During
the Winter 2005 meeting of the CMA, an issue was
raised concerning an article in the Spring 2004 CMA newsletter (see newsletter
link on this page). The resolution of
the discussion was that Mark Dudzik, then State
Archaeologist, would prepare information for publication in a future
newsletter. Since that time, Mark has
left for new endeavors but, before leaving the state, he submitted the text of
a letter as the best information. This
letter was read during the Winter meeting and copies
were distributed but not all CMA members were present. Therefore in the interests of disseminating
it to all who received the initial newsletter, I have requested that this
letter be placed on the CMA webpage (#3 below).
As background, I have also provided the immediately relevant text from
both of the quoted sources – Minnesota’s Indian Mounds and Burial Sites by Arzigian and Stevenson (#1 below) and the book review by Goltz (#2 below). I
encourage anyone interested in this issue to review the original sources in
their entirety.
Susan Mulholland
President, CMA
1.
Excerpt from “21TR0005 Browns
Valley,” on page 509 of Minnesota’s Indian Mounds and Burial Sites, Constance
M. Arzigian and Katherine P. Stevenson, xxxx, Publication No. 1 of the Minnesota Office of the
State Archaeologist.
“The
ultimate disposition of the remains has generated controversy. Jenks returned the remains to the Jensens, who kept them for 50 years; after the Jensens died, the heirs relocated the remains and loaned
them to the
2.
Excerpt from “Book
Review:
“However,
by far the most disturbing part of this volume is the totally false account of
the circumstances surrounding the repatriation of the
3.
Letter of July 1, 2004, to
July 1,
2004
Douglas
Anderson, VP Finance and Treasurer
Garvin
Davenport, Academic VP and Dean of CLA
Dear
Sirs:
Thank
you for your correspondence of 06.16.2004. I would offer the following brief
comments in reply.
We might
agree there is some confusion over the original loan vs. sub-loan arrangements
(see, for instance, Anfinson’s 1997 publication -
based on his dissertation research, wherein he states that the Science Museum
of Minnesota [SMM] originally acquired the material; copy enclosed).
But this
is not the critical issue. The critical considerations are as follows:
most importantly, who owned the
and who facilitated or otherwise arranged the reburial of these remains?
Please refer
to Scott Anfinson’s interview with Janet Presley,
representing the family which owned these materials (e-mail to me on
09.25.2000, copy enclosed). Anfinson quotes Presley
as stating that she "never donated the skeleton to Hamline,
SMM, MIAC [Minnesota Indian Affairs Council], the Dakota, or the state".
The materials, thus, remained privately owned.
Further,
the documentation (loan form) you have provided indicates that the materials
were only loaned (to Hamline University - with C. Caine, B. O’Connell, State Archaeologist’s Office are also
noted) not that ownership was ever relinquished by the owner.
Physical
custody and control of these materials resided with Hamline
University - not the Office of the State Archaeologist - through much or all of
the ensuing years, undergoing study and, later, facilitation of the reburial
process by organizing the materials for reburial (along with the many other
sets of remains to be reburied under provisions of NAGPRA), and then giving
these remains to MIAC for transport to
See also
my correspondence to O’Connell of 01.26.2001 (written in consultation with the
Office of the Attorney General, copy enclosed; see also enclosed copy of
11.21.2000 correspondence) wherein I clearly state OSA’s
understanding of the ownership/repatriation issues: "Insofar as the Browns
Valley materials are a private collection that is not subject to NAGPRA or MS
307.08, neither Hamline nor any other interest except
the owner has the legal authority to determine their disposition. It would have
been desirable for Hamline to obtain legal ownership
of these materials and discuss the issue with OSA before moving unilaterally to
rebury these items".
Neither
O’Connell nor any other representative of Hamline has
ever replied to this letter.
There
was certainly ample opportunity to reply, offer comment on or correction to
this statement, well in advance of publication of the OSA burial volume in June
of 2003! It appears that the available information does support OSA’s previously articulated assessment of the ownership
issue and repatriation process. It is this assessment which is stated in the
publication.
Do not
hesitate to contact me for additional information or clarification on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Dudzik
State
Archaeologist
cc:
B. Lamb, Commissioner-Admin
D. Iverson, OAG
enc.