Canadian Repatriation: A National Approach

     There are many issues that come with repatriation in Canada. Canada does not have a national repatriation program; each province and territory is responsible for their own repatriation laws which can often cause issues when attempting to repatriate artifacts cross-province/territory. One of the biggest problems that affect many indigenous groups in their journey to repatriation is funds. The lack of funds prevents them from housing their artifacts and a national approach (such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA] of the USA) would help remedy this issue. NAGPRA allots groups funding to help with repatriation. If Canada were to adopt a similar national approach where funds are allocated to the repatriation of Indigenous artifacts and remains, each group could set aside a portion of the funds to create a heritage centre or museum to house their cultural items.

    The Inuit of Nunavut are in the process of repatriating artifacts from Yellowknife, Toronto, and other museums globally but have been overcome with difficulties because of a lack of resources to create a cultural heritage centre. The creation of a heritage centre has been discussed for years, though the Government of Nunavut has said that the funds would have to come from partnerships between them and private corporations (Nunatsiaqonline 2011). In past years there has been funds approved for The Nunavut Heritage Centre, but twice taken away by the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth (Nunatsiaqonline 2011). The repatriation of important cultural and historical artifacts lays in the construction of this heritage centre (Nunatsiaqonline 2011). There is a demand among the Inuit people to get their culture back to their homeland, for right now they have to travel all around Canada and the USA just to view their own history (Younger-Lewis 2005). Inuit Heritage Trust is the primary driving force behind the development of a heritage centre, and they work with the government on other aspects of Inuit heritage as well (Inuit Heritage Trust 2013). The lack of reliable and adequate funding is the reason that repatriation is on hold.

     NAGPRA has aided with successful repatriation of artifacts for many tribes through the allotment of funds. The grants ranged from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars that go towards giving the indigenous groups control over their own artifacts and cultural heritage once again (Indian Country Today Media Network 2015). The money goes towards returning artifacts, travel for tribal representatives to visit museums with potential remains and items, and more (Indian Country Today Media Network 2015). The recipients of these 37 grants range all over the United States and are able to do what they find most appropriate with the funds. In a separate round of grants awarded, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan was able to use their over 14,000 dollar grant to rebury 94 remains and retrieve over 800 funerary objects (Indian Country Today Media Network 2015). If Canada were to imitate this method of repatriation, then groups such as the Inuit would get the funds they need in order to begin the process of repatriation. NAGPRA not only provides resources for repatriation but imparts knowledge through documentation of all objects and remains currently in museums. As part of NAGPRA, museums must catalogue all of the indigenous remains and artifacts that they have – whether on display or not (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990). This as a resource would be of great value to indigenous groups to be able to go through the catalogued documents to see if there are any objects or human remains that are from their tribe. Although funding is the main cause of issue I discuss here, the knowledge that the artifacts exist is another bonus to a national approach to repatriation in Canada.

     NAGPRA has and continues to have success in repatriating many artifacts to indigenous groups all throughout the United States. One example of their success is the White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona in 2015 (Indian Country Today Media Network 2015). Under the North American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the White Mountain Apache received almost 85,000 USD to help with the repatriation of remains and ceremonial and sacrificial objects (Indian Country Today Media Network 2015). This money is given in grants and allows the indigenous groups who receive the money to put it towards whatever they need with regards to their repatriation. The Indigenous people of the United States are not the only people to be affected by issues of repatriation, and instances such as this one just show how relevant repatriation continues to be.

     Although NAGPRA has had much successful repatriations there are some downfalls that could be adjusted for a Canadian approach. Defining ‘culture’ has been problematic; in order for an item to be considered a funerary object it must be with remains, however, there could be artifacts found far from a burial that are related to the funeral process (Harms 2012). NAGPRA only covers the repatriation of human remains and funerary objects, so by limiting the definition for how an item is decided to be related to such a ceremony is problematic (Native American Graves and Repatriation Act 1990). If a national approach were to be taken in Canada, these issues could potentially be resolved by analyzing where and how artifacts have been found all around the country. As well, it would be wise to not limit the types of artifacts repatriated and leave the terms open-ended in order to enable indigenous groups to repatriate items important to their culture that do not necessarily fall under rigid categories. Although there are many other issues that occur with NAGPRA, I would also suggest that any funds to be allotted through a Canadian repatriation approach should not have any stipulations against how the funds are to be used, as long as they work towards the safe transportation, storage, and maintenance of these cultural artifacts and ancestral remains.

     As discussed above, a revision of NAGPRA-like legislation could help Canada with Indigenous repatriation. There are many instances of indigenous groups seeking out repatriation of artifacts and objects that are not funeral related and they are met with difficulties. The Cree in Alberta are working to get back a meteorite that is in an Alberta museum (Indian Country Today Media Network 2012).The descent of the meteor was witnessed by many people a few hundred years ago (Indian Country Today Media Network 2012). The meteorite was a sacred artifact that the Cree claim contains “the face of the Creator”, though the Alberta museum maintains it belongs with them as one of Canada’s largest meteorites (Indian Country Today Media Network 2012). This is a situation in which the artifact has no relation to the funerary services of a tribe’s members, yet still has a huge significance to the group itself. Under NAGPRA this would fall between the cracks because of the rigid definitions under what goes with NAGPRA. However this could be a learning experience for Canada to create a national approach that would suit Canadians and Indigenous groups north of the border. Learning from the downfalls of NAGPRA would greatly benefit Canadian indigenous groups. A funding based approach would be of great help to indigenous groups to be able to not only travel to discuss the artifact in particular but to create a space that will ensure its preservation for the future.

     Since the 1980s the Canadian government is considered by some to have ‘failed’ indigenous groups (Nerenberg 2016). Repatriation is one aspect of the issue that holds a lot of importance and has a strong connection to the reconciliation of aboriginal rights (Gray 2014). As a result of the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and the idea of ‘intangible cultural property’, there was an increase in repatriation attempts (Gough 2008). Groups like the Haida of British Columbia have been successful in the recovery and repatriation of their ancestral remains (Skidgate 2008). Despite some successes there are still issues rooted within repatriation that have not been addressed. One of the main issues has to do with funding – indigenous groups do not have the funds to repatriate their cultural artifacts and human remains. Adopting a national approach to repatriation similar to that of NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protections and Repatriation Act 1990) would help solve the issues of funding, along with some other issues that have arisen. Through the adoption and modification of NAGPRA, Canada could create legislation that would apply to the whole nation and be best suited for Canadian Indigenous people. The issues surrounding repatriation is an extension of the colonial powers that the western world has on the aboriginals within Canada.