And once again YAMAL did not let them down

Sámi Spirit - Summer Camp

Conference: Friday 12 March, 20h
Workshop: Saturday 13 March, Sunday 14 March: 10h-18h
Place: Initiations "La Ruelle"
Montagne de St Job 90, 1180 Brussels
Conference: 11 euro
Workshop Participation: 146 euro
tel. + 32 2 3754811
email: initations@skynet.be

TRAVEL TO SAMILAND- reindeer trek and Sámi culture 21 April- 3 May 2004

Participate at the moving of the reindeer herds from their winter lands to the summer lands. You stay in a Lavvu in the snow and wear traditional reindeer fur clothing. Also a cultural trip with visit of cultural places and introduction to sámi shamanism and visits to sacred sites.

Organised by Wagon lits travel, advised by Initiations. Call them for detailed programme.
tel. + 32 2 3754811 email: initations@skynet.be

The Norwegian Government does not accept the rights of indigenous peoples to land - Preassadiedahus/Pressemelding - 04.04.2003

Royal Netherlands Air Force terminates low-level flying activities in Goose Bay, Canada

Minutes of the convention ''Nenets in the Netherlands''
October 2001
Word-document
PDF-document

Invitation to the 3. CHUM-meeting in Hundested, Denmark, October 21-25, 2002

Interview with Peter Penashue (Innu) the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD/COP6) van April, 7-19, 2002 in The Hague.

Program Convention 'Nenets in the Netherlands' October 4 - 7, 2001

Westfrisian 'mummy' is not a Greenlander

On March 29, 2001 the Greenlandic government announced the results of the DNA and isotope analysis that was done to determine whether or not the 'eskimo-mummy' in the Westfrisian Museum in Hoorn was indeed coming from Greenland. Researcher Dr Niels Lynnerup has come to a remarkable conclusion: the remains are from a man whose diet consisted not primarily of seafood. This means, that the remains can impossibly be of a Greenlandic Inuit ('eskimo'), since the Greenlandic diet - of necessity - consists mainly of seal- and whale-meat and fish products.
Another finding is that one of the ears of the 'mummy' is pierced. In the time and age that the man was living (roughly three centuries ago), such an ear-piercing was unlikely in Greenland.

Arctic Peoples Alert is very surprised by these new findings. From 1998, we have, on request of the Greenlandic government, worked to have the remains 'returned' to Greenland. In order to obtain certainty about the question if it indeed concerns the remains of an Inuit, we have suggested already at that time to have a DNA analysis conducted. On basis of the circumstance that the Westfrisian Museum had exhibited the remains for years beside a kayak from West-Greenland, we have erroneously concluded that they were of a Greenlandic man. We welcome the clarity that the Danish analysis has brought about. Yet, it remains a mystery to what people the man belonged to, how his remains have ended up in the museum, and, finally, why they have - to this day - been associated there with the kayak.

The Greenlandic government requested repatriation of the remains in November 1998 and suggested, already then, the conducting of a DNA-analysis. Since then it protested repeatedly in vain against exposition of the remains in several Dutch museums. It seems likely that the unexpected outcome is, ultimately, a big relief to them.

For more information:
Arctic Peoples Alert
Govert de Groot
ph. +31 (0)70 4020943

Greenlandic Representation in Brussels:
Lars Vesterbirk
ph +32 2 2330960

Panum Institute in Copenhagen:
Dr Niels Lynnerup
ph. +45 3532 7239

Dutch Low-Level Flights, update November 2000

Second International Indigenous Forum on Climate Change, 11-12 November

Developments re 'Greenlandic' human remains in NL, September 2000

The commission of trustees [of the Westfrisian Museum], having met on September 25, and having taken notice of the new facts regarding the treatment of Eskimo remains in the country of origin, calls upon the mayor and aldermen of Hoorn to advice the city council to repeal its earlier decision to give the Eskimo remains that are in the Wesfrisian Musuem to Greenland. And such irrespective of the results of the DNA research which is currently taking place.
On behalf of the commission of trustees, with the exception of the members of the city council Mr. Wagemaker and Mr. Van der Hall, who asked to be mentioned explicitly by name.

Sincerely,

R.J. Spruit.

