Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T17:06:05.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bonnichsen v. United States: Time, Place, and the Search for Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2005

Sarah Harding
Sarah Harding
Affiliation:
Chicago-Kent College of Law. Email: sharding@kentlaw.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On its surface, Bonnichsen v. United States is an administrative law case, reviewing a decision by the Secretary of the Interior regarding the appropriate reach of a specific set of legislative and regulatory rules. As such, Judge Gould, writing for a panel of the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) decided that the secretary's office had overstepped its bounds; in short, its interpretation of the rules in question was not reasonable. But underneath the legal categories, Bonnichsen is a much more complicated and politically charged case. It is about competing conceptions of history and spirituality. It is about sovereignty (although that word is not uttered once in the decision, aside from reciting a definition of Native Hawaiians) and the clash of cultures. It is less about the standards for decision making and more about who the appropriate decision makers are. It is a case about a man who lived 9,000 years ago and about how today we should understand his cultural identity.

Type
CASE DISCUSSION
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 249 - 263
Copyright
© 2005 International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Douglas. “The Meaning of ‘Cultural Affiliation’ and ‘Major Scientific Benefit’ in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” Tulsa Law Journal 33 (1997): 359–83.Google Scholar
Borrows, John. “Listening for a Change: The Courts and Oral Tradition.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 39 (2001): 1–38.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael F. Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Canada. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vol. 1, Looking Forward, Looking Back. Ottawa: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996.
Harding, Sarah K. “Justifying the Repatriation of Native American Cultural Property.” Indiana Law Journal 72 (1997): 723–774.Google Scholar
Harjo, Suzan Shown. “Native Peoples' Cultural and Human Rights: An Unfinished Agenda.” Arizona State Law Journal 24 (1992): 321–328.Google Scholar
Seidemann, Ryan. “Time for a Change? The Kennewick Man Case and its Implications for the Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” West Virginia Law Review 106 (2003): 149.Google Scholar
Tehan, Maureen. “A Hope Disillusioned, An Opportunity Lost? Reflections on Common Law Native Title and Ten Years of the Native Title Act.” Melbourne University Law Review 27 (2003): 523–571.Google Scholar
Trope, Jack F., and Walter R. Echo-Hawk. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History.” Arizona State Law Journal 24 (1992): 35–77.Google Scholar
Tsosie, Rebecca. “Privileging Claims to the Past: Ancient Human Remains and Cultural Values.” Arizona State Law Journal 31 (1999): 583.Google Scholar
Torres, Gerald, and Kathryn Milun. “Translating Yonnondio by Precedent and Evidence: The Mashpee Indian Case.” Duke Law Journal 1990: 625–659.Google Scholar