Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, April 7, 1994                   TAG: 9404070320
SECTION: NATL/INTL                    PAGE: A-9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: ANNAPOLIS, MD.                                LENGTH: Medium

`OUR ANCESTORS ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE'

But they rest not in peace.

The collection of bones, once regarded simply as a treasure trove of clues to life and death before European settlement, now is the subject of a bitter dispute between scientists who want them and American Indians who want them reburied.

Two years after the Maryland legislature passed a law designed to accommodate both groups, the bones still are off-limits to study and the remains are no closer to being returned to the ground.

Further, what state officials perceived to be a consensus on the 11th draft of regulations to implement the new law fell apart last month after some American Indians complained they were not consulted.

``It's back to the drawing board,'' said Mervin Savoy, tribal chairwoman of the Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy, based in Charles County, and a member of the burial task force of the Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs. ``I'd like to get the skeleton remains back in the ground. It's better than being in the closet.''

At issue are not only conflicting views of what should be done with human remains but also difficult questions of group identity as American Indians without a written history, a reservation or a treaty strive for official recognition to validate their claims.

``We feel there are many cases where remains should be repatriated,'' said archaeologist Donald K. Creveling. ``But we want to be very careful. When we do this, all of us have to make sure they're going to the right people.''

Of Maryland's more than 4 million residents, about 12,000 identified themselves as Indian in the last census. However, no tribes are recognized officially by the federal or state governments.

``I'm not proud that Indians in this country are the only ones who have to prove who they are,'' said Elaine Eff, a non-Indian who is staff director of the Maryland commission. ``There is always a sense of indignation, and the goal of the law is to repatriate'' remains and associated ``funerary objects.''

American Indian groups complain that the rules are too bureaucratic. ``It seems to me when you're going to bury Grandma, whether she's going to wear a blue or red dress isn't important,'' said Kathy Frick, an American Indian member of the commission's burial task force. ``The main thing is to get Grandma buried.''

The American Indian remains stored in Annapolis come from 16 sites across Maryland and date to 800 B.C., officials said. Also in the collection are non-American-Indian remains from 11 sites in the state. Some dug up remains were donated; others were unearthed during excavations for houses or roads.

``We do not touch burials for the purpose of pure research,'' said J. Rodney Little, state preservation officer. Except for recent excavations of lead coffins at St. Mary's City, Little said, ``literally, salvage and rescue excavation is all we do.'' The state law is modeled after a federal statute enacted a year earlier. Maryland's law is more lenient in allowing groups to establish their ``cultural affiliation'' to remains by a ``preponderance of the evidence.''

However, if there is no direct descendant or if a group filing a claim fails to meet the standard, the bones will be available for scientific study.

That, scientists argue, is a good thing, for the tribes themselves and for the rest of society. ``A skeleton to me is just like a book,'' said Douglas Owsley, a forensic anthropologist with the Smithsonian. ``It can tell you so much about a person - age, sex, race, stature, body build, health. ...

``It is through careful study that we can determine the cultural affiliation of individuals,'' said Owsley, who said he has examined remains of Plains Indians at the tribes' requests. ``If it's going to benefit anyone, it's Native Americans, because it's their past.''

Many Western tribes oppose what they term ``destructive analysis'' of human remains that includes the taking of tissue for laboratory study, said Andrew Othole, cultural preservation coordinator for the Zunis of New Mexico.

``I can understand the scientific interest in it,'' said Chief Billy Redwing Tayac, of the Piscataway Indian Nation. ``But for us, it's not science, it's a religious belief. Our ancestors are being held hostage.''