Review of <i>Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American IndianRemains?</i> Edited by Devon A. Mihesuah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In writing a review for Great Plains Quarterly one is asked to emphasize the book's Great Plains content. So while Devon Mihesuah's edited reader does not specifically mention particular Native peoples who lived on the Plains any more than it discusses others who lived outside the region, it is of direct relevance to anyone interested in the Great Plains, particularly anyone interested in the region's Native history and the contemporary lived reality of these populations. Issues of repatriation, reburial, looting, the effectiveness of the NAGPRA legislation, relationships among Native people, museums, archaeologists, and anthropologists are currently central to any such interest. In this volume of sixteen essays a mixture of Native and non-Native writers present a range of reasoned views and important case studies on these hotly contested themes. I found particularly useful the introductory chapters by Robert E. Bieder ("The Representations of Indian Bodies in Nineteenth Century American Anthropology") and Curtis M. Hinsley Jr. ("Digging for Identity: Reflections on the Cultural Background of Collecting"). Both provide historical grounding and insight into ideologies shaping the focus the traditional American archaeological and anthropological establishment has had on "Indian prehistory" and the anthropological study of American "Indians" more generally. This context elucidates the hegemony that contains much of the work of archaeology and the wider discipline of anthropology. Such articulation may be helpful in prompting critical reflection on that very discourse. Several selections conclude by pointing the reader towards reflection on the moral principles that should ground the work of science. Adopting such a posture takes any reader beyond the realm of the "hard facts" and acknowledges that the work of archaeology and anthropology is unquestionably grounded in the cultural world of politics, economies, ideology, and morality. The final section entitled "Studies in Resolution," drawing on both American and Canadian examples, suggests that there are different routes to achieving resolution of these complex issues. One could only have asked for a further discussion on what makes "resolution" more achievable in some situations than in others. Such reflection, without looking for generic "answers" but following the model of the introductory chapters, would position these debates in a broader, theoretical context, a position resistant to the assumption that they can only be worked out at the specific level. Resolving these debates over the long-term requires an acknowledgement of the hegemonies at work on both sides of the discussion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".