contacted Menominee Tribal Historic Preservation Officer David Grignon, who expressed interest in repatriating the remains. Grignon referred Peregrine to the Wisconsin Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee (WITRC), comprised of 11 Wisconsin tribes who collaborate on repatriation claims. The WITRC have not yet responded to Peregrine’s correspondence. Grignon said they are currently working on the repatriation of culturally affiliated remains from the University of Wisconsin. 

Neither Grignon nor anyone from the WITRC was available for an interview with the Lawrentian

For now, Peregrine will wait to hear back from the WITRC, and the remains will stay where they have been for years.  

Likewise, Peregrine plans to retire soon, and this repatriation process will almost certainly continue past his retirement. It is unclear who will take over Peregrine’s responsibilities. 

But according to Loya, Lawrence can still be more proactive about repatriating these remains. 

As a member of LUNA, Loya called for the university to invest more resources into repatriation. While some institutions have committees and positions with the responsibility to oversee repatriation, repatriation at Lawrence is handled entirely by one anthropology professor, in addition to his other teaching and archaeological responsibilities. Loya suggested hiring staff who can focus specifically on repatriation or expanding the ethnic studies or anthropology departments to include faculty with expertise on this issue. 

Primate bone replicas line the anthropology hallway. Photo by Alex Freeman.

“These are problems that require attention and genuine, professional, full-time positions,” Loya said. “[…] Lawrence is its own worst enemy when it comes to equipping itself with really professional people who are able to handle things.” 

Acknowledging the limited resources Lawrence can dedicate to any project, Loya also suggested increased intentionality toward the people in Lawrence’s archaeological collections and Wisconsin’s Indigenous tribes. Loya said that relationships are critical to effective archaeological work and called for Lawrence to “show up to Indigenous spaces with solidarity in mind.”

“Sometimes the problem is that it’s a large institution reaching out, and the reputation that the institution carries when entering those spaces,” Loya said. “It’s like, ‘even if we claim these bodies, is Lawrence University going to believe us? What evidence do they require us to put in? How much funding is going to go into this? To what degree are we going to be supported? How much is it going to be an equal effort between Lawrence and the actual tribe?’”  

New regulations proposed by the Department of the Interior in 2022 might help to facilitate some of this collaboration, as they are designed to streamline the process and eliminate some barriers, per a press release from the department.   

Although Lawrence administrators did not respond to specific questions regarding the pace of repatriation at Lawrence and their willingness to invest more resources, University Counsel Eric Schacht provided the following statement on behalf of the Cabinet: 

“The Cabinet of Lawrence University very much supports and appreciates Peter Peregrine’s persistent efforts towards repatriation of the Native American remains still in our possession. We are committed to continuing our work to be good stewards of this inventory while actively seeking proper legal and respectful repatriation.” 

Regardless, until any Native American tribes decide to move forward with repatriating Lawrence’s remains, the remains will stay in the care of the anthropology department.  

“They are bodies, and it’s an uncomfortable thing to have in an anthropological/archaeological collection,” Loya said. “But we are their hosts for now, and we need to treat them with respect and give them the care and attention they need.”