The Denver Art Museum (DAM) finds itself embroiled in controversy as it rebuffs repatriation requests from two federally-recognized Native Alaskan Tribes, despite the submission of three formal claims and numerous delegation visits. The museum’s stance has sparked debate and drawn attention to the challenges faced by Indigenous and Native groups seeking the return of ancestral remains and cultural artefacts.
A recent report in the Denver Post shed light on the obstacles encountered by Indigenous communities in their efforts to reclaim funerary objects and ancestral remains held by museums and esteemed educational institutions across the United States. Even after the enactment of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), barriers persist, frustrating the attempts of tribes to reconnect with their heritage.
Sam Tachnik, an investigative reporter for the Denver Post, highlighted the disparity in power dynamics, stating, “They have control of these objects, and they can make it as easy or difficult as they want.” This sentiment was echoed by tribal members from the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, who, in 2017, engaged in discussions with Denver Art Museum officials regarding the repatriation of a 170-year-old painted wooden house partition depicting a raven instructing the community on fishing techniques.
Despite the provisions of NAGPRA, which establish procedures for the return of cultural items to Indigenous groups, the delegation left the museum disheartened, perceiving an unwillingness on the part of the institution to facilitate repatriation. Harold Jacobs, cultural resource specialist for the Tlingit and Haida tribes, described DAM as “probably the worst” institution they had encountered in their pursuit of repatriation efforts.
In response, John Lukavic, DAM’s curator of Native arts, refuted claims of institutional obstinacy, asserting that the museum had not received a formal claim under NAGPRA for the raven screen. Lukavic maintained that DAM was prepared to assist the tribes in navigating the requisite paperwork for repatriation requests, emphasizing, “We’re not in the business of just giving away our collections.”
However, the report revealed that DAM rejected three claims from the Tlingit tribe, citing insufficient information. This decision has drawn criticism from Chip Colwell, a former curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, who highlighted DAM’s reputation in the museum community for its perceived lack of progress on NAGPRA-related matters. Colwell emphasized the importance of museums prioritizing repatriation efforts and lamented a “retentionist mentality” that hampers progress in this regard.
Interestingly, DAM’s response to repatriation claims stands in stark contrast to that of other institutions, such as the Burke Museum and the Portland Art Museum, which have engaged more positively with Native Alaskan tribes seeking repatriation. The differing approaches underscore the complexities and nuances inherent in the repatriation process and raise broader questions about the responsibilities of cultural institutions in preserving and respecting Indigenous heritage.
As the debate surrounding repatriation continues to unfold, the Denver Art Museum’s stance has reignited calls for greater accountability and sensitivity in the treatment of Indigenous cultural artefacts, highlighting the ongoing struggle for recognition and restitution faced by Native communities across the United States.