Developments re 'Greenlandic' human remains in NL, July 2000

Recently, new developments took place regarding the desired repatriation to Greenland of the possible 'Greenlandic' human remains which are now stored in the Westfrisian Museum in Hoorn. We like to inform you about these developments. The issue is, again, receiving much attention in the Dutch media. Since July 1998, Arctic Peoples Alert is acting as an intermediary between Greenland and the Westfrisian Museum in order to prepare the ground for the return of the remains. In the following, a chronological overview of the last developments.

On June 30, an exhibition opened in the Museum for Natural History in Maastricht, entitled: ''Mummies als toevalstreffers'' (''Mummies by sheer luck''). They exhibit natural animal mummies, the mummy of a Dutch man, and the arm with hand of the 'Eskimo Mummy' from the Westfrisian Museum of Hoorn. In Hoorn they continue to exhibit the rest of the remains. We got aware of this exhibition coincidentally, by being notified of an article in one of the Dutch newspapers. We contacted the curator and, upon receiving confirmation that the presumed Inuk remains were indeed on display, we have sent a protest letter to the director of the museum, with a copy to the Westfrisian museum, the municipality council of Hoorn and the Danish embassy in The Hague.

Independent of this development, the municipality council of Hoorn decided formally on July 11 - in-keeping with the advice of the management board of the Westfrisian Museum on March 27 which was to the same extent - that the remains can be returned to Greenland. However, for such an action to come about, two conditions would first need to be met. The first condition is that a DNA-test should show indisputable proof that the remains are indeed from a Greenlander. The second one is that Greenland would not be allowed to exhibit the remains in Greenland. The rationale behind these conditions is - in our view - that the municipality council is careful to avoid creating a legal precedent, which might cause other countries to file similar requests for repatriation of their cultural heritage stored, or on display, in The Netherlands. We know that there are no intentions on the part of Greenland to exhibit the remains, but in our view it is ultimately up to the government of Greenland to decide whether or not the remains will be exhibited in Greenland, or if they will be stored or buried.

On July 13, Dr. Niels Lynnerup of the Panum Institute in Copenhagen personally took some samples of the remains at the Westfrisian Museum. We heard that in his view, it will take at least a month to get the results. There is a possibility that the samples will appear to be too polluted to obtain a clear DNA screening. We heard that Dr. Lynnerup had no objections to the circumstance that the hand with arm were temporarily lend out to the exhibition in the Nature Historical Museum of Maastricht. The fact that the hand with arm was not available would not mean that there was too little of the remains available for a proper DNA screening, according to the director of the Westfrisian Museum Mr. Ruud Spruit, who informed us on Mr. Lynnerup's opinion in a letter. But because we lack knowledge on the requirements of a proper DNA screening ourselves, we have made it known to both Mr. Spruit of the Westfrisian Museum and the Museum of Natural History in Maastricht that we object to the circumstance that Mr. Lynnerup was not in the occasion to see (or, if needed, to take samples of) all of the remains. We further made it known to both museums that we regard it as improper to exhibit the remains at another exposition after an earlier protest of the Greenlandic government in november 1998 against a similar exhibition in Rotterdam, which was titled ''Botje bij botje'' Next to that, the new exhibit also infringed, in our view, on the ongoing negotiations between Greenland and the Netherlands about repatriation of the remains.

A very recent development is that the Dutch media have got aware that the National Museum and Archives in Nuuk also exhibits mummies. Mr. Ruud Spruit, the director of the Westfrisian Museum who is strongly opposed to returning the remains, uses this circumstance as a new argument in the discussion. Via a letter dated July 17, he informed us that he heard that, ''in the museum in Nuuk, among other places, complete eskimo's are on display, and even a complete day-tour (nr.3) has been organized.'' When questioned about this by the media, we tried to explain the difference between the exhibition of the human remains in the Netherlands and the exhibition of the mummies in Nuuk. We further consulted Finn Lynge on this matter.

The tarpaulin on the booth of Arctic Peoples Alert has disappeared in the wind during the National Nature and Environment Festival last sunday in Baarn.
Source: Volkskrant 5-29-2000

The Hague, February 8, 2000

With great interest, Arctic Peoples Alert has taken notice of the letter you sent to Mr. P. Bettenhausen of the Museon in The Hague (dated January 20, 2000), on behalf of the Dutch Museum Association.

The contents of the advice of the Committee on Museum Policy regarding return of the ''Greenland Eskimo'' at the Westfrisian Museum has disappointed us. In this letter we will explain you why.

The Committee on Museum Policy (hereafter called 'the Committee'), states in its advice that ''questions in relation to the return of human remains have to be treated in principle as a return of cultural property in accordance with clause 4.4 sub b of the Guidelines for museum professional ethics''. The Committee subsequently states that: ''if, however, the request for return specifically refers to the burial of the requested human remains the Committee is of the opinion that (...)''
Arctic Peoples Alert is of the opinion that it is not made clear here why human remains should be considered ''cultural property''. We are of the opinion that the issue here does pertain to merely cultural property, but to human remains, which should be handled with the utmost care.

In article 4.4 of the Museum Guidelines, it is stated that ''if there are any requests for return of cultural property to the land of origin, museums should be prepared to enter into a dialogue on the basis of scientific and professional principles (...). One should ascertain the possibilities for developing bilateral and multilateral programs to assist museums in developing the right museum infrastructure in countries of which is assumed they have lost an important part of their heritage. Arctic Peoples Alert considers this last qualification as appropriate to Greenland. An important part of Greenland's cultural heritage has either disappeared due to the consequences of colonization by Denmark, or has been taken to (mainly Danish) museums. The Danish National Museum in Copenhagen has entered a process of transferring an important part its Greenland collection to the Nunatta Katersugaasivia Allagaatteqarfialu, the Greenland National Museum and archives (source: Birte Haagen, ''Repatriation of Cultural Objects in Greenland'', Yumtzilob 7.3, 1995).

We are amazed that þ as far we are informed þ the Westfrisian Museum thus far has not entered into such a dialogue with the Greenland authorities, and it surprises us even more that the Committee in it advice does not recommend that starting such a dialogue would be appropriate. Regarding entering into a genuine dialogue, one can think of the example set by the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, where in 1989 a ''repatriation policy'' has been developed that anticipates on the possible return of human remains to ''living ancestors of specific individuals or cultural groups''. Dr. Jonathan Haas, who is affiliated to the museum as MacArthur Curator, states the following: 'Over the past several years the Field Museum has been meeting and talking with representatives of the Native American community in an effort to help our institution come to recognize and more fully appreciate the concerns of native Americans about the treatment of human remains, sacred objects, and objects of great cultural significance. Although the Field Museum has worked with many different native groups in the past, we are now trying to establish and develop a new kind of relationship with Native Americans and other native peoples from around the world. The foundations of this relationship are fairly simple: trust and respect. (source: 'The Challenge of Repatriation', Museum News, Jan./Febr. 1991, The American Association of Museums)

In point 3 of the advice, the Committee states that ''the request for return of specific human remains for burial has to be made by one or more putative relatives who are entitled to do so''. In addition (point 4), the Committee states that ''the family link has to be established through genetic research (such as DNA test), or documented through other facts and circumstances, such as place of origin and a relative short time span between the dating of the human remains and the request for return''. We wonder why the Committee sets such a stringent demands on return. When one, as comparison, takes a look at the jurisprudence in the United States, it appears that a policy is pursued which is a lot more cooperative. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC for example, was in the possession of more than 16.000 skeletons of North American Indians. Part of this collection has already been returned and buried again, and the rest will follow soon (source: Intermediair, June 10, 1994).
The Indians that demanded return made an appeal on basis of the Native American Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, which is in effect since 1994. In some cases the ancestral human remains in question were more than a thousand years old and were claimed by three different peoples (the Hopi, the Zuni and the Apache). These peoples made an agreement together to bury the skeletons anew. In this specific case it was impossible to localize ''supposed relatives'' þ even so the remains were returned. When an Indian tribe can establish that they have a ''cultural affiliation'' with a certain artifact, they can demand immediate return. Establishing the affiliation in question exists of demonstrating a reasonable continuity in the relationship between artifact and tribe: ''claimants do not have to establish 'cultural affiliation' with scientific certainty''. When the information of a museum inventory does not contain sufficient evidence to establish cultural affiliation, this can still be done in two other ways. When human remains are in question, the evidence can be based on geographical, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, historical and other relevant information. Also the kinship or oral tradition and the opinion of an expert can be used in these cases (source: Stephen Sjouke, ''Recht en repatriëring van culturele voorwerpen þ een korte introductie'', Yumtzilob 7.3, 1995).

The Committee states in point 5 that ''the party that puts the request forward has to prove kinship''. Why did it not advice that independent DNA research should be desirable, to gain more information on the origin of the (supposed) Inuit remains in the light of at least one version on the origin of the ''mummy'', namely that the Inuit man possibly had been taken prisoner by Dutch whalers and died aboard the ship on its way home? The Greenland government has already offered to have such research conducted by dr. Niels Lynnerup of the Panum Institute in Copenhagen, to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the remains indeed originate from Greenland.

The Committee states in point 6 that: ''In case kinship to the requested human remains is proven, they can be returned provided burial will take place.'' Arctic Peoples Alert thinks it is primarily up to the requesting party to decide what should be done with the remains. The Greenland authorities have made it known, however, that in this case their intent is to give the Inuit a Christian burial (Prime-minister of Greenland Jonathan Motzfeldt, cited in Politiken, 22-11-1998). In the light of the desirability of establishing a dialogue, we feel that making such a precondition, which leans towards paternalism, is inappropriate.

Lastly, the Committee regards it as expedient ''that the way the human remains in question are exhibited and the information that is presented is adjusted in such a way that the uncertain origin of the Inuit remains is expressed and that respect is shown to this ethnic group (...)''.
Arctic Peoples Alert appreciates the Committee's concern that the information should pay respect to the Inuit. Nonetheless, we are of the opinion that exhibiting the remains of a (possible) indigenous man from Greenland at the Westfrisian Museum is inappropriate because through this, the feelings of the Greenlanders are unnecessarily hurt. The Committee seems to allow for unrestrained exhibition of the Inuit remains. It may at this point be relevant to recall what Henrik Degn, spokesman of the National Museum in Copenhagen, said about this matter: ''The mummy is not Dutch and is, moreover, specially prepared for exhibition. Our Tolmund man lived in pre-history. The mummy in the Netherlands is not old at all. Our museum does not possess human remains of an era and area of which written records exist. This is the reason why we are angry with the Netherlands.'' Of all people, even Mr. R.J. Spruit, Director of the Westfrisian Museum, went further than the Commission, in his statement of November 27, 1998, to De Volkskrant. Apart from his condescending language, which did not show much respect to the ethnic group of people involved, he did consider return possible. ''We are talking'', said Spruit, ''about nothing but a piece of skull, and a few bones. It is not important to our museum. If the Greenland people wish to have this returned, then this is possible.''

Notably your own chairman, Mr. R.H.C. Vos, wrote on November 12, 1998 in a letter to the mayor of Hoorn, Mr. P. Hanssens: ''I want to urge you to use your influence on Ruud Spruit to achieve return to Greenland.''

With the above mentioned arguments we hope to have made clear why we consider the advice of the Committee as insufficient.

Yours truly,

Govert de Groot
Coordinator
Arctic Peoples Alert

Cc:
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences, Mr. A. Rosbergen
Westfrisian Museum, Mr. R.J. Spruit
Museon, Mr. Drs. P. Bettenhausen

Update: The Hague, October 25, 1999

Arctic Peoples Alert looks back on a successful 'Greenlandic' year, in which we participated in the exhibition: 'Past, present and future of the Greenlandic Inuit. ESKIMOLAND: An art of Surviving' in Museon in The Hague.

We would like to close this year by a public manifestation:

PODIUM GREENLAND
Sustainable Development in Greenland: Sealing and Tourism

In 1999 we became member of the Taiga Rescue Network (TRN). We also participated in the CHUM-meeting in Hundested, Denmark and we are participating in the CHUM-list on internet. Due to the exhibition we worked on Greenlandic cases this year. From 2000 on we will focus on the situation of the Indigenous Peoples in North-Russia and Siberia. We would like to that in co-operation with Horizon Projects in Belgium. We will concentrate on the situation of the Nenets in the Naryan Mar area. I hope to visit the Nenets in the beginning of December 1999 together with Fernand Dhondt of Horizon Projects.
In co-operation with the Arctic Center of the University of Groningen we are planning a workshop on 12 May 2000 regarding 'Projects and Aid to Indigenous Peoples of North-Russia'.
This date will also be the start of a public awareness campaign in Belgium and The Netherlands